Posted on 07/25/2010 3:35:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
Evangelical Protestants are taught to recruit Catholics by exploiting their lack of Bible knowledge, but use Scripture out of context to make Catholic beliefs look flawed.
This is the claim of Catholic apologist Steve Ray, in Perth from the United States of America earlier this month as part of a national tour. Mr Ray used to take on this role.
“We were trained to evangelise Catholics – we believed you are not saved, that you are going to hell as you follow the Pope instead of Jesus, you pray to Mary instead of God, you have tradition instead of Scripture, you thought you got saved by doing good works instead of by faith in Jesus,” he told about 60 people on Thursday, 8 July, at Trinity College, East Perth.
“It was our job to get you saved and become real Bible Christians. This is what Evangelicals think – most of them, even in Australia.”
He said that he was taught the right questions to ask and memorised up to 15 verses that “were good to use with Catholics”.
Mr Ray, married to Janet for 33 years with four children, said he and his wife went from being “anti-Catholic Baptists” to “crossing an uncrossable chasm and becoming Catholics”.
The Rays were not alone. They opened their home for two years to people seeking to discuss their differences with Catholics and explained why they converted, “even if people hated Catholics”.
In that time, Mr Ray said over 200 people joined the Catholic Church.
Addressing several key issues that cause the at-times vicious divide, especially in the United States, between Protestants and Catholics, Mr Ray said he achieved “great success” by asking carefully selected questions and backing them up with isolated Scripture quotes.
(Excerpt) Read more at therecord.com.au ...
Jesus said He came not to change the Law so your example of freedom is ill advised. Reading Sacred Scripture with limited cognitive abilities is no excuse for wanton misappropriation of its meaning. Only the misinformed possessing little power of discernment would claim that most Catholics believe Mary or other saints paid the price for our sins. You would be well advised to hone your ability to discern lest you make rash judgment against your neighbor.
One of the fascinations of Eucharistic theology is that it requires the theologian to wonder about words like "real", "actual", "virtual", "essential", "substantial", and even (my favorite) "thing."
So, this is a real question: Is there a Catholic theological source that says, "the wine and bread change to His actual body?"
It's just almost useless to debate or to discuss this without meticulous care about language. And if the person contesting the teaching cannot discuss "substance" and "accidents" coherently, there is no point in discussing it at all.
Thank you for not reading my post and my link (i wrote it), and interacting with it, but simply restating your belief, which is too typical of many here.
One finds there is a hermeneutic. There is, yes, Scripture interpreting Scripture, but somebody decides which verse is interpretED and which does the interpretING.
So there is in EACH 'school' a 'tradition' of interpretation. Since it is a key to the Bible, it is no more part of the Bible than a key to a door is part of the door, or than a code-braking machine is part of the document being decoded.
So it turns out the discerning tests of Scripture, wherever one turns, are traditions of men.
IN all seriousness, can you point me to a Catholic theological text which describes the consecrated 'host' as the 'literal' body of Jesus?
This is, I think, more important that many realize. The meaning of "REAL" in "real presence" is not necessarily "literal".
And since, if FR is any guide, the average person contesting the doctrine does not seem to have an idea of what "substance" and "accidents" mean OR that the body and blood in question are NOW the RISEN body and blood, a lot of the conversation seems to be based on misunderstanding.
Got it thanks for playing.
“You know the maxim: you only resort to interpretation and construction when the language is not plain. And Jesus’s words are just about as plain as it gets.”
That is as superfical as you can get. Do you actually know much about allegorical language, and John’s abundant use of it, and what He means by believing elsewhere, and how one gets life?
Consistent with your interpretation of Jn. 6, then then no one has life in them (being born again: Eph. 2:1) until they literally eat his flesh, (Jn. 6:53) and Jesus lived by eating His Father’s flesh, as believers do who eat His, (Jn. 6:57) and the “word of eternal life” (v. 68) is not believing the words of the gospel, which elsewhere is what the Bible gives eternal life, (Jn. 3:13,16,36; Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:39, etc.) but refers to physically consuming Jesus!
And consistent with your rejection of John’s use of allegory, Jesus was an actual door, (Jn. 10:9) an actual lamb, (Jn. 1:29) an actual vine, (Jn. 15:1) and eating meat was how He did the Father’s will. (Jn. 4:34) In addition, Jeremiah really did eat God;s words, though we do not know which Bible version he used, and David turned water into blood. (2Sam. 23:17)
Your exegesis is manifestly erroneous, though all this chapter has not been infallibly defined, so you have some degree of freedom, while you should not even be trying to use the Bible to convince us, as it is only by the infallible magisterium that we can know such for sure. And which relies upon itself for its authority.
..in the sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is present, in a manner altogether unique, God and man, whole and entire, substantially and continuously. - Second Vatican Council
Hmm, name-calling; that's one of the first defenses of a bad argument (namely argumentum ad hominem). My purported "ignorance" must be based on my having been raised in a Catholic country and taught by Catholic clergy and laymen in my youth, is that it?
I am always amazed when anti-Catholics say this because it is so ignorant
Why not? In the RCC, the Pope is the authority, not the Bible. The prima scriptura doctrine allows for secondary sources other than the Bible; but one must note that such goes against the injunctions in verses such as Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19.
No commandment has been removed by the Church - nor could one be
The Bible says "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4; and the latter two verses are direct quotes from Moses. One can "group" them in only one way (remember, God is not the author of confusion, and to imply otherwise also implies that the words inspired in Scripture are faulty); omissions are a violation of the law per Deuteronomy 12:32, not to mention what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17.
The commandments are not numbered in scripture. Different groups number them differently. Most anti-Catholics are too ignorant about history to know that
There's no mistaking what the scripture actually says. Even in older English, it's quite clear and emphatic, and not in parable form.
What most ignorant anti-Catholics (yes, I know that’s redundant) do is mistake the Catechetical Formula used by Catholics and Lutherans for the full telling of the commandments as understood by the Church
Your definitions of Grace and mine differ. You seem to see His Grace thru rituals..I see Grace thru Him from God to Us.... “It's Grace that has kept me safe thus far and Grace will lead me home”....His Grace not the Graces you speak of.
You stated,.. “Seek these graces and you will find knock and these graces will be made available to you.”5
But Jesus speaking in Rev.3:20 states...”Here I am, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me.”....... This is fellowship with Him..a relationship He desires as He is the one knocking at the door of our hearts. He is pursuing us...He is inviting us individually.
Further John writes...in Rev.1:5....”To him who loves us and has ‘freed’ us from our sins by His blood, and has made us a kingdom and ‘priests’ to serve His God and Father”... thus we are not only free but are a priesthood unto Him..and He is the great High Priest over us all.
Additionally Christ fulfilled the Law and the requirements we could never meet. We are no longer under the Law...or Christ's death otherwise becomes null and void. If what we do somehow is suppose to pave the way for us then there was no reason for Him to die.
We walk now by faith...”The just shall live by faith”...We can trust Him to lead us...we can trust Him to show us what He requires of us....now if you see that He is telling you to take communion believing you are somehow taking Him in over and over and over again...why go at it then. But I am saying If we have Christ in us the work of salvation is complete. Does that mean we just do what we want whenever we want? Of course not...but when we receive Christ we find our desires change....what we want changes,...where we go and what we do changes, because it is now His spirit which lives in us...we are new creatures in Christ.
Apologies accepted. God bless
“You mean he came to earth to replace one set of symbols (the Old Covenant; see Hebrews 9:23-24) by another set?”
You are mistaking the type and the anti-type in John 6. The literal lamb of the O.,T. was symbolic of Jesus, and thus John refers to Christ as the “Lamb of God,” (Jn. 1:29) as its fulfillment, with “Lamb” allegorically referring to Jesus, while Jn. 6, the symbol is the literal manna which came down from heaven under Moses, and which only gave physical life, while its fulfillment are the words of Christ, “the Word of life, (1Jn. 1:11) “that believing ye might have life through his name.” (Jn. 6:31)
It is thus that believing the gospel message is how souls were made spiritually alive, (Eph.1:13; 2:1,5; Acts 11:8; 15:7-9) and who are to “live by” - as in a constant preoccupation ordering one’s life - every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. (Mt. 4:4; context: word=Scripture). That was Jesus bread, and as He lived by the Father, so are we to. (Jn. 6:57)
You wrote:
“Hmm, name-calling; that’s one of the first defenses of a bad argument (namely argumentum ad hominem).”
It’s also an accurate labeling of the anti-Catholic. I don’t shy away from accurate labeling.
“My purported “ignorance” must be based on my having been raised in a Catholic country and taught by Catholic clergy and laymen in my youth, is that it?”
No. 1) I have no reaosn to believe you or your story. I have known too many anti-Catholics to lie. 2) Your supposed upbringing doesn’t guarantee knowledge of the faith. I have known far too many “raised in a Catholic country and taught by Catholic clergy and laymen in my youth” claimants who are in fact ignorant of the faith to assume they possess any detailed knowledge of the faith.
“Why not? In the RCC, the Pope is the authority, not the Bible.”
False. The Church has three sources of teaching authority: the Magisterium is one, the Bible and Tradition are the others. And you claim to have been taught the faith when you were young?
“The prima scriptura doctrine allows for secondary sources other than the Bible;”
Sola scriptura is an unscriptural sham. Variants thereof are in the same category.
“but one must note that such goes against the injunctions in verses such as Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19.”
Sola scriptura is an addition to scripture.
“There are also discrepancies in wording; the RCC also substitutes “the Lord’s day” for “the sabbath day” when paraphrasing Exodus 20:8”
There is no discrepancy. The Catechetical Formula is a paraphrase. It was not intended or necessary for it to be verbatim. Also, Christians are not bound to 7th day as the day of worship. Even in the time of Acts Christians were worshiping on Sundays as well as Saturdays: Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.
“(and frankly, that link to the text of the Catechism that you gave us verifies exactly what I said, as well as when I pointed out that Exodus 20:4-6 are removed from mention, so instead of disproving me, you’ve actually upheld what I said).”
No, actually it disproved you. As I explained - and anti-Catholic people have a hard time accepting reality - there are three forms of the commandments in the CCC. No commandment was dropped. You were simply wrong.
“The Bible says “ten commandments” in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4; and the latter two verses are direct quotes from Moses.”
Where in scripture does it tell you, “And this is the Fourth Commandment...” It never happens that way in scripture. Never. We are never told any numbering system at all. Ever.
“One can “group” them in only one way (remember, God is not the author of confusion, and to imply otherwise also implies that the words inspired in Scripture are faulty); omissions are a violation of the law per Deuteronomy 12:32, not to mention what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17.”
Again, tell me where in scripture does it tell you, “And this is the Fourth Commandment...” It never happens that way in scripture. Never. Not once. You can’t even use “Thou shall not” as a way to delineate the commandments because that phrase is used about ten times in the commandments and is not used in “Remember the Sabbath” or in “Honor your father and your mother.”
“There’s no mistaking what the scripture actually says. Even in older English, it’s quite clear and emphatic, and not in parable form.”
Parable form? What on earth is that? And I got news for you, the Catechetical Formula is just about as old as English Christianity.
“BTW, you used “ignorant” five times in your reply. Using argumentum ad hominem multiple times in a post doesn’t suddenly render validity to the fallacy.”
No, but using proper labeling is proper labeling. I am not shy of proper labeling. I am also being vindicated by your posting.
“BTW: I take it that you’re not arguing in favor of Sunday?”
Scripture, tradition and the Magisterium all do. You, on the other hand, only have illegitimate 19th century SDA flavored sectarian proof texting.
Actually God waited and waited for the church to shape up and instead they got worse and worse as the barbarians were admitted and brought with them their pagan rituals and beliefs into the church...not to mention Romes political ambitions in the Priesthood as well as the laity..these too the Bishops etc. gave ground to. Gods house had become a den of thieves and a house full of pagan rites and requirements forced on the people.
In fact much of the headpieces, robes, golden chalice's, furnishings etc. within the catholic church was brought into the church during those times. But as with many "items' or 'dressings' of the catholic church these are simply leftovers from then and enlarged or built upon over the centuries.
At any rate... Then God basically said enough is enough and thus we saw the 'Reformation' and the inquisitions and all the blood that fell during those times...."Holy wars between the enemy of God and The armies of heaven can and do draw blood like it or not..only because there is much to gain...and the stakes are high. The prize of which are mens souls. The same battles which we fight today...the catholic church' refused to let go then and it continues to hold it's grip today...
Thank God indeed for the Reformation and the freedom it brought to Gods people to grow in the knowledge of knowing Christ and living for Him. Further the Body of Believers is One... under Christ.. not a church...and that thru His Spirit...no matter which church they attend...if Christ is central to their belief and they are saved they are one with us. As I mentioned prior...there are believers I am sure within the catholic church just as with others..but the catholic church denomination does not have the authority nor the power over believers...nor is membership required for salvation.
So if I ask the Lord Jesus for help, it’s one thing.
But if I ask Mary to ask Jesus for help, then the request carries more weight?
So Mary truly is a mediator for you guys ...
Your doctrine is satanic. There is BUT ONE mediator between us and God: the Lord Jesus Christ.
True. Outside Christ’s Church — the body of believers who’ve been adopted into His family — there is no salvation.
If you’re Roman Catholic, and have placed your faith in Jesus, then you’ve been welcomed into His family, His Church, and you’re therefore saved. But salvation isn’t found solely in Rome; it’s found in Christ our Savior.
May Jesus increase, and may His Bride be glorified. And may all denominations, including the Church of Rome, decrease.
I like "in a manner altogether unique". I have a friend who is doing a doctorate in Sacramental theology. I may never seen him again in this life, but if I do, I'm going to ask him about this uniqueness, about how it is 'like' and how it is 'unlike' other modes of presence.
"whole and entire"
I nibble 'round the edges of this. The first thing I'd say is that Jesus doesn't "come in parts" (while He MAY come in "modes".) So you don't get MORE Jesus if you take a bigger chunk of "bread" or a bigger slug of "wine". However you "get Him", you get ALL of Him. It's just like God is not PARTLY in New York and partly in Beijing, but all of Him is everywhere.
And as one person, Jesus, comprised two natures, divine and human, whatever you get has (or is) both natures and one person.
"continuously," I'm not sure why they said this. I really need to study those documents, with a mentor. Certainly, however HE is present, I don't think He comes and goes.
I know some non-Catholic groups think that, well, whatever happens to the bread and wine, whether it has to do with 'substance or essence" or with "purpose" or "signification" it only happens "in context." Whatever happened only happened for the duration of the communion service, and afterwards it's just bread and wine again to be used without any special reverence.
We hold that it is not us, our intentions (except in a specific sense), or the context we set, but God Himself who makes the change. Whatever the change is, it is objective and it remains as long as the 'accidents' of bread and wine remain.
Consequently the "leftovers" are to be treated with the utmost reverence AND it is proper to view them, especially the "bread," as somehow a bearer of the presence in such a way that when one goes into a room where the "bread" is present, one can be said to be in the presence of Christ.
(I say 'especially the "bread"', because any surplus of the Precious Blood is consumed after all the people have had an opportunity to make their communion, while the surplus hosts are usually 'reserved' in a reverent way in a special place.
"Substantially" = "whatever Jesus 'is', the bread and the wine have become and now are, as long as the 'accidents' remain." They don't look like Him, taste, smell, feel, or sound like Him. They 'merely' ARE Him "sacramentally".
One problem is that "substantially" has come to mean "more or less", to be a word of approximation.
In the old fairy tales, a man is turned into a stork (while somehow retaining his mind, intentions, will, blah blah) we would say, "The stork IS, SVITW," even though it had none of the perceptible characteristics, because there is who and what you are over here, and over there, what you weigh,what you look, smell, taste, feel, and sound like.
Note: a lot of this stuff arises from a dialog of many centuries. It started way back with the scriptural and pre-scriptural witness (about which we can only guess.) Questions arose. Answers were attempted and discussed. And in a manner similar to the question of what to do about Gentile Xtians or what is the relationship of the Son to the Father, somebody articulated a teaching which met with controversy. So the Church, or part of it, gathered to settle the question, appealing to God and especially to the Holy Spirit.
But IMHO, to evaluate all these things, it's best if one has a sense of what the controversial opinion was, how it was seen to somehow lessen the gospel, and what the decision was and, as far as we can tell, what the reasons for it were.
I hope that's at least a little clear.
There are many different types of grace but your situation calls for a grace which actualizes itself in predisposing you towards Jesus in a more efficacious manner.
It is your next point which clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of your bible scholarship and the danger of self interpretation. Your provide bible citations in a feeble attempt to answer my point clearly indicate your need of augmenting your knowledge of sacred scripture. I was referring to Luke 11 9:11 where Jesus invites US to knock . A properly trained scripture scholar would have known that immediately.
While it is true we walk by faith you would do well to remember James 2 14:17 . Slinging about bible verses can be amusing for the “bible quoten bible toten crowd” but for those who desire a closer relationship to Jesus we receive the sacraments which rain the graces of Jesus on us. Your imperfect belief is very problematic and when coupled with the sin of pride manifested by most of your ilk, eternal salvation becomes highly problematic for you.
I could not agree more.
The consequence is that not every Tom, Dick, and Harry is fit to do, ought to do, or wants to do theology. But when they want the autonomy to decide matters best left to theologians there is a problem.
Nobody has to understand what happens at the Mass as well as Aquinas does - UNTIL they set up shop on their own and claim be be selling an understanding better than that of Aquinas. If they can't back it up, if they don't think being able to back it up is their call, then how can they say theirs is better or ours is wrong?
And, in the case, say, of the cult of Mary, when those who are not theologians express their love of her, we cannot require that they do so with theological precision. And yet the knives come out when somebody says something theologically incorrect but no more wrong that it is wrong for a mother to say to her baby, "I adore you," (which, by the exigent standards of many non-Catholics would be blasphemy.)
If understanding is not what one claims for a call, then there is no obligation to "[get] lost in the volumes of explanations presented and the literature one must read for understanding Romes rituals and meanings."
BUT then one cannot pretend to understand whether they are right or wrong.
You can't have it both ways. Either attack us theologically and be prepared to engage in theology, or leave us alone. Do not pretend to mount a theological argument and complain if you are met with a theological reply.
God is simple. Loving God is simple. TALKING about it is complicated and difficult.
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.