Posted on 10/26/2012 2:28:43 PM PDT by NYer
We still can rest in the assurance that Jesus was and is who He said He is, as deeply mysterious to us as that may be.
Oh, Amen to that! And thank you for closing out with that tonight :) At least that's all I will see tonight and what a great thought to leave the discussion on :) Deeply mysterious, what a great phrase to think about as I nod off!
LOL
Other than J N D Kelly no single individual was singled out in the post to which you refer. If you feel I was “making it personal”, that’s your problem. Perhaps the RM can point out where I improperly identified any specific individual other than the aforementioned author to whm you referred and I in return commented on.
Notice that the above quote [your accusatory words] includes "Faith Alone", Sola Fide. (One of the five Solas, which stand together.) You included Sola Fide in a list of "inventions".
Yet in this post I am responding to, you said;
There goes the "invention" claim, in regards to Sola Fide, for you've contradicted yourself.
The Sola Scriptura (again, but one Sola of five which need be regarded together) can be found in Scripture itself, and in the teachings (tradition as it were) of the Early Fathers.
I'm going to be generous, and assume here for sake of discussion that although you listed Sola Fide as an "invention", it does not mean that the RCC borrowed the idea from the Reformers. [smile]
Yet for the sake of discussion, they did indeed help bring much focus upon it, during those turbulent times.
As far as the Sola Scripturas is concerned, the opposition to it is based upon the desire & premise of replacing it with Sola Ecclesia (Whatever We Say). That much is plain enough.
See "The Catechism of the Catholic Church", page47, paragraph 153, entitled, Faith is a Grace.
While someone might make a reasonable case that "Grace Alone" is what the Catholic Church teaches, "Faith Alone" is most definitely not what the RCC teaches.
Faith comes through the Grace, is fostered in us by the Holy Spirit, and leads us to our Savior Jesus Christ. As we move closer to Christ and cooperate with the Holy Spirit, our faith deepens. Our cooperation with the Holy Spirit along with the additional Grace we receive through the Eucharist and other sacraments in turn increases our faith which draws us closer to Jesus Christ, in a cycle that draws us each as close to Christ as our cooperation with Grace will allow us to go, up to and including Sainthood for those with sufficient Faith and trust in Christ to totally surrender to Him.
So, like I said, someone could argue about whether or not "Grace Alone" is Catholic teaching but not "Faith Alone". Especially not "Faith Alone" as described by "sin boldly" Luther, those who deny the Trinity, those who defame The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself established, and the vast majority of those who espouse Luther's "Faith Alone" heresy and it's close cousins derived from various Eastern cults rather than Scripture.
"The neighbor forgives him but the kid's parents still make him help pay for repairs."
Those sort of things confuse the issue. Of course sins have real world consequences. But that's not Purgatory.
Bringing out the Apocrypha doesn't help much, either. For the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem rejected those works as being among the teachings of God, not unlike how the Early Church rejected quite a bit of spurious material (although later adopting at least one doctrinal aspect, based much upon one rejected "prequel" to the Gospel sort of work, though I lose the thread of the exact precepts and doctrine concerned, at this moment...)
When the Septuagint was first translated into Greek, so the Jews in Egypt could read the books of the law & Prophets (they had been there so long few spoke or could read Hebrew any longer), there is some question as to what it at first contained. There is some slight evidence it did not contain all of those books now long referred to as Apocrypha, but had added the full complement over time. There is further slight evidence some Jews in the know complained (a century or so before Christ) that there was not enough distinction being given between the books of the Law, those of the Prophets --- and the later Maccabean works, as those latter had been judged distinctly lessor, not truly belonging to inspired Word by the foremost Jewish religious authorities.
Which leaves us, being that Catholics point towards 2 Maccabees as source material, building upon an unsure foundation, one previously discarded by the Jews of Jerusalem, of that time.
Where to fit in the information in your helpfully (but then grudgingly?) provided link, I am not sure, although looking towards Jewish traditions can at times be quite informative. I'll confess to preferring those whom come from those dreaded and despised "Messianic" Jews however, though it's perhaps best to not make too much noise about it, being as some contemporary Jews are known to not stop at casting dispersions (if not engaging in emotional histrionics) but to quite literally cast stones. It happens in Israel.
That's a bit of a stretch of a partially true, partially good thing, but ends up in regards to some doctrines as being hearsay without proof. Assumption. A "just trust us" sort of thing.
No, you are not understanding me at all. My own rejection of blanket claims that what began to be taught after some centuries, differing from what we see taught in the Word, and what we can learn of concerning the primitive church in it's first decades, was somehow passed down through oral tradition. I thought I had spelled out, how much is today assumed if not claimed to originate from Christ or the Apostles, but there is no clear chain of custody [so to speak] for most of the now persistently controversial doctrines. That is hardly "all over the map". It is more like I am pointing towards how in many RCC environments, such information is handled casually, "Oh, it was handed down from the very beginning by "oral tradition" ".
In fact, some of those precepts we can clearly see only arising multiple centuries later, with disputes from the Eastern churches, opposing certain Roman church doctrinal propositions. Is that clear enough? I am aware I'm not the greatest writer.
Ma'am, with all due respect, I've already done much of my "homework" concerning this. I'm left not buying into Sola Eclessia. Although the Roman Church can be seen to get a great deal quite right, it's possible although difficult to track the invention, the "unpacking" I spoke of previously, of doctrines (and much more subtly, attitudes).
Thank you for the effort to reply, and the general decency displayed.
Please understand. I have been here for years. There is little or no ground which has not been debated and fought over concerning the controversial elements of doctrinal difference, which has not been seen before on these pages. Many hundreds if not thousands of threads, at times having comments numbering in the thousands.
I'm no "master of the issues", although well enough informed, having learned a great deal over the years. I've done much of my "homework", right here, following along, chasing down this & that. Very rarely it seems is there much honest discussion. I do thank you for your efforts towards that.
In all actuality, the majority of my own experience with teachings of faith, ended up on the same or much similar grounds as the way you here in this post describe the Catholic teachings (which I have seen explained before similarly).
The language employed can be a bit different. Remember, as I have previously stressed, the 5 Solas are meant to stand all together, inseparably. So in the end, the Reformed churches do not preach any of them singularly. I'm no Lutheran or Calvinist per se. But here I am defending them from the most spurious of the allegations and characterizations which you've casually tossed about, for reason that guilt of one or even dozens of preachers pushing watered-down "milk of the word" messages, do not equal all share in that same guilt.
More than a few, I would say the vast majority of those teachers or preachers I've been exposed to personally, teach nothing at all like the cartoonish characterizations resembling more televangelists than the Baptist church on the corner.
Where we part company is the belief that what is formally known as the RCC today, is the full embodiment of the Church which Christ established.
I was baptized in ocean waters, by a non-denominational Pentecostal leaning church, and received a baptism of the Holy Ghost right then and there. Until Vatican II, that much would be a doctrinal impossibility according to official RCC dogma.
I do not believe for one moment that such a baptism never transpired (with the same results, for others) before that above mentioned modification in official RCC doctrines took place. Then there is the issue of the many anathemas still in force, never formally revoked...
Oh, well. If I'm looking for perfection, there is only one direction to look. Up, of course.
Good luck on your journey.
If you had said "you worship yourself" then it would have been mind-reading, a form of "making it personal."
BlueDragon, your reply 98 to that post, was making the thread "about" Rashputin instead of the issues. That is also a form of "making it personal."
I can and do intervene to keep posters from "making it personal" but there is nothing I can do to prevent posters from taking it personally.
If you are offended by a global condemnation but want to remain in the dialogue, you might try to word your reply as if you were a third party. For instance, "That claim is false and offensive."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
We are the Catholic Church without regard to who is and who is not circumcised; we, in fact, are the only community of faith that prays with regularity to the conversion of the Jews, who need to open their eyes to the reality of Christ’s Gospel.
Divisions of labor and of opinion always existed in the Church and they exist today; popes from time to time have a particular focus (e.g. we remember John Paul II especially for his focus on achieving spiritual victory in the Cold War). To have a focus on the conversion of the Jews, the group uniquely prepared, as it seemed, to accept Christ, was natural. We can see examples of tension even between Sts Paul and Peter in the passage you brought up and in 2 Peter 3:16. However, the Catholic Church since the Pentecost and to this day is a single Church, it is not a church of St. Paul or of St. Peter, but rather of all the saints.
You misunderstood what the "it" in the question is. Rather typical of all Protestant sects, to defend their heresies with quotes that do not support them, and ignore the quotes that condemn them. The cure for Protestantism is simple: read the Holy Bible every once in a while and attempt to understand what you are reading.
the Roman church teaches all manner of things not much supported by Scripture, even frequently to the contrary of Scripture
No, not "contrary", in the doctrinal part. In manners of discipline, yes, disciplines changed since the 1c. If you believe otherwise, give me an example. If you want to drop this topic, you have a right to do so, of course, on the thread about Purgatory. However, the question was, where does the scripture condemns teaching on the subject not covered by the scripture. Useful meaning-of-words hint: when something contradicts the scripture that means the scripture covers it.
What sins are NOT covered by the blood of Jesus?
Every single one of them is redeemed by the blood of Christ, of course. That is somehow related to the issue of Purgatory? Those in purgatory are there because of the redemption wrought by Christ. If you do not understand that, you do not understand either the Purgatory or the mission of Christ.
Romans 8: << Romans 8 :1 THERE is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. 2 For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh; 4 That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. ...
... 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. 14 For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). 16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.
For example:
Feb 11, 1858: Virgin Mary appears to St. Bernadette
In southern France, Marie-Bernarde Soubirous, a 14-year-old French peasant girl, first claims to have seen the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ and a central figure in the Roman Catholic religion. The apparitions, which totaled 18 before the end of the year, occurred in a grotto of a rock promontory near Lourdes, France. Marie explained that the Virgin Mary revealed herself as the Immaculate Conception, asked that a chapel be built on the site of the vision, and told the girl to drink from a fountain in the grotto, which Marie subsequently discovered by digging into the earth.
The concept of the Immaculate Conception, in which the Virgin Mary is regarded free from original sin from the moment of her conception, had been accepted just four years previous by Pope Pius IX. Marie's claims garnered widespread attention, but skeptical church authorities subjected her to severe examinations and refused to accept her visions. After years of mistreatment at the hands of the authorities and the curious public, she was finally allowed to enter the convent of Notre-Dame de Nevers, where she spent her remaining years in prayer and seclusion. She died of ill heath at the age of 35.
The sight of her manifestations subsequently became the most famous modern shrine of the Virgin Mary, and in 1933 Marie-Bernarde Soubirous was canonized as St. Bernadette by the Roman Catholic Church. Today, millions travel to Lourdes every year to visit St. Bernadette's grotto, whose waters supposedly have curative powers.
*** However, the Catholic Church since the Pentecost and to this day is a single Church, it is not a church of St. Paul or of St. Peter, but rather of all the saints. ***
Are you implying the Catholic Church’s foundational truths are not based on just the teachings of St. Paul or St. Peter but are based on the teachings of all the saints.?
Thanks BVB
As you can see, the teachings of St. Paul and St. Peter as well as other New Testament writings are very high and near the top in that hierarchy, they are as good as the words of Christ Himself. The Church rejects the notion that is sometime seen in Protestant Churches that only the epistles of St. Paul are the source of doctrine.
Among lesser authority you will find that argument is possible. For example, while the authority of St. Thomas the Aquinas is exceedingly high, some aspects of his teaching are disputed. At times a Father of the Church is even prevented from canonization due to some doctrinal impediment, as Origen.
There are also inspirational works and mystical visions that are not approved by the Church but can be recommended for devotional reading. That is the meaning of "nihil obstat" designation you see on some books: this simply means what is literally says, that there is no obstacle against it.
But when I said "Church of all the saints" I did not mean that every saint is a source of doctrine, but rather that the Church is truly Catholic, that is, the body of all saints and a single mystical body of Christ, and not a group of denominations like we see in the Protestant world (1 Corinthians 1:12=13). The canonized saints are people whose lives are an example to the rest of us; it does not mean that everything they ever said is sound doctrine. And the saints are all who die in good grace, who we all have a reasonable hope of becoming. That: the living Catholics are the Church Militant because our struggle is continuing, and the saints in Heaven, canonized or not are the Church Triumphant because they have inherited the Kingdom of Heaven, and the topic of our article is the souls in Purgatory, the Church Suffering, for whom we pray till they receive their triumph in Heaven.
Ridiculous. Doctrines have risen over the centuries which did not exist from the beginning, in fact at times were spoken against quite directly and clearly by the earliest theologians. Examples of such have played out on these pages FOR YEARS. I've been here for quite some time...
Must we rehash the evidence that has been supplied on these pages countless times? Or barring that, being that it is arguably beyond reasonable human effort for us to do so, here on this thread --- must I now be required to ignore all of which has discussed if not thoroughly dissected concerning certain particularly Romish doctrines?
No sir, I did not, but rather was consistent in holding the position that "Purgatory" was not a doctrine handed down to us, evidenced by the Word. That portion which you did cite as being supportive, one must needs have a priori acceptance of the idea, before being able to "see" much in the way of alleged support.
Otherwise, one's works, being tested by fire could just as well vanish in an instant, as much as one being held in some form of suspended state where they must "purge", be forced to vomit up whatever it is within them which can be found contrary to the God.
By which I mean, not only is the citation you bring in support much less than clear --- concerning RCC defined "Purgatory" --- but we do not find much elsewhere in Scripture to support the idea on it's own, it's insidious inclusion and reliance upon as some foundational cornerstone, incorporated into the overall logic, notwithstanding.
You are not claiming that Purgatory (as doctrinal truth) was part of "oral tradition", handed down to us directly from Christ and the Apostles, now are you?
But instead are relying upon "the teaching authority", where the oral tradition utilizes not what was directly passed by the original authorities, but by some later theologians whom proclaim to have found threads of otherwise "hidden" meanings, deeply subsumed in the texts, and only teased out through inference & interpretation? Which then enter the narrative under the cover of "oral tradition" presumed to have been directly handed down by Christ & the Apostles ---
---Until the covers get pulled back on that train of events (and we see the tracks!) to which then the "teaching" is said to fall under the magisterium, the teaching authority of the church, etc., led flawlessly by the Spirit --- resulting in those who question all of THAT being accused of first heresy, then outright blasphemy of the Spirit.
We've all been on this merry-go-round before, I will submit...there is not much new under the sun, on the pages of the FR RF.
The Scriptures forbid teaching "new" Gospels (good news). Reading between the lines, to find new, additional ideas not previously, clearly expressed, is shaky theological construction, risky at best, quite fraudulent and something destined for the fire itself at worst. This "Purgatory" idea, appears to be quite possibly, one of those...
The same could be proscribed as cure for Roman Catholicism. Studying history closely could help too. But one would need distance themselves from Romish apologetic- spewing guides a bit, to have clearer view of it all.
Would for to have phrased it;
I do not wish to trash, or even to question the overall theology in toto.
Do you play slow-pitch softball as a recreational sport?
The question was, does the Church teach a doctrine contrary to the scripture? I get tired of your obfuscations on this simple question. Post an example or say, you don't have one.
That portion which you did cite as being supportive, one must needs have a priori acceptance of the idea
1 Cor 3:8-10 describes a soul being cleansed of inferior works that adhere to it. The soul then enters heaven. That is purgatory. Neither I or St. Paul wrote anything about the purgatorial fire lasting one instance or a long time -- so I don't see where your objection is, and that is the only thing that you mention that appears to have a discernible substance in that paragraph of yours. It would be fine if you tried again.
You are not claiming that Purgatory (as doctrinal truth) was part of "oral tradition", handed down to us directly from Christ and the Apostles, now are you?
No it is a part of both oral and written Tradition as evidenced by the scripture I cited.
The Scriptures forbid teaching "new" Gospels (good news). Reading between the lines, to find new, additional ideas not previously, clearly expressed, is shaky theological construction, risky at best, quite fraudulent and something destined for the fire itself at worst.
I agree, especially when charlatans like Luther or Calvin do it. The Church, however, has a teaching authority today and where she must, she teaches. I gave you two examples: the disciplinary/ritualistic aspects of the liturgy, such as the proepr form of the Holy Eucharist, and phenomena not foreseeable in antiquity, such as human cloning.
cure for Roman Catholicism
We are just fine, thanks. Worry about your own semi-literate pastors whose training consists in how to lie about the Gospel. When you drop your "Faith alone, Bible alone" counterscriptural drivel, we can pay attention to what useful thoughts you may have.
Yes, the Protestant heresies are indeed a product of Catholicism and we remain somewhat responsible for them. Perhaps one day a pope should issue an apology for all the harm that the so-called reformation had caused the mankind. The Protestants should, indeed, realize that their beliefs are nothing but an unfortunate corruption of valid Catholic beliefs. The same cannot be said for Protestantism: while I recognize that many Protestants have sincere faith, I do not see anything of value in any distinctly Protestant doctrine.
That's your argument? After all these years here, and countless of thousands of posts we've all seen on the RF?
No. Valid challenges & scriptural proofs have been brought forth repeatedly, only to end up on the same sort of merry-go-round I previously gave some description for. I'm supposed to pretend it's a new day, and start afresh each and every time? Like last week, last month, last year, five years ago, ten years ago here, never happened. Right.
Care to try again? Here is 1 Cor 3:8-10:
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
In fuller context of the entire chapter we see Paul speaking of foundational works, then works built upon those.
There is no hint there that the "works" will somehow be soulishly clinging, but instead it is conveyed the works themselves will be judged.
I'm having a flash-back, deja vu moment right about now, as it comes to me this EXACT same point has been discussed here on these pages before...
"Clinging works" vs. the plainer, more literal yet possibly metaphorical textual reading of the works themselves being tried by fire., albeit the ending of verse
Is that the portion in which is read into or alleged to be "clearly seen" the clinging of works to one's soul? This "clinging" you claim is a part of it, and "clearly seen". yea, right. If the Purgatory doctrine is 'etched into one's eyeballs' before reading it perhaps, as another here on FR once mentioned in regards to some RCC scriptural interpretation.
In the text, there is mention of reward given (for those good works, withstanding the test of fire it is safe for us to "understand") and loss (of what was built that failed the "test") yet these precepts still do not show us Purgatory where one must be coaxed, led into "purging" such as the Jesuit Hardon described.
I must say though, Roman Catholic theology can be slippery-er than a bucket-full of slime eels...
Underwhelming, to say the least.
Proper form of the Eucharist? One needs to have thrown Augustine under the bus to get where the RCC took it, including the sacerdotal-ism claims of their being able to "confect" the wafer into being something other than that which he speaks of, below, with this borrowed from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2942154/posts?q=1&;page=240#240
I notice Augustine uses scripture rather than imagining or inventing extended explanation.
If instead of taking Eucharist doctrinal statements to where they did later, it would have saved much needless misunderstanding if they'd hewed more closely to Augustine's exposition ---
That he has been abandoned for the most part in this particular regard, is partial demonstration of how the magisterium has over-reached over the centuries, changing, adding, "unpacking", conveying to others they have sole powers, which they themselves do not truly posses.
I myself have discerned the presence of the Spirit of the Lord be stirred within while taking of the Supper, yet that does not mean that the one whom consecrated the "bread" was himself fully vested with powers to change it's substance.
More borrowed again from the above provided link;
Was a bumpety-bump heard when the proto-bus wagon wheels went a-rollin' over poor 'ol Athanasius? His above words are illuminating. It is from Christ's hands we are fed.
At the Last Supper, in the upper room, Christ is not written or said to have had them kneel before Himself, and pop the bread (which He broke) into their mouths like they were little birdies, either. He handed it to them.
We see today the RCC agrees that "in the hand" can be proper, yet for long years, wasn't that NOT the case? ...we still have today on this forum the uber Catholics here suggest that to be the only proper way...regardless if there had been some previous allowance for "in the hand". What was pushed was something else. Kneel and receive like little birdies being fed from momma/papa Big Bird.
You may tell me all about "the proper way" if you wish, but I must tell you sir, I do think I have heard it all before. Much in the same way as you yourself have read or "heard" the sort of objections which I have displayed once again, above.
Yeah, they should all be killed off, much like those bare-foot, buck-toothed Waldensian and others, whom dared defy a certain church's overblown claims to sole authority.Phhffft.
Somewhat responsible is right. You're getting warmer...
More TradCat drivel. As if the European world had not been much subject to them previously, and had lived through centuries of decidedly mixed results. Human beings leave a lot to be desired, when it comes to actually living out lives yielded to His Spirit. They did then, they do now. Blaming the "now" fully upon the Reformers is to ignore the fallen condition of man, himself, pretending that once upon a time, all was right within the reaches of Roman Catholicism.
What happened to those Waldensian again? Oh, right. They were slaughtered like sheep, many of them...with the legalistic cover & blessings of the RCC.
What makes the "beliefs" all valid? When we look back to the Early Church, and weigh all since & present in the balances of the Word, validity for all "Catholic beliefs" begins to rapidly evaporate
I suppose that may much turn upon what is meant by "distinctly Protestant doctrine". If that was to be defined, I'll submit here that the best ones to speak towards that are not the TradCats whom seek to pin the tail on the donkey. Much in the same way Catholicism is best defined by Catholics, or is that too much to ask?
Yes, and I have seen plenty of these, and rebutted what I saw. Countless attempts of Protestants to malign the Catholic doctrine prove nothing about the Catholic doctrine. I understand, however why you don't want to answer the challenge.
There is no hint there that the "works" will somehow be soulishly clinging, but instead it is conveyed the works themselves will be judged.
I am sorry, I gave, from memory, wrong verse numbers. It had to be 8-15 as I originally posted in my 31.
To answer, in verse 9 we have the metaphor established: "you are God's building". Next, St. Paul continues with the metaphor: "if any man build upon this foundation..." (12). This shows a Christian building up his life, the one that is going to be judged. The quality of his work "shall be revealed in fire". That is the judgment. "If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward" (14), that is immediate entry into heaven (where rewards vary). "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss" (15); observe, the work burns but it is the man himself suffering the loss. That answers your puzzlement how is it that the works are "clinging". The work is the man, inseparable from him because the man in the metaphor adopted by St. Paul is the building and the works are parts of the building that burn. Finally, "he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" (15) -- it is therefore not punishment of hell fire but the saving Purgatorial fire.
deja vu moment
Me too. You guys, like wind-up monkeys repeat the same set of phoney arguments: it's works that burn, where is the redemptive blood of Christ in that, and then as the final argument you guys play dumb. I can make posts about 1 Cor. 3:8-15 and Purgatory all day long now, as fast as I can type.
these precepts still do not show us Purgatory where one must be coaxed, led into "purging"
That is the playing dumb part. No, 1 Cor 3:8-15 does not show, exactly, coaxing. It does not say anything about the mis-en-scene at all. It is scripture, not a soap opera, you know. You expected different? Maybe in the AWANA class, not here.
Proper form of the Eucharist?
Yes, that would be an example where the Church has authority and the Bible does not say anything. I skip the tangent I caused you, -- did not ask for it.
He handed it to them
Right. On that part, no one argues. The priest hands the Holy Eucharist. The arguments are: should one kneel; should one receive on the tongue? Should the bread use yeast? Should the host and the cup be offered? if so, mixed? Since you don't have the Holy Eucharist I understand you would not care, but Catholic Christians care. By the way, the tray with tiny cups of grape juice? seriously?
I have heard it all before. Much in the same way as you yourself have read or "heard" the sort of objections
Indeed. I write for the reader, not for the Protestant obfuscator on hand.
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.