Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy (The Body and Blood of Christ) [Catholic Caucus]
Do You Believe in Eucharistic Miracles?
Eucharistic Miracle at St. Stephen's in New Boston MI.(Catholic Caucas)
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle (Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena)
Eucharistic Miracle: 2009?
Possible Eucharistic Miracle in Poland
The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)
Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles
Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon
BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'
Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.
“I think you need to read up on some Eucharistic miracles.”
And really, how many of those are recorded in the NT???
Thanks for playing.
Read the Lanciano one at least.....check out the blood types with the Shroud of Turin.
“...check out the blood types with the Shroud of Turin.”
I reject the shroud’s authenticity, therefore I reject the authenticity of anything associated with it. The NT makes clear that Christ’s burial clothes were at least two separate pieces and, perhaps, more.
And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. John 20:6-7
When you move away from the veracity of the Biblical texts, anything can be made to look like a miracle.
In my opinion a lot of prayers are needed for such unbelievers.
At the moment of your death, you will not be able to justify your previous actions against Christ.
In fact, while we are alive, Christ is perfect mercy. At the moment of our death, Christ become perfect justice.
Why don’t you believe the words of Jesus himself?
“This is my Body.
“This is my Blood; do this in remembrance of me.”
**And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. John 20:6-7**
Do you know what that really means? The folded napkin was used in that era when a person had to leave the table — it was a signal that he would be back.
Christ, indeed, will be back to judge all of us.
Why don’t you believe the words of Jesus himself?
“This is my Body.
“This is my Blood; do this in remembrance of me.”
He spoke symbolically just as the prophets of the OT used symbolic language in speaking of epochal events. The people viewed Jesus as a prophet precisely because of the language He used, and His repeated use of parable and metaphor cannot overlooked, nor can such words be taken literally!
Or do you honestly believe that Jesus encouraged the practice of cannibalism? If so, it certainly ranks right up there with Voodoo as one of the many “gifts” Roman Catholic superstition has given us!
I’m not interested in Roman Catholic tradition or superstition. When the RCC is ready to divest itself of such heresies, I may be interested in returning to it.
“The folded napkin was used in that era when a person had to leave the table...”
You accuse me of not taking your verses on the body and blood literally, then read into the plain text a meaning you wish to see there???
Sure. I’m convinced. O.o
“Why don’t you believe the words of Jesus himself?”
Do you believe the end of the world came with the gospel having been preached to “all creation”, as Jesus prophesied and as Paul wrote? If not, then the same thing could be asked of you, and your moral outrage is both highly subjective and suspect.
O.o
Paul is the first one who talks about the Eucharist in the Early Church.
No problem there.
“The Faculty of Theology was not just a school. It operated under the Catholic Church.”
It wasn’t the Church, however. Not only are you beating a dead horse, but you’re beating the wrong dead horse. The university was not the Church. Both were Catholic, but only one was the Church. The other was a school.
“The writers of the New Testament were Jews who were living under the Law.”
Until they were not. They were Jewish in background but became Catholics in belief and practice.
“Paul, the most prolific among them, continued the Jewish custom of returning to Jerusalem for the feasts at the Temple, which is where he was arrested for the last time.”
Eventually Catholics were ousted from the Temple. And? That doesn’t stop them from being Catholics. Nor did stop them from being Jewish in background.
“Christ’s “catholic” church rose from the ashes of the Temple’s destruction in 70AD,”
No, Christ’s Catholic Church was born on the cross (portrayed in art as coming out of Christ’s side – the blood and the water representing the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist). See here: https://www.google.com/search?q=christ+giving+birth+to+the+church&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=wDiBUpNj6e3bBe-qgbAE&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=612#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=christ+giving+birth+ecclesia&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgrc=Yo5ZKsN8FsnvEM%3A%3BiU-iHUlDo9_AzM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2.bp.blogspot.com%252F-JsKxmhp7VvI%252FT39Do7SDy7I%252FAAAAAAAAE6I%252FuUKZeJXxIXA%252Fs1600%252Fwound-birth.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdeus-ex-machina-secundus.blogspot.com%252F%3B396%3B373
“ when the “new heavens and new earth” were ushered in.”
No. The new heaven and new earth are at the end of time (2 Peter 3:10) – that’s why God says they will endure forever before Him in Isaiah 66:22.
“However, by that time, the entire New Testament had been written, the last book of which was Revelation, written no later than 68AD.”
What John saw in his vision of the new heaven and new earth had not yet happened (2 Peter 3:13).
“Roman Catholics, calling their sect THE “Catholic Church”, mistakenly conflate the rise of their sect with the birth of the “catholic” church is undeniably and irrefutably false.”
No, your comment right there is false. 1) We conflate nothing. We merely see what is. 2) We are not a sect. Only Protestants have sects.
“One arose from the immediate end of Temple Judaism while the other appeared on the scene hundreds of years later.”
False. The Catholic Church was born on the cross. No Christian sect of any lasting duration began over the collapse of the Temple. The Church already existed and was revealed to the world on Pentecost.
Read what the Catholic church found the errors of Luther to be. You’ll never find listed as an error the doctrine of “sola gratis,” or any belief similar.
Lutherans now claim that Luther didn’t mean many of the things he said literally. Fine, but they are what the Catholic church objected to, and to imagine that the Catholic church holds doctrines contrary to these new doctrines that Luther “meant to say,” (simply because she opposed what he actually did say) is absurd.
What Pope Leo X ACTUALLY condemned, regarding sola fide:
That “in every good work the just man sins.”
That “a good work done very well is a venial sin.”
That “ to go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.”
That “Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.”
That “contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.”
That “as long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.”
That “sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven.”
That “it is a heretical opinion that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.”
And stung by these objections of Pope Leo X, did Luther correct the misunderstandings? Did he watch his loose tongue? Just the opposite! He began to say, “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.” It is this notion — that by sinning greatly, faith increases — that the Catholic Church found antithetical to that with grace necessarily comes redemptive work and faith, together.
As for Calvin, what can be said of a man who tried to ban the celebration of mass?
No, it said, “You are Cephas, and upon the Cephas...”
Jesus did not speak Greek to Peter. We don’t merely guess that, based on the fact that it would be absurd. The bible tells us Peter was named Cephas.
No, it said, “You are Cephas, and upon the Cephas...”
Jesus did not speak Greek to Peter. We don’t merely guess that, based on the fact that it would be absurd. The bible tells us Peter was named Cephas.
Don’t forget John 1:42. Jesus did indeed use Aramaic.
There may be miracles of the Eucharist...There may even be apparitions of the ghost of Mary...But they don't come from heaven...
Joh_5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Where does that leave you and the rest of the Catholics???
The proof is in the bible: In John 1:42, ‘Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).’
The truth is that there is no dichotomy between Petros and Petra. Petros is not a word in biblical Greek. There exists some Greek poetry and literature which uses a metaphor wherein a mother stone (Petra) gives birth to a quarried stone (Petros), but this distinction was hardly familiar usage; Peter is called Petros, not Petra IN THE GREEK simply because to call him Petra would be to give him a girl’s name. The fact that such a distinction is impossible is made plain by the fact that Jesus actually called him Cephas.
Further, Jesus does NOT say, “You are Petros, and on Petra I will build my church.” Jesus specifically says, “on THIS rock.” On what rock? The use of “THIS” means he is referring to what he has previously mentioned: Peter.
Also, if Jesus MEANT a distinction, he would have used the word, “lithos.” Lithos refers to “*a* stone, as opposed to stone, and is used commonly in the bible. Petros, on the other hand, in all of early Christian literature, is used only to refer to Peter, and never anywhere else, including the entirety of the Greek bible.
Lastly, what does Jesus immediately do? He gives Peter the authority to rule over his church!
The counter-argument is that Jesus refers to faith when he refers to “petra,” but the same Church Fathers who taught this also taught that Peter was the rock! Yes, Jesus chose Peter to be the rock because Peter’s faith was rock. Peter was a sinful man, as popes have been. He erred gravely in his administration of the Church, as Paul boasts of telling him. But it was the doctrinal statement of Peter which was rock, and to this day, that has always been the particular spiritual charism that the Church asserts of the papacy: not that it is inerrant (consider the scandal of Pope Honorius), not that it is impeccable (need we even mention some of the popes’ wickedness?), but that it is infallible when it freely asserts moral doctrine from the Chair of St Peter for the benefit of all Christians.
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.
