For Catholics: What shall we do...

What you should do is demand that all Priests that have abused in the past be turned over to the cops. After that, turn over those that protected them and moved them around to go rape new people.

Bill O'Reilly has been discussing this all week. He said that the pedophiles in the church make up about 6%, the same percent found in the general population.

Bill O'Reilley has his facts screwed up on this and other Catholic issues. Most knowledgeable Catholics don't pay much attention to his discourses on faith issues.

First off, his figures are wrong. Try about 3%.

Second, only 2% of these cases are true pedophilia cases. Pedophilia is sexual abuse of a child under the age of puberty (12). Ephebophilia is sexual abuse of adolescent children. The most common ages between 15 and 17. Pedophilia is predominantly in hetersexual adults. Ephobophilia is HOMOSEXUAL. Adult men abusing young boys and adult women abusing young girls. There is a very small percentage of heterosexual activity in ephebophilia; but it is a relatively small percentage.

The sexual scandal in the church is REALLY about HOMOSEXUALITY in the heirarchical ranks. It's the homosexuals that need to be dumped and relieved of duty.

O'Reilley has also stated in a recent article that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt because their lifestyle will have no bearing on the child. This is the biggest crock I've ever heard. I like O'Reilley more than not, but he is full of it on this issue and many other Catholic issues he's blown his big mouth on. When he's right, he's right.

BUT ON THIS HE"S WRONG!

"Peter is buried below the Vatican. Can you say that about your church leader(s)? "

Our church leader is Christ and he isn't buried. Looks like you got us on your point.

Matt 16:18--"And I say to thee, thou art ~~Arius~~, ~~Nestorius~~, ~~Luther~~, ~~Calvin~~...hmmm...PETER, and upon this rock I will build my church."

My Church. My. Church. My.

What am I missing here ?

Alot. :-}

Please do post your synthesis so others may make use of it. But would you please post in on this thread. This link is to my final revision of these suggestions.

NEW THREAD

I'm enjoying the discussion myself. Usually this topic becomes hysterical.

The physical process of eating and digestion are being used as metaphors for a spiritual reality.

The argument against a strict metaphorical interpretation is that at no time does Jesus say that he is speaking metaphorically.

Initially, the Jews are scandalized. Jesus does not explain the difficult passages as being metaphorical. Rather, according to Scott Hahn, Jesus ups the rhetoric. Jesus begins to speak of "chewing" or "gnawing" His flesh. The Jews leave in disgust without a clarification from Jesus.

Similarly, the crowd leaves without a clarification from Jesus.

Even some of His disciples leave: "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Finally, it's down to the twelve Apostles, and Jesus, rather than explaining everything as a misinterpretation asks: "You do not want to leave too, do you?"

Only Peter (notably) speaks up and says: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." Peter simply takes this "hard saying" on faith.

Additionally, Jesus normally explained his parables to the Apostles.

But to my eyes it seems that to read these statements as physical statements, saying that the material food becomes the material Christ is unwarranted.

For the record, the Catholic Church teaches that the earthly bread becomes the glorified body of Christ under the appearance of bread. (Since His glorified Body is not limited by time and space as is evident from Scripture, His Body can be in many places simultaneously.) In Aristotelian/Scholastic terminology, the substance of the bread changes while its accidents remain the same. The earthly bread takes on a supernatural nature.

In Catholic theology, Christ (acting through the priest) offers up His glorified Body (under the appearances of bread and wine) as an unbloody sacrifice to the Father. In a sense, Jesus perpetual heavenly offering of Himself to the Father is "brought down to earth." In another sense, it is a re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. His self-sacrifice on the cross is made present to us today, yet it is not another sacrifice.

Finally, the Scriptural and historical evidence for Jesus being the lamb of the Last Supper is very strong. In performing the Seder, it was essential that the lamb be consumed. Therefore, it follows that it was necessary to consume Jesus' Body when He performed the Last Supper seder meal ("this is my body," "this is my blood")

But was the meal completed? Note that Jesus does not drink from the cup at the Last Supper. He finally takes some wine just before His death on the Cross, and utters the words, "it is finished," meaning that the Paschal sacrifice is completed.

For Jesus' body to have been consumed at the Last Supper, Jesus must have been speaking of His Body in a sense other than his material body. It seems to necessarily follow then that Jesus' body was present in a non-material way in the bread and wine at the Last Supper for It to have been consumed.

Did you know that the word,now interpreted as wife is the word used by Jesus at the wedding at Cana to address His mother?

Just curious, can you give me a little more about this. Thanks

O'Reilley has also stated in a recent article that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt because their lifestyle will have no bearing on the child. This is the biggest crock I've ever heard. I like O'Reilley more than not, but he is full of it on this issue and many other Catholic issues he's blown his big mouth on.

Ditto bump. He's usually good, especially remarkable since he seems to go entirely from instinct. But going on instinct can lead to serious errors, as in this case.

Why do you think that the biggest Catholic bashers are ex-Catholics? I've just wondered about this.

My theory is that they have to prove Catholicism wrong because their very soul depends on it. I think if they really WERE firm in their new faith that Catholicism wouldn't concern them other than trying to convert and it's obvious that these people aren't trying to convert or they'd be a little more diplomatic and loving.

What you been smokin' man? By the sounds of your posts it must be some good stuff.

"If two people agree all the time, you only need one of them"

What a jewel!...the quote and also,I'm sure, your grandfather.

I forgot this passage:

1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

______________________________________

Here are some quotes from the early Church Fathers. The quotes are instructive because they show how those closest to Jesus' time interpreted John 6:

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

... "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 is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

Pure inspiration. :-}

I wish I were a researcher or a person that used the internet well,or that I took notes and filed them under anything but "F",for file. Nope,instead I read books and I listen and I read the Free Republic to get an idea of what generally bright people are saying and then file it up in my head to use when I think people need to be aware of more facts or information.You know offer it as a little serendipity.(tongue in cheek)

Thus said I can't give you documentation. I only know that I originally learned of it in a thread that was arguing the perpetual virginity of Mary. A Jewish person was explaining that certain words,defined as virgin could have meant unmarried woman or maiden. That led him to other words where the meaning of a word meaning female or woman could mean different things according to context. He cited Corinthians when Paul spoke of "carrying wives" and added that word was the same as the word Jesus used to address his mother at Cana. I joined the discussion and pointed out that it certainly diminished the argument that the Apostles were married. A non-Catholic well versed in thiology and another quickly responded with a "context,context,context",but did agree the word was the same, I cannot find the exchange. But the context,of course, goes two ways which none but me seemed to think of any import.

Anyway,many folks who find Catholicism problematic criticize the celibate priesthood so I started asking for any other scriptural proofs.(Peter's mother-in-law and the Bishops were the only ones I had ever heard of)No one ever replied,when I realized I had asked at least 12 times and been ignored or dismissed,I started counting.I did receive an unkind,lengthy freep mail the other day which also confirmed the word was the same,and added that it was actually a title, like Mrs..The first two letters of the word I believe are gu, I guess there are two more letters in it.Hope this helps,its really interesting and very handy in the current discussions.

I have the same filing system you do. There is so much out there to read and to know it is hard to keep up. Thank you for taking the time to answer me.

Kind words, thank you, God be with you...;-D

"In Catholic theology, Christ (acting through the priest) offers up His glorified Body (under the appearances of bread and wine) as an unbloody sacrifice to the Father. In a sense, Jesus perpetual heavenly offering of Himself to the Father is "brought down to earth." In another sense, it is a re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. His self-sacrifice on the cross is made present to us today, yet it is not another sacrifice. "

This is the best explanation I've seen to prove how unbiblical transubstantiation is.

Heb 9:24-28 24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

(NIV) Heb 10:11-14 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,

14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (NIV)

If it were the true and literal body and blood of Christ it would look, feel, smell and taste like human flesh and blood. I was an altar boy for many years. Aint so. I don't believe the Lord would have us to be cannibals.

Greetings, Ex-Wretch. With God, ALL things are possible. Besides, if the Eucharist were just a symbol, no one would have to worry about receiving Him unworthily.

1 Cor 11:23-30
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Jesus says, "This IS my body" not "This is a symbol of my body". Jesus always speaks clearly enough even for little ones to understand.

If the Eucharist is just symbolic, then there's nothing to be unworthy about and this contradicts the Scripture I cited above. I sincerely hope you will reflect on this.

If you would like to continue this conversation, please reply in private as we have already gotten off topic in this thread and have taken up too much bandwith.

God bless you. You will be in my prayers. :)

bump

Here's my 'action list': Don't show up and keep your kids away from there.