Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
They never came back either.
I'll try that . . . last time the JWs rang the doorbell I told them I was very happy in the Catholic Church, and God bless them.
Actually, Catholic wafers (and the wine too) are different.
In order for the Eucharist to be properly confected (I think that's the right word) there has to be first of all the correct matter - i.e. freshly made unleavened wheat bread made of pure flour only, with no additives other than water (no sugar, honey, yeast, oil, etc.). In Protestant churches you get any sort of bread - from French bread to homemade granola loaf even unto Saltine crackers. Episcopalian churches use jug port, which is improper because it contains additives (grain alcohol).
Then in order to properly consecrate the Host, a priest in the genuine Apostolic Succession (i.e. direct inheritor of the authority given by Jesus through ordination) must use the proper words and ceremonies of consecration as directed by Christ.
No Protestant church (with the possible exception of the "Old Catholics") is in the direct Apostolic Succession. The Anglicans/Episcopalians claim to be, but that is disputed because of the change in the words of consecration of Bishops under Edward VII.
If no one should be Catholic, the entire Christian civilization would disappear. For Jesus told the disciples to go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. And I will be with you until the end of the world"
Just who was Jesus to remain with, if not the church He established?
The Catholic church is the Mother church of Christianity. Without the anchor of this church, the entire Christian faith falls. FYI, this will never happen, for Jesus assured us so.
But it was a direct command from the resurrected Lord to the apostles. An unambiguous one too. (i.e., not subject to interpretation)
I think I mentioned "my" candidate in one of our early conversations, when she was wondering about joining the Church? After all sort of going here and there in the conversation she said that every time she went to our parish church (because of friends' weddings, things of that kind) she just "knew" that Jesus was present in the Tabernacle.
So I just looked at her and said, more or less, "If you know that, what are you waiting for? I mus tbe where my Beloved is. How about you?"
There's knowing He's there, the consolation of feeling His presence. Then there's being able to babble theologically. And now, for extra credit, which is the more precious gift?
I tink there is still room in the universe for us babblers. But I'm under no illusion concerning the relative blessedness of seeing versus running the mouth. Praise God for your gifts -- His gifts -- and His extravagant generosity!
There's a few hundred million Christians who don't agree with you...
When I talk to God, your church isn't within my field of vision...Your mother church is just another religion...Just like the Morman religion, like Islam...Mormans have Joe Smith...Islamos have Mo, and you guys have your popes and Mary and saints...
There are no Catholics in heaven...There are no Methodists...And no Baptists...There's only Spirit filled, born again Christians...That's the church that Jesus added me to the moment I ask him to be my Savior...
I'm the sinner...Jesus is the Saviour...There is NOTHING between the two of us, including your church...
Shocked, [straightening lapels, shooting cuffs, checking neck-tie] Shocked, I'm Shocked, that's what I am.
Did I say shocked? Good! I'm shocked!
[snurf, giggle, explode, guffaw]
So why are icons "written" and not "painted" or whatever? I'm iggerant.
I think it was for the sake of germ control, on the theory that the 20% grain alcohol would kill any stray microbes.
This was already addressed...
Post 1365 addressed the subject of cooperating with God's grace.
You (faithplusnothing1) discounted that in your post 1375 through use of a defective definition of the word "grace" (I don't hold it to your fault...I'm aware that there are many sects that teach that)
I then provided you two sources (btw both of them Protestant) for an accurate definition of grace (Strong and Thayer) in post 1398.
You might want to review those definitions again. I note that you didn't bother to respond to post 1398 earlier, so I figured you must have agreed with me. I guess not.
So what do you do with the concept of free will?
FYI and FWIW
I answer that, Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above (3). It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either.But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church. ...
III, Q74, Art 4
"11.. . . he [Simon Magus] feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism. 12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his [Simon Magus's] most impure heresy. For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves. The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received the merited punishment." [Eccl Hist, Book II, Ch 1, Sect 12]
11.". . . he [Simon Magus] feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism. 12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his [Simon Magus's] most impure heresy. For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves. The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received the merited punishment. . . .
6."We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations." [Eccl Hist, Book II, Ch 1, Sect 11,12... Ch 13, Sect 6]
First, thank you for your good wishes to me the other day.
Here's what we know from scripture. Jesus instructs the Twelve not to go to the Gentiles: [Matthew 10:5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. He does tell them, however ...where to go: [Matthew 10:6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He himself indicates that He has been sent to them also: [Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And He reconfirms this directive in [John 21:15-17] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Now we already know from [Matthew 10:6] that these Lost Sheep are the House of Israel. We also know that Paul was chosen as the Evangelizer to the Gentiles: [Acts 9:15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. Paul is also given authority to speak to Kings....and the children of Israel. This would include the Jews....and the other eleven tribes of Israel. Peter, on the other hand, as we have read from previous scripture is told that he can only Evangelize the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"....the circumcised...and this would include the Jews as well as the eleven other tribes.[Galatians 2:7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Scripture also shows that that was exactly to whom Peter committed his effort....the Lost Sheep: [1 Peter 1-2] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
If you notice, these areas were on the shores of the Black Sea....away from Roman influence, and these folks were obviously of the dispersion (Strangers scattered) and they had the foreknowledge of God. These folks were not Gentiles as many have believed...they were Israelites and that is exactly who Peter had been instructed to evangelize....and he is doing it from Babylon....not Rome![1 Peter 5:13] This area had been part of the old Assyrian Empire and these Israelites still resided there. You can read much about their history in the Book of II Kings. [II Kings 17:6] This dispersion of Israel happened 125 years earlier than the dispersion of the Jews (Judah)to Babylon....who did return. The northern kingdom (Israel) never returned.
Paul was actually told to stay away from here because that responsibility had been given to the "Twelve": [Acts 16 :6-7] Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
I don't think that you have given everyone proof. You have given everyone an indication, a good indication, but not a proof.
I believe that what I have just written gives everyone Biblical proof of my position. I'm of course not even including statements made by Josephus....a respected historian...as to the whereabouts of the remainder of Israel.
http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/tippin_aaron/videos.jhtml
The video is on this page :-).
In my experience JW's don't give up that easily while the LDS missionaries are so polite that they respect your wishes.
Keep your day job.
So everyone else is just wasting their time having Communion in their churches?
If you think you're saved you may be. Then again, you might not be. ITIS! (I think I'm saved)
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.