Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
There is no need for further conversation. I will pray that your heart is opened to actually understanding the word of God.
It is unfortunate that your Church in conflict with Scripture. I will pray for you as well.
Reading the mind of another Freeper is also a form of making it personal. Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Correct, it should have said something like, "Your posts are rapidly revealing themselves to be some of the most ignorant or insolent examples of RC sophistry," which "appears to reveal desperation."
the dictionary defines "is":
is verb
1. 3rd person singular present indicative of be. Idioms
2. as is.
The dictionary defines "be":verb (used without object), present singular 1st person am, 2nd are or (Archaic) art, 3rd is, present plural are; past singular 1st person was, 2nd were or (Archaic) wast or wert, 3rd was, past plural were; present subjunctive be; past subjunctive singular 1st person were, 2nd were or (Archaic) wert, 3rd were; past subjunctive plural were; past participle been; present participle being.
1. to exist or live: Shakespeare's “To be or not to be” is the ultimate question.
2. to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.
3. to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.
4. to continue or remain as before: Let things be.
5. to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.
6. (used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she.
Prots translate "is" into: This is a representation of His Body. They were symbolically ingesting His Spirit and Words.
Now someone explain to me how it is the Catholics that change the definition of words. I have looked at both definitions and I don't see any close to "representation"
You had asked " Isn't it a beautiful thing to have assurance of salvation? " Sometimes one asks a question for which one does not really want an answer. Nonetheless, the LORD Jesus Christ, whom you invoked in humor, said what I posted in earnest and we are all well advised, and warned, to believe and heed what he said.
If any think otherwise, that the warnings of the LORD do not apply to him, he may go to Corinth for a remarkably similar instruction. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses one to thirteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Why read "this is my body" literally and then read essentially identical sentences figuratively? Isn't that a bit of special pleading? Isn't this the same mistake that Mormons make when using figurative language to prove that God the Father has a physical body?
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. I don't know why you would want to read those verses literally when they make so much more sense otherwise. While Jesus was dying on the cross, did John ask to drink his blood from the spear wound? When Jesus appeared before Thomas with nail holes, did Thomas say give me a bite of that flesh to remember you by? This bizarre transubstantiation ritual has a definite superstition/occult odor to it. God has forbidden the ingesting of blood and yet here the RCC overrules the Almighty. You play word games, read your Koine Greek and can't see the forest for the trees. May God have mercy on your soul.
In John 6 He clearly stated that He is the "Bread of Life" that must be consumed. When people began to walk away he did not call them back, NO! he stated it two more times
He asked the apostles if they were going to leave and none of them did.
The Apostle Paul states: 1 Cor 11:29 because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
He was not taking it as a metaphor.
So the question still remains; how do prots accuse Catholics of changing the meaning of words
Because the truth is all there is. It may be difficult to accept, and many have walked away they did in John 6, but those that stayed had the truth, the words of eternal life.
Now you are mind reading Paul. Hmmm. How do you know if he was taking it literally or metaphorically? The verse in question merely asks the believer to self examine their life/behaviour to see if they are worthy to participate in communion. Better to self examine that be judged by God.
If Christ was constructing a metaphor (as He was), how else would He express it? No one is disputing that Jesus used the word is. Was it intended to be understood literally or figuratively? The information you provided about the word is provided nothing useful in determining the answer to that question. The meaning would be inferred by the context.
More later, I have to go to dinner.
Have a good day.
No more later I have said my fill. Have a good day.
” In the actual original Koione Greek the phrase actually says “this is the body of me”. Instead of being the possessive sense ie: “This is my pencil” He is not speaking of a mere object that is possessed/ owned/ held> He is speaking of a state of existence.”
It is the historical context of Passover the the totality of inspired revelation about the Lord’s Supper that shows it was not literally his body. Greek in isolation is not helpful here.
“In John 6 He clearly stated that He is the “Bread of Life” that must be consumed. When people began to walk away he did not call them back, NO! he stated it two more times”
Have you considered He wanted them to go away? They were in it for the food. He redirected them back to Himself as the Bread of Life. “Consuming Him” doesn’t mean eating Him.
“He asked the apostles if they were going to leave and none of them did.”
For what reasons, we do not know. We surmise reasons.
“The Apostle Paul states: 1 Cor 11:29 because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
The passage is about the corporate Body of Christ and relationships in the Body being right before a believer partakes in the Lord’s Supper.
“He was not taking it as a metaphor.”
He was.
“So the question still remains; how do prots accuse Catholics of changing the meaning of words “
I can’t speak for “prots”, but as a Christian, the answer isn’t that they change words. Once the Vatican authority has told them what to believe, “Cats” steer to it. This involves a selective approach in what is literal and what is not. What they don’t do though is study to show themselves approved as workmen who can rightly handle the Word of Truth. One frequent Froman poster here on FR told me she is too busy to study God’s Word because “she has a life.” And so it goes.
Hey vet, when I asked Iscool that question, I already knew the answer. Let me ask again. Iscool, isn't it a beautiful thing to have assurance of salvation? I know it is, and I am sure you know it too.
Vet, if you have no assurance, I don't know for sure, but maybe it's because you don't want any. I feel sorry for you. I certainly have assurance of salvation, even if you think I can't have it. You CAN know for sure too. It is so easy, a child can understand it. As one AF Vet to another, get with the program sergeant. 😇
GOD the Cosmic Chicken!
https://davedeane.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/the-cosmic-chicken/
Good question!
A bit meaningless; but good for misdirecting.
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
I just love direct questions.
Do you like direct answers??
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
The 'context' was a Yearly meal of rememberance of GOD's provenance.
Somehow the church has modified it into an 'every time the doors are open' ritual.
God DOES answer the prayers of a PROT!!
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.