a Question for our non-CATHOLIC BRETHREN

[Remember_Me]

The supremacy of the pope & transubstantiation. This is off topic, but what attracts me to Catholicism is the convent, the Virgin Mary, and Catholic artwork(I hope that doesn’t sound trivial). To join a convent and remain celibate is truly remarkable. It gives me encouragement to remain celibate too.

 

[Darryl_B]

No, it is the understanding of the way things would have been communicated 1) in the Israelite/Jewish cultural frame of the OT/NT and 2) the platonic/cultural frame of many of the ECF’s. Taking those into account, I don’t see either supporting transubstantiation of the Eucharist. At most, I could say some ECF’s or early Christian writers supported the idea of transubstantiation.

Sorry, I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative but you say “no”, but when you elaborate you say “yes”. I will leave you to reflect on your “cultural framework”. God bless.

 

[Darryl_B]

The supremacy of the pope & transubstantiation. This is off topic, but what attracts me to Catholicism is the convent, the Virgin Mary, and Catholic artwork(I hope that doesn’t sound trivial). To join a convent and remain celibate is truly remarkable. It gives me encouragement to remain celibate too.

If I could ask you a question to clarify this. Do you have a problem with the primacy of Peter himself? Or do you just have a problem with succession?

 

[Kliska]

Sorry, I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative but you say “no”, but when you elaborate you say “yes”. I will leave you to reflect on your “cultural framework”. God bless.

I’m sorry but you have it backwards, it is my ability to get out of my own cultural framework and into theirs that causes me to think the majority of early Christian writers did not teach a somatic literal change of total substance from bread to body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No, it is the understanding of the way things would have been communicated 1) in the Israelite/Jewish cultural frame of the OT/NT and 2) the platonic/cultural frame of many of the ECF’s. Taking those into account, I don’t see either supporting transubstantiation of the Eucharist. At most, I could say some ECF’s or early Christian writers supported the idea of transubstantiation.

I can’t help but interpret that you are looking for a democratic decree in this matter.

Since ECF’s and Early Christian writers have in fact supported the body, blood and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist and the Church, in Her authority to bind and lose, has spoken on this matter. The matter should then be put at rest.

I think that the issue is not the somatic subject you struggle with but the authority of the Church. And I’m not saying we can’t question, Lord knows how much I do!!! But, are we being too stubborn? Are we being a little obstinate when we can see an answer but we demand more and more? There is a fine line between inquiring and demanding.

 

[Kliska]

I can’t help but interpret that you are looking for a democratic decree in this matter.

Since ECF’s and Early Christian writers have in fact supported the body, blood and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist and the Church, in Her authority to bind and lose, has spoken on this matter. The matter should then be put at rest.

That’s the point, I don’t believe the scriptures or a majority of truly early writers do support the literal somatic/physical presence in the transubstantiated sense.

I think that the issue is not the somatic subject you struggle with but the authority of the Church. And I’m not saying we can’t question, Lord knows how much I do!!! But, are we being too stubborn? Are we being a little obstinate when we can see an answer but we demand more and more? There is a fine line between inquiring and demanding.

That is a separate but related issue, as I don’t believe the RCC’s claim on the matter of jurisdiction or infallibility. If I did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s the point, I don’t believe the scriptures or a majority of truly early writers do support the literal somatic/physical presence in the transubstantiated sense.

Ok, I call 2 witnesses:

Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch.

I don’t know of earlier (Except the Apostles) writers that talk talk on the subject. But if you are expecting to see the exact word “transubstantiation”, then our conversation is pretty much over. But keep in mind that the concept of the Trinity falls in this category as well.

That is a separate but related issue, as I don’t believe the RCC’s claim on the matter of jurisdiction or infallibility. If I did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion

Right, we need to fix that

 

[mjwise]

Universal immediate jurisdiction is the biggest. Nearly all others I could reason my way through.

This. I have other disagreements obviously, but this is where it all ultimately comes from.

 

[Kliska]

Ok, I call 2 witnesses:

Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch.

I don’t know of earlier (Except the Apostles) writers that talk talk on the subject. But if you are expecting to see the exact word “transubstantiation”, then our conversation is pretty much over. But keep in mind that the concept of the Trinity falls in this category as well.

I have not problem if the concept is taught clearly (such as the Trinity) in scripture, but thus far I remain unconvicted.

Right, we need to fix that

lol As always, take in up with Our Father, I will go wherever He tells me to go and believe what He leads me to believe.

 

[PJM]

=Remember_Me;11741214]The supremacy of the pope & transubstantiation. This is off topic, but what attracts me to Catholicism is the convent, the Virgin Mary, and Catholic artwork(I hope that doesn’t sound trivial). To join a convent and remain celibate is truly remarkable. It gives me encouragement to remain celibate too.

WOW Way to go!

Now ask yourself how this is possible for people to live this way?

The Answer likes in the KEY"S given to Peter as God’s Gate Keeper for heaven access AND the Seven Sacraments; a Source of untold and NUMEROUS Graces. Notably: Sacramental Confession: the ONLY manner Christ Mandates and desires & the Most Holy eucharist: Jesus Christ; in person.

“Be holy, for I the LORD AM Holy”

God Bless you. If you have any question please PM me.

Patrick

 

[rcwitness]

I have not problem if the concept is taught clearly (such as the Trinity) in scripture, but thus far I remain unconvicted.

“If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51

“This is my body, which is given for you.” Luke 22:19

That’s pretty clear!!!

Peace
Michael

 

[PJM]

=rcwitness;11743978]Jesus, “This is my body”

Again, “If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

That’s pretty clear!!!

Peace
Michael

I’ll piggy-back Michaels comment with this:
John 6: 51-56
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] H**e that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. **[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed".

It can’t be sated more specifically CLEAR than this:shrug:

May God Gide all to HIS Truth

 

[Kliska]

“If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51

“This is my body, which is given for you.” Luke 22:19

That’s pretty clear!!!

Peace
Michael

I’ve read the scriptures. It is clear to me, esp. with John 6, He is indeed speaking symbolically. Thus far I’ve not been swayed. I know that standard arguments, I just don’t agree.

The main area to consider is the Last Supper itself; what was meant. I don’t see transubstantiation there, at least not yet.

 

[rcwitness]

I’ve read the scriptures. It is clear to me, esp. with John 6, He is indeed speaking symbolically. Thus far I’ve not been swayed. I know that standard arguments, I just don’t agree.

The main area to consider is the Last Supper itself; what was meant. I don’t see transubstantiation there, at least not yet.

That is your personal interpretation. You believe many disciples left Jesus because he spoke symbolically. You believe He was not Teaching the Communion meal of the New Covenant. The Church has, for over two thousand yrs, Taught this is about the Eucharist. Neither Jesus nor the Church Teaches it is merely ‘eating’, but believing in what we are eating. Spiritual Food, become real food! Jesus made the bread Holy for our benefit. For the foundation of His Church.

Your interpretation causes division for yourself. If you were of one spiritual body, why would you reject the physical body that makes you one with the Lord?

A metaphoric body only gives excuse to believe different teachings than His own.

Michael

 

[Remember_Me]

If I could ask you a question to clarify this. Do you have a problem with the primacy of Peter himself? Or do you just have a problem with succession?

I wouldn’t say I have a problem, rather I don’t understand either one. I know the scripture, Matt. 16:18, but I don’t understand how that was interpreted to mean that Peter became a pope.

 

[Remember_Me]

WOW Way to go!

Now ask yourself how this is possible for people to live this way?

The Answer likes in the KEY"S given to Peter as God’s Gate Keeper for heaven access AND the Seven Sacraments; a Source of untold and NUMEROUS Graces. Notably: Sacramental Confession: the ONLY manner Christ Mandates and desires & the Most Holy eucharist: Jesus Christ; in person.

“Be holy, for I the LORD AM Holy”

God Bless you. If you have any question please PM me.

Patrick

Thank You!

 

[PRmerger]

There are a number of issues, but probably the biggest is the spectacular refusal of the bishops and priests to teach, or model, the Catholic faith to the people. In particular is my RCIA instructor who rejected the Trinity, taught us Muslim prayers (in front of the priest) and said we really have no way of knowing what happened with “the Jesus events” because the records are untrustworthy and were written centuries after those events. He thought there was no way we could know if someone named Jesus ever lived. He is the director of religious instruction. I looked at the parish paper recently and he wrote an article in which he discussed Jesus having demons in him.

I heard a homily once on how to make bread, another on the places in the sanctuary where the bishop anointed the place.

I have repeatedly run into Catholics who know much less about Catholicism than I do, even on CAF, and Catholics who, by their lifestyle, testify that the Church is not to be believed. In our church we have many people who have left the Catholic church and repeatedly say that the reason they left was the lack of teaching. I know a woman who went to parish school with the children of the mafia - everyone knew what the parents did - but it was ok, there was no call for repentance or holy living. One could be a good Catholic and be in the mafia, too. That’s what she grew up with. Another woman I know said what she likes about being a practicing Catholic is that there is a loophole for everything, so you can do whatever you want without ever worrying about sin. This is the testimony of Catholics I know, and CAF is a small voice in a roaring river of this kind of stuff.

YIPES!

Sadly, what you offer above is not an isolated incident.

But there’s one response to the above: you don’t leave Jesus because of Judas.

Or, I have also heard: you don’t leave Peter because of Judas.

Any 1st century Jew who saw the antics of the apostles–Judas, namely, but the others as well–and concluded that Jesus was therefore not divine would have been making an egregious error.

Judge Catholicism by her teachings. Not by those who don’t follow the teachings.

[SIGN1]Abusus non tollit usum.[/SIGN1]

 

[Kliska]

That is your personal interpretation.

We were asked for such in this thread. I’ve been very open in the other threads on Transubstantiation and the Eucharist, asking for apologetics, etc… and reading books, write-ups by popes, theologians, apologists. Again, I’ve not had a light bulb moment. If the Lord wills it, it will either happen or not.

You believe many disciples left Jesus because he spoke symbolically. You believe He was not Teaching the Communion meal of the New Covenant. The Church has, for over two thousand yrs, Taught this is about the Eucharist. Neither Jesus nor the Church Teaches it is merely ‘eating’, but believing in what we are eating. Spiritual Food, become real food! Jesus made the bread Holy for our benefit. For the foundation of His Church.

We share many of the same beliefs but they are explained, expressed, and applied very differently.

Your interpretation causes division for yourself. If you were of one spiritual body, why would you reject the physical body that makes you one with the Lord?

A metaphoric body only gives excuse to believe different teachings than His own.

Michael

Even the RCC acknowledges that we are indeed part of the body of Christ; in the case of the RCC it is through baptism. It is the same from my POV, as we are baptized by the Holy Spirit. I don’t reject the actual physical body, as I believe in Jesus; He is indeed the actual physical body. However, just as we are not literally “the Body of Christ” I don’t believe the bread transubstantiates into the literal physical Body of Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

We were asked for such in this thread. I’ve been very open in the other threads on Transubstantiation and the Eucharist, asking for apologetics, etc… and reading books, write-ups by popes, theologians, apologists. Again, I’ve not had a light bulb moment. If the Lord wills it, it will either happen or not…

Indeed you have! Thank you for your honesty, it is not easy to do - let alone in an environment such as this. I very much respect you, not only for your honesty but for the class you have demonstrated in your arguments.

I pray you can receive this mystery of faith in your spirit.

God Bless you,

 

[Microfrog]

puts on a helmet in case of incoming shrapnel.

I was interested in Roman Catholicism, after going from being a Buddhist atheist to a theist (without any specific religious affiliation). This happened when the new pope, Pope Francis I, was first voted in and made his first appearance. I ended up becoming a Reformed Protestant after a lot of studying of God’s word.

My main issues with Roman Catholicism (and I pray I’ll say these things in a way that won’t be too offensive, at least I hope you who reads this knows I’m not purposely trying to maliciously offend anybody) are the veneration of saints and, in particular, Mary the mother of Jesus, the Mass, prayers for the dead, Purgatory, and the Pope as the head of the church instead of Christ.

I had serious problems with these issues. So… Yeah. That’s why.

God bless.