a Question for our non-CATHOLIC BRETHREN

[PRmerger]

My friend, I wish it was possible to narrow it down to John 6 and that passage clearing all understanding for the real body, blood and divinity of our Lord.

Oh, just to be clear: it was never my intention to “narrow it [the dogma of the Real Presence] down to John 6”.

As a Catholic I embrace the Word of God in its entirety. That’s why I appeal to Scripture and Tradition, interpreted through the lens of the Magisterium.

My point was that those who present a view of the Eucharist as being “spiritual” have removed the “hard saying” part of Jesus’ message to make it quite palatable and attractive. There is absolutely nothing at all that’s a “hard saying” about Jesus being spiritually present at their eucharistic remembrances.

In fact, that’s a very nice idea to have.

And no one would have left Jesus over that!

Thus, it is an untenable position to espouse a “spiritual only” interpretation of John 6, when one considers the fact that his disciples departed from him over a very, very difficult to accept teaching Jesus mandated.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I was going to admit of having beer and/or wine in some of those discussions, but I refrained

And you do mean real wine/beer and not symbolic, right?

 

[GKC]

We can work on that!

http://images.davidlawrence.com/ProductImagesCDN/201xxx/201808_slab.jpg

http://www2.volstate.edu/chem/1110/copperclad10.gif

Not paper fiat currency; you could print for any fraction you wanted…

But that penny looks like a possibility.

GKC

 

[Memaw]

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.

Read the 6th chapter of John and then about the Last Supper. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Protector]

Isaiah45_9;11746626] I was going to admit of having beer and/or wine in some of those discussions, but **I refrained **

Why refrain? Have you forgotten the old Latin motto, " IN VINO VERITAS! "?** (In wine, truth.)

Protector.

 

[rcwitness]

(It is? Or are you joking?)

I was joking. But I am not a big fan of gambling. It has a large tendancy to become sin for some.

Michael

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And you do mean real wine/beer and not symbolic, right?

Oh yes! Ales and Pilsners varieties and Bordeaux and Rioja varieties!

 

[Tomyris]

I think if you accept that, and apply it as you have done to the Catholic Faith, you would have to conclude that Mormonism is the true faith.

I am quite proud of the charity, humility, genuine kindness I see in Mormons. They get family values right. They don’t smoke, drink, see R-rated movies.

Nary a Mormon has been in the news for cheating, stealing, lying or adultery. Even if one extrapolates statistically their lower numbers demographically, by far the number of Mormons who are bad apples is exceedingly LOW.

So if you want to apply your standard, you ought to be giving Mormonism a as the true faith which bears the ripest, sweetest fruit.

Nice Mormon apologetics job, there. Probably you are on several of their websites by now, unfortunately. You should pray your words don’t cause some of your fellow Catholics to become Mormon.

I, however, am not so gullible as to swallow and parrot Mormon apologetics propaganda. For one thing, I know too much about what they do in terms of evangelism and dishonest practices directed towards non-Mormons. I guess you are a big fan of Harry Reid. And I have known some Mormons and they are not quite the image they project. No, not quite.

And you then would have to reject Christ Himself, who picked some pretty rotten fruit. Truly, how much more rotten can you get than Judas?

Well, there is me, for one.

Peter rejected Jesus three times, but Judas only once. The difference is forgiveness.

How much worse punishment do you think will fall on those who had full and complete knowledge of what they were doing in exchanging Christ for secular, worldly power and wealth, those who were supposedly full of the Holy Spirit and charged to lead His flock, than Judas got, who possibly did not have full and complete information and may even have thought, initially, that what he was doing was right?

 

[PRmerger]

Nice Mormon apologetics job, there. Probably you are on several of their websites by now, unfortunately. You should pray your words don’t cause some of your fellow Catholics to become Mormon.

Heh.

But the point remains: if one follows the paradigm of judging truth by the fruits, then it is incontrovertible–Mormonism is true.

Incidentally, the thought occurred to me last night that I do think you should apply this paradigm to Catholicism, in light of our supremely and profoundly holy men and women that have come ONLY from the fruit of the sacramental grace of Catholicism.

To wit: Maximilian Kolbe.

And Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.

I’m pretty sure that Catholicism has produced more holy men and women than all of the other Christian denominations combined.

 

[PRmerger]

Peter rejected Jesus three times, but Judas only once. The difference is forgiveness.

True.

It’s a non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

Again, if you look at how bad Catholics are, and conclude, “Then Catholicism simply cannot be true”…

you must then look at how bad Judas was, and conclude, “Then Jesus simply cannot be true.”

How much worse punishment do you think will fall on those who had full and complete knowledge of what they were doing in exchanging Christ for secular, worldly power and wealth, those who were supposedly full of the Holy Spirit and charged to lead His flock, than Judas got, who possibly did not have full and complete information and may even have thought, initially, that what he was doing was right?

Indeed.

 

[PJM]

=Kliska;11744094]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.

My friend please REREAD post #72

Even God cannot be more plain.

The issue is God’s Grace. Without it no one is able to understand. We call religious practice “Our FAITH” because NOT everything is either visible or comprehensible.

ONLY through understanding God’s love for his created humanity MIGHT one be able to understand the degree of God’s love, He DIED for YOU; He created the universe so that we CAN KNOW He is God and He does exist.

Look up Isaiah 43L verses 7 & 21 to see WHY we exist.

If God loves you enough to DIE for YOU; can He not love you enough to keep on LIVING for you; to make your salvation far more likely.

Because our Protestant friends begin with a FALSE premise the entire house is “sand” NOT “rock”.

GOOGLE Eucharistic Miracles; they happen even in present times.

PRAY for the grace of true Faith and its fruits of right Wisdom and Understanding, and I will pray with you,.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[Kliska]

Your protestant friends believe the foundation is rock, not sand, the house is what we build on top with either yielding to the Spirit (precious gold and gems) or fighting the Spirit (wood, hay, stubble). The foundation? Jesus the Christ, who lived, died, and rose for the world, wanting all to come to a faith in Him. Many protestants have their faith in Him, as do many Catholics.

 

[rcwitness]

Your protestant friends believe the foundation is rock, not sand, the house is what we build on top with either yielding to the Spirit (precious gold and gems) or fighting the Spirit (wood, hay, stubble). The foundation? Jesus the Christ, who lived, died, and rose for the world, wanting all to come to a faith in Him. Many protestants have their faith in Him, as do many Catholics.

And you are well:thumbsup:

Remember, though… Catholics believe in a Teaching which is given through the apostles which is for Confirmation. So when you say, “many protestants have their faith in Him”, this is very true. Though NO protestant has the full deposit of faith given to the Church. And yet not all Catholics follow even nearly as much of the genuine faith which Protestantism offers!

Thanks for your fellowship
Michael

 

[Kliska]

And you are well:thumbsup:

Remember, though… Catholics believe in a Teaching which is given through the apostles which is for Confirmation. So when you say, “many protestants have their faith in Him”, this is very true. Though NO protestant has the full deposit of faith given to the Church. And yet not all Catholics follow even nearly as much of the genuine faith which Protestantism offers!

Thanks for your fellowship
Michael

I think that is a key to any discussion between Christians; we ALL believe in Jesus and His Headship. We then believe in different ecclesiolgy, but most of us all have the same theology. lol I’ve always said that that actual practicing Catholics and “practicing” protestants are closer than our non-practicing brethren.

Grace and peace to you,
K

 

[Protector]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
I think if you accept that, and apply it as you have done to the Catholic Faith, you would have to conclude that Mormonism is the true faith.

I am quite proud of the charity, humility, genuine kindness I see in Mormons. They get family values right. They don’t smoke, drink, see R-rated movies.

Nary a Mormon has been in the news for cheating, stealing, lying or adultery. Even if one extrapolates statistically their lower numbers demographically, by far the number of Mormons who are bad apples is exceedingly LOW.

So if you want to apply your standard, you ought to be giving Mormonism a as the true faith which bears the ripest, sweetest fruit.

Tomyris;11748122] Nice Mormon apologetics job, there. Probably you are on several of their websites by now, unfortunately. You should pray your words don’t cause some of your fellow Catholics to become Mormon.

I, however, am not so gullible as to swallow and parrot Mormon apologetics propaganda. For one thing, I know too much about what they do in terms of evangelism and dishonest practices directed towards non-Mormons. I guess you are a big fan of Harry Reid. And I have known some Mormons and they are not quite the image they project. No, not quite.

Peter rejected Jesus three times, but Judas only once. The difference is forgiveness.

How much worse punishment do you think will fall on those who had full and complete knowledge of what they were doing in exchanging Christ for secular, worldly power and wealth, those who were supposedly full of the Holy Spirit and charged to lead His flock, than Judas got, who possibly did not have full and complete information ***and… ***

may even have thought, initially, that what he was doing was right?

As did Saul of Tarsus, whilst consenting to the stoning of Stephen (c.AD 34), and subsequently rounding-up and persecuting Christians.

Christ Himself said to the disciples,

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” John 16:2

Protector.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11748214]True.

It’s a non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

Again, if you look at how bad Catholics are, and conclude, “Then Catholicism simply cannot be true”…

you must then look at how bad Judas was, and conclude, “Then Jesus simply cannot be true.”

Indeed.

That dear friend is not only wrong; and untrue; its a lack of charity.
There are in excess of a BILLION catholics world wide; amd MANY Saints.

Are we to assume that your faith has to failures?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PRmerger]

That dear friend is not only wrong; and untrue; its a lack of charity.
There are in excess of a BILLION catholics world wide; amd MANY Saints.

Are we to assume that your faith has to failures?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Dearest Patrick!! Please, please, please put me on your ignore list. For I am ever soooo tired of having you read my posts and accuse me of being uncharitable in such an astonishingly injudicious manner.

You do not ever respond to my posts correctly when I am merely using rhetorical arguments.

So I thank you in advance for not reading my posts nor responding to them again.

Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

As did Saul of Tarsus, whilst consenting to the stoning of Stephen (c.AD 34), and subsequently rounding-up and persecuting Christians.

Christ Himself said to the disciples,

Protector.

I am not understanding your post, in response to mine?

 

[Taurks]

I’m pretty sure that Catholicism has produced more holy men and women than all of the other Christian denominations combined.

We should not even worry about such a question when we still have to make our own souls holy.

 

[Protector]

PRmerger;11752029] I am not understanding your post, in response to mine?

My! My! My! You really are “…ever soooo tired …”.

Sorry dear, I was actually putting an ad-lib onto the end of Patrick’s reply to you.)

Protector.