M
MDK
Guest
Yes, true. You could go on and on with this person, and they would probably never get it. It’s like a seemingly bottomless pit of falsehoods presented by this person.
- Status
C
curtishouse29
Guest
I would be interested to know if ANYBODY in this forum has ever been converted because of an argument. It seems that’s not what these discussions come down to though…Its just a matter of who gets to say they were right…God has worked on all of us and the day when God has completely reached him, he will be willing to listen to us. Until that day comes though, we have three options…Continue in these pointless debates with him, pray for him, or do both…I choose to just pray for him and let God handle the rest. When OS eventually comes searching with an open mind, I will gladly answer any questions he has. I used to be anti-Catholic myself and there was nothing you could say that would change my mind. Eventually God reached me and my mind was open and receptive to the Truth. All of my questions were then answered by some wonderful and knowledgeable Catholics from a yahoo group. If OS is truly seeking God and His church, he will find it and that is the Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic church! God bless.
Curtis
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Oh wow! Was that a pun? Or friendly fire?
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Just go to their website and you will find the history of when the Lutheran Church split into two groups. The ECLA, the liberal group left the LCMA, the conservative group, over such things as women pastors, homosexuallity, abortion, etc. The MS is the conservative, fundamental group…I understand that there has been another split off the ECLA into a third group even more liberal than the ECLA. I don’t remember their name.
The Missouri Synod is still the same Lutheran Church that has existed for centuries. They follow the ‘Book of Concord’. You can also find that on the internet and see exactly what is believed, and why.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Luther just returned to the church that Christ started and that existed for the first 300 years before Rome took it over. Read the early church fathers and see what they believed for yourself.
I’m sorry but I don’t know how to answer properly the way you list your quote as one large quote. You should quote each item separately and I could answer them the way you want it.
po18guy
Well-known member
Catholics, myself included, think more of scripture than you might. We left it inviolate. We changed nothing. We privately interpret nothing, in accordance with the advice of the bible itself.
You might have noted the obvious hyperbole I used in pointing out what almost seems to be bible worship. I do not worship it. It simply appears that you do. That’s all.
po18guy
Well-known member
You may chastise, you may point out, but you never rant! The accusation of ranting nearly always comes from someone who has no answer.Oh wow! Was that a pun? Or friendly fire?
Christ’s peace.
E
elts1956
Guest
Dear Militant. Instead of taking such a militant approach, which turns most people off, especially if they are not attacking anyone, or anything, why don’t you try reading the posts and answering with Catholic/Christian kindness? What makes you think the approach you used in your post will make anyone want to seek further information about the Catholic Church? Shame on you.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
It’s not that hard a question to answer
From what you are saying, it sounds like contraception is no longer sinful. There was a time when all the Lutheran faiths taught that contraception was sinful. What changed?
This is in answer to your earlier claim that the Catholic Church changes its teachings and all that, while the Lutheran church has not changed its teachings.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
CM is merely trying to show to OS that Catholics across the US take the Precious Blood from the chalice. OS seems to think he is the expert on the Catholic Mass. And, if he (OS) continues hs claim that no Catholic Church drinks the Blood from the chalice, than he is simply showing his ignorance on this.
In this particular point, it is incredible ignorance being displayed. There have been numerous Catholics on this thread who have testified that they partake in the Eucharist under both species and they know of no Church that doesn’t and OS continues to claim that he’s very familiar with the Mass and that this is simply not a part of the Mass. The charity sort of runs out when one who makes this claim tends to stick to this claim.
Wow! I hope that wasn’t a rant!
I’d hate to prove Po18 a liar within 5 posts!!!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Perhaps you should take a look at what the term “Church Militant” actually means before jumping on my case like this.
I don’t guess you have bothered to go back and look at Old Scholar’s post history yet. I suggest that you do so and then reconsider what I posted.
He consistently posts anti-Catholic propaganda and rhetoric without the least supporting substantiation and in most cases simply ignores those who offer rational and factual responses.
In this case, he makes grossly inaccurate statements as to what Catholics believe and practice as if they are fact and all I have done is point out that there is no factual support for his comments and offer him the opportunity to make good on whatever proofs he may have. (if any)
This individual purports himself to be some sort of religious scholar and yet his posts are mostly anything but scholarship. You never see the phrases, “I hear”, or “I think”, or any other qualifier that might indicate that he is expressing his opinion. Instead he make dogmatic statements probably with the intent to impugn the faith of Catholics and lead some astray.
That’s unrighteous IMO, and shame on him.
When he responds with facts, then perhaps the discussion with have more merit.
Thanks my friend!CM is merely trying to show to OS that Catholics across the US take the Precious Blood from the chalice. OS seems to think he is the expert on the Catholic Mass. And, if he (OS) continues hs claim that no Catholic Church drinks the Blood from the chalice, than he is simply showing his ignorance on this.
In this particular point, it is incredible ignorance being displayed. There have been numerous Catholics on this thread who have testified that they partake in the Eucharist under both species and they know of no Church that doesn’t and OS continues to claim that he’s very familiar with the Mass and that this is simply not a part of the Mass. The charity sort of runs out when one who makes this claim tends to stick to this claim.
Wow! I hope that wasn’t a rant!
I hate getting jumped like that by people who read a single post of mine and haven’t taken the time to see what is really going on in a discussion.
Your assessment however, is spot on.
Again, thank you.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Wrong again. There is no such standard. It simply depends on the number of people. In fact, the church teaches that the body contains the blood, so no one has to receive under both species except for the celebrating priest.
Again, you base you comments and opinions, not on scholarship, but on misperceptions and misinformation.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
If we separated the Body from the Blood, we would be crucifying Christ all over again. Anyone who claims that the Body is only in the bread and the Blood is only in the wine better wonder about that.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Okay…so?
That’s their problem because St. Paul plainly says he does and Ignatius of Antioch shows that he was also taught this by the apostle St. John.
If modern n-Cs do not hold to a scriptural and historically accurate teaching that is not the fault of the Catholic Church which has always taught this.
Every time…
I’ve seen this worn out argument before.
Nowhere did Our Lord tell us to do anything with a door or vine in remembrance of Him, did they?
Moreover, (again) when St. Paul plainly teaches it, thus giving us a direct apostolic source showing that this is how he interpreted Our Lord’s own words, who are these modern men to teach anything different?!
Sure… if you say so, but the New Testament and the verifiable writings of the early church prove you are dead wrong.
Have never drank “blook”…is that like one of those new flavors of Mountain Dew?
Seriously though, lessee…we were also commanded (under the same Jewish law) not to do any work or harvest on the sabbath, yet look at this passage of the New Testament and see what Our Lord teaches here.
Luke 6:1 And it came to pass on the second first sabbath, that as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. 2 And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days? 3 And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they that were with him: 4 How he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests? 5 And he said to them: The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. 6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And there was a man, whose right hand was withered. 7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched if he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find an accusation against him. 8 But he knew their thoughts; and said to the man who had the withered hand: Arise, and stand forth in the midst. And rising he stood forth. 9 Then Jesus said to them: I ask you, if it be lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil; to save life, or to destroy? 10 And looking round about on them all, he said to the man: Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored.
11 And they were filled with madness; and they talked one with another, what they might do to Jesus.
Now, if Our Lord Jesus Christ, (who is Lord of the Sabbath) Himself tells me 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 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. Just who do you think I’m going to hearken to? :bible1:
[SIGN]Alleluia!! Alleluia!![/SIGN]
C
Church_Militant
Guest
So for the first 1000 years, the Catholics in the Pews drink the cup, then the Pope changed this apostolic tradition.
I’m not sure when those few churches who allow the laity to drink from the cup first started doing it or whether it is sanctioned by the RCC but I know a few do allow it.What difference does any of this make?
You don’t believe it’s His Body and Blood anyway, so even if the discipline of this sacrament was wrong, which I don’t think it was, (Check to see what communicable diseases were spreading at that time!) you are still in gross error in your opposition to it.
Further still, unless all of the members at your services drink from the same cups, (None of the ones I was ever part of did!), then you are hypocritically holding Catholics to a standard that you yourself will not abide by even though you don’t do so.
Even the anti-Catholic website that you copied and pasted from hypocritically uses this picture of n-C communion.
See any communal cup there people?
That’s not scholarship, that’s outright plagiarism in using their stuff without a citation of source. (Good ole Google!
)For better information on this and to get his references to the popes and church teaching I suggest that everyone read.Communion under Both Kinds
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Matthew 26:29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
Says nothing at all that is relevant. This is pulled all out of context.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I can’t tell! Look at my post where I show a picture of n-C communion from the very a-C site that OS seems to like to get his propaganda from.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Oh yeah…as I have shown again and again and again…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Already been done and your assertion has been proved both Biblically and historically inaccurate.
Luther did no such thing, but that hardly matters since most modern post reformation n-Cs don’t even believe the same things that Luther or the other “Pillars of the Reformation” taught and preached.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Well the only earlier writings are from Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Diadach. Clement does not specifically state that Peter and Paul were in Rome, but he does describe their martyrdom in chapter 5 of the first letter. There is also a fragment from Piapas, I believe that is very early.
Ireneaus does make the first recorded statements about Peter preaching in Rome, but then again, so does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. All within the first three centuries. All coming from different parts of the ancient world. Alexandria, Cathage, Smyrna, and Rome.
Ireneaus was educated by Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, and he was ordained in Rome, spending a great deal of time there before going to Lyons. During the persecution of Decian, he returned to Rome. All this to say that Ireneaus had firsthand exprience of the church in Rome, and therefore of the Roman tradition regarding Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there. I see no reason why he would lie about this.
Ireneaus says that Rome was the last place that Peter preached. The letters of Paul to the Romans and even Luke’s Acts may predate the time he spent in Rome. (Note that the only recorded martyrom of an apostle is in Acts and is James.) Also, Second Peter is sent by Peter from Babylon, which was code word for Rome in the early church. This is attested to by many apocryphal writings that both predate Christianity and come from the same era.
I’ve given multiple first, second and third century writers who claim otherwise. I’m not overly concerned with the bones however. I actually don’t know much about the issue.
This contradicts the written historical accounts I’ve mentioned. I’m willing to agree that it is possible, just like it is also possible that they’ve found Jesus’ tomb and that my faith is false. But I find it unlikely.
Well Peter didn’t only minister to the Jews. He preached to Cornelius. He was also involved with Gentile converts when he started to eat separately from the Gentiles in Antioch and Paul rebuked him for it. I also believe there were many palestinian Jews in Rome. I don’t think they were exiled until Nero’s percecution, during which both Paul and Peter were probably martyred.
The tradition mentioned by Clement of Alexandria and Origen is that Mark wrote the Gospel while Peter was Preaching in Rome.
Again, according to Irenaeus, Rome was the last place Peter preached before his martyrdom. The accounts we have from acts predate his journey there. All the letters of Paul predate his journey there. John’s Gospel makes alusion to the suffering Peter will endure, but it would have been anachronistic for him to mention Peter’s journey’s to Rome in that account. John’s letters, on the other hand, are not an account of the sufferings of the apostles. They contain doctrinal information.
I’m not sure what writing you are referring to. Most of those writings are of gnostic origine and come from late in the second and third century, so I don’t worry about them much.
God bless,
Ut
- Status