canabalism

[Mickey]

Christianity was founded about 2,000 years ago.

But your interpretation of the Scriptures has existed for less than 500 years.

 

[trrocks03]

But your interpretation of the Scriptures has existed for less than 500 years.

This is the same thing I said, but it was thrown out.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Mama Mia!!! Are you really a pastor!?!

Your interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is fringe post Luther reformation.

I’m beginning to think that this is just someone pretending to be a pastor, someone here to rattle the cages so to speak. His arguments are disproven with his own posts and he sights very little scripture to back his opinions.

 

[VociMike]

I’m joining this thread late after returning from vacation, so beg pardon if this has already been stated.

To make the claim of cannibalism is to deny both the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

It denies the Incarnation because it claims that the flesh being eaten is that of a human person, but Jesus Christ is a Divine Person.

It denies the Resurrection because it claims that the flesh of Jesus Christ that we consume is dead, and that the body of Jesus Christ is rendered asunder, but the entire body of Jesus Christ is risen, whole, alive and glorified.

So those non-Catholic Christians who make the claim of cannibalism are denying two of the fundamental tenets of the Chrisian faith. Probably not a good path to go down.

 

[Des]

Why would He hold up a piece of bread?

To obviously signify the Transubstantiation that will/did take place under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

I’m not asking you what they thought. I’m asking you what you think.

Well seeing that he didn’t repeat it again and again, and have His disciples leave when he said this and since both the East and the West Churches never implied otherwise, it’s obviously symbolic.

And these men were fallible. That’s why we follow what God’s infallible word says and not what fallible men say.

What are you even talking about. We are talking about how they understood what Jesus meant. That is the crux of the matter. How those that knew the culture and language misunderstood him where as you (2000 years later and of a different culture and language) are so sure to GET what He meant with something you say is so simple to understand.

And fallible men who wrote an Infallible Bible. Gee that’s weird huh.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The book of Acts describes the church as being estabished about forty days after Christ’s ascension into Heaven.

2/3 of the books of the Bible were written long before this.

Now I see the error of this statement…

Yes the old testament was written before Christ ascension. The ascention took place 40 days after the resurrection, way before even St. Paul became Catholic. Where is the evidence the the apostles wrote the bible before the ascention? So maybe the 2/3 statement is close if you include the old testament but not 2/3rds of the new testament.

 

[Mickey]

I’m beginning to think that this is just someone pretending to be a pastor, someone here to rattle the cages so to speak. His arguments are disproven with his own posts and he sights very little scripture to back his opinions.

Agreed.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Jim forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Where in the Bible does it say that God shows mercy to sinners based on the prayers of others?

According to you, what good would praying for us do???

Another extrabiblical doctine?? In which post were you mistaken? It has to be one of these.

Could you provide an answer to post 108?

 

[Teflon93]

I’m beginning to think that this is just someone pretending to be a pastor, someone here to rattle the cages so to speak. His arguments are disproven with his own posts and he sights very little scripture to back his opinions.

Has he claimed to be a pastor, or are you inferring such from his nom de forum?

He has not even admitted to a denomination insofar as I can tell.

One ought not expect pastors to know Scripture nor to argue well. I’ve run into many a Protestant pastor over the years who excelled in neither capacity. Standards vary.

I’ll never forget attending my niece’s “dedication” at a Methodist congregation whose pastor, a very young man (not more than 25, I’d gather), had not even attended whatever their equivalent is for seminary and who as part of his sermon reflected on his doubts that he would remain a Methodist, although he confessed to eschewing Lutheranism because he found it “boring”.

He certainly would fare no better than Pastor Jim has in this thread, and yet he was the pastor of that particular flock.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

And these men were fallible. That’s why we follow what God’s infallible word says and not what fallible men say.

Actually, that’s not one of our doctrines. We don’t believe that at all.

The above item, proves your second opinion is incompatible with the first in the same post.

Just so no one is confused, the doctrine being discussed if the idea of scripture being used as a sole source of christian knowledge as a protestant doctine. The second opinion is the response to the “idea”. The first is a response to another poster regarding the validity of scripture.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Has he claimed to be a pastor, or are you inferring such from his nom de forum?

He has not even admitted to a denomination insofar as I can tell.

One ought not expect pastors to know Scripture nor to argue well. I’ve run into many a Protestant pastor over the years who excelled in neither capacity. Standards vary.

I’ll never forget attending my niece’s “dedication” at a Methodist congregation whose pastor, a very young man (not more than 25, I’d gather), had not even attended whatever their equivalent is for seminary and who as part of his sermon reflected on his doubts that he would remain a Methodist, although he confessed to eschewing Lutheranism because he found it “boring”.

He certainly would fare no better than Pastor Jim has in this thread, and yet he was the pastor of that particular flock.

Right. This coming from the two geniuses who don’t even know that the OT was written before the church was established and believe that the Apostles wrote the OT.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Can anyone spell “invincible ignorance”? Pastor Jim is organically incapable of recognizing or understanding the truth of the Eucharist. It is not a matter of him willfully refusing to accept it, he simply cannot. God understands this and will not hold him accountable. But we may as well quit beating our heads against the proverbial brick wall, :banghead: because he will never understand.

 

[VociMike]

Can anyone spell “invincible ignorance”? Pastor Jim is organically incapable of recognizing or understanding the truth of the Eucharist. It is not a matter of him willfully refusing to accept it, he simply cannot. God understands this and will not hold him accountable. But we may as well quit beating our heads against the proverbial brick wall, :banghead: because he will never understand.

This actually brings up an interesting question. Can anybody who discusses the faith with numerous informed Catholics still claim invincible ignorance? I honestly don’t know the correct answer to that.

 

[Teflon93]

Right. This coming from the two geniuses who don’t even know that the OT was written before the church was established and believe that the Apostles wrote the OT.

My, such fruit you display toward your Christian brothers, Pastor Jim.

As noted above, many times, the issue was you didn’t realize that when Catholics refer to Sacred Scripture, it means Old AND New Testaments. Thus, when you claimed that Scripture was composed prior to the Catholic Church, we “two geniuses” called you on it. When you clarified your terminology to indicate you were referring to the Old Testament, we “two geniuses” agreed that it had indeed that the OT had been composed prior to Pentecost.

The point remains, utterly refuting your false tradition of sola scriptura, that the Catholic Church and its Tradition preceded the composition of the New Testament. Christ founded a Church, the Catholic Church. Even the most cursory review of the Early Church Fathers reveals it was this Church to which they belonged, this Church which abides to this day, just as Christ promised she would.

It is unfortunate for your position that this be so, but facts are facts.

As we’ve seen with your waving off of John 6 and the evidence of the Eucharistic beliefs and practices of the Early Church Fathers, you prefer your late and false tradition handed you by the long-dead Reformers to the Church given you by Christ and the Apostles.

Such is your wont, as was the Prodigal Son’s.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

My, such fruit you display toward your Christian brothers, Pastor Jim.

Thank you. Just as Jesus and Paul used sarcasm to drive home a point, I find it works well for me, too.

Thus, when you claimed that Scripture was composed prior to the Catholic Church, we “two geniuses” called you on it.

Actually, what I said was “2/3 of scripture” not the whole of scripture.

As we’ve seen with your waving off of John 6…

I haven’t waved it off at all. I’ve discussed it constantly.

you prefer your late and false tradition handed you by the long-dead Reformers to the Church given you by Christ and the Apostles.

I prefer the word of God over your particular religious organization.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Can anyone spell “invincible ignorance”?

You can always tell when Catholics get frustrated: The personal attacks start.

Pastor Jim is organically incapable of recognizing or understanding the truth of the Eucharist. It is not a matter of him willfully refusing to accept it, he simply cannot.

No, I understand it just fine. I simply reject your beliefs.

God understands this and will not hold him accountable. But we may as well quit beating our heads against the proverbial brick wall, :banghead: because he will never understand.

I guess I could respond in kind, but I see no reason to call names.

 

[Teflon93]

Can anyone spell “invincible ignorance”? Pastor Jim is organically incapable of recognizing or understanding the truth of the Eucharist. It is not a matter of him willfully refusing to accept it, he simply cannot. God understands this and will not hold him accountable. But we may as well quit beating our heads against the proverbial brick wall, :banghead: because he will never understand.

Oh, it has an effect. Look at Pastor Jim’s responses and you’ll see that this discussion disturbs his equanimity.

I was in a similar boat once, but upon seeing the evidence and inquiring into the Early Church could only come to the conclusion that I was wrong and the Catholic Church was right, whereupon I became Catholic and reclaimed my birthright.

Perhaps Pastor Jim will one day do the same. There are many examples of those who have done so on this very board.

In the meantime, defending the Truth entrusted to the Church is worth some cranial bruising courtesy of the brick walls we run into from time to time. Given the perniciousness and ubiquity of lies, the Truth can use every defender she can get.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I prefer the word of God over your particular religious organization.

Except what you call the “word of God” you think is Christianity is de-void of any historical backing. For example, a simple one, like the Sacrament of Confesion, you don’t believe in it right? I can give you hundreds of examples of the earliest Christians, 1500 years earlier than your dear Martin Luther, that support the Catholic position. Same goes for the Eucharist, Holy Orders, Baptism, etc.

I’m sure you also believe in Sola Scriptura, another mad made doctrine. Can you find 3 people from history who would have denied the authority of the Church and suggested Scripture alone? I think not.

 

[Teflon93]

Thank you. Just as Jesus and Paul used sarcasm to drive home a point, I find it works well for me, too.

What you find IS what’s most important, isn’t it?

For Catholics, obeying Christ is what matters. Thus, when he commands us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, we do.

Actually, what I said was “2/3 of scripture” not the whole of scripture.

What you eventually said, yes.

I haven’t waved it off at all. I’ve discussed it constantly.

It would depend on what your unique interpretation of “discussed” means. It apparently cannot mean “to provide arguments supported by evidence” in your case.

I prefer the word of God over your particular religious organization.

And we prefer the Word of God to your word, or Boettner’s, whom you’ve been paraphrasing without attribution throughout.

 

[Teflon93]

You can always tell when Catholics get frustrated: The personal attacks start.

“Invincible ignorance” isn’t a personal attack. Your theological education is lacking:

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience,** rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching**, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

No, I understand it just fine. I simply reject your beliefs.

No, you reject what you’ve been told they are. You demonstrate extraordinarily little knowledge of our beliefs. Have you read the Catechism?

I guess I could respond in kind, but I see no reason to call names.

But you already have, using your charism of sarcasm to deem myself and one other “geniuses”. Much as I would love to presume you were being sincere in such an estimation, I must presume you were not, given the context of your snide post earlier.