W
Wannano
Guest
Just to clarify…you still believe both are true?
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
I thought Catholics denied the metaphorical understanding.Wannano:
No, God’s logic is both/and. Jesus was speaking literally/physically, as well as metaphorically about spiritual realities.
God has it both ways.
Either/or logic is what gets Protestants in trouble. Along with their confusion of spiritual realities with the metaphorical expressions which are used to express them.
Spiritual does not mean metaphorical. A spiritual truth is more concrete than a literal truth. Remember:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Sounds as though you believe this. Good. That was my biggest hurdle.
You did not quote me accurately in the above quote and then made the conclusion that I have come to believe in Transubstantiation. Have another look.
Now here is a sincere question for you DeMaria…did you misrepresent my statement on purpose?
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
Is there any room for a different analogy? We each have a same sized boat with the same equipment, each crossing the same ocean of life facing the same storms and waves. The universal church is the lighthouse on the safe harbor. Along with it are lower lights that give direction to the seaman whose boat capsized just before reaching shore, enabling him to see the rocks and crevices he must swim by to reach the shore.
See youtube Jesus Savior pilot me July 15, 2014 rendition
Last edited:
S
St.Bede
Guest
“GOD save the queen”
Lol!
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Scriptures are often layered like an onion. I think its possible both are true.
D
De_Maria
Guest
I don’t know if we have the same metaphorical understanding, but no, we consider the “accidents” of bread and wine to be symbols of that which God has done for us.
The signs of bread and wine
CCC#'s 1333-6
I always copy and paste? How did I misquote you?
Nope. I don’t know how I dropped “the Catholic Church teaches”. Sorry about that. It must have been wishful thinking on my part. Did you notice my corresponding change of tone? I automatically backed off because I said to myself, “He accepts transubstantiation? Oh, this guy is very close to coming home.” You should have seen my first response.
That analogy would not accurately represent reality.
Last edited:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Not an analogy I would subscribe to.
M
mcq72
Guest
“let’s compare faith walks, shall we?..
understanding lies in how the heart …there’s too much intellectual argument over theology and doctrine”
The above was your first post
And now you want to add to the latter( doctrine debate)…no problem
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
I’m not going to argue as you’re not interested in actual conversation but relentlessly trying to prove the errors of your teachers.
M
Michael16
Guest
I’m sorry that you’re angry and looking for a fight.
Last edited:
H
HollowMan
Guest
Paul also said “If Christ is not risen, our hope is in vain and we are still in our sin” (1 Corinthians 15:17)
Now, this is the part where you report me and get my post shadowbanned.
H
Hodos
Guest
The Reformers would say that the teachings they highlighted as unscriptural were not the result of any God-given authority but the abuse of authority which allowed for their introduction into the corpus of medieval doctrine.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You say the Lutheran Church from which you came was dead. I agree. It began to die when Luther died. But when he was alive, it was as if John the Baptist came out of nowhere to be the voice of God crying in the wilderness after many silent years.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
Greetings, Hodos. Long time no see. 
In defense of medieval doctrine, I invite you to look at a book, “ Positively Medieval “. It’s a book of writings taken directly from the medieval saints written by a medieval studies professor who shows in this book that the medieval Church was a Jesus centered, Bible believing Church. The author was a former Protestant who took up medieval studies in order to try to prove the Church wrong. What happened was that he saw through the common Protestant misconceptions and into the truth of Catholic teaching and became Catholic.
The medieval Church was a development from the early Church and the doctrines and practices accepted by all the Early Church Fathers and Sacred Tradition. When you look at the historical record, you find that Sacred Tradition gave birth to Sacred Scripture. In fact, Catholic teaching is a synthesis of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
The medieval saints were largely deeply spiritual monastics, praying the Divine Office daily; were men deeply immersed in Scripture and referenced the ECFs, Tradition and Scripture rigorously. They didn’t create doctrine out of whole cloth to serve political ends as they are commonly misperceived.
They even employed rigorous philosophical argumentation in their theology. I’m thinking of Saint Thomas Aquinas in particular in this. He’d answer a question by stating a position, posing a counter argument to it and synthesizing the two together in a clear and honest manner.
Also: When looking at the historical record, the Church would often examine people for theological orthodoxy in order to prevent false doctrines from entering the Church.
So, looking at the Protestant founders and doctrines, they pretty much threw out the parts of Tradition and the ECFs that didn’t accord with their own idiosyncratic interpretations and built up whole new systems and thus built up their own traditions.
Then, they propounded these systems to the common Catholic, poorly catechized and Little knowledge of Scripture themselves; who couldn’t defend their Faith from Protestant preaching.
In defense of medieval doctrine, I invite you to look at a book, “ Positively Medieval “. It’s a book of writings taken directly from the medieval saints written by a medieval studies professor who shows in this book that the medieval Church was a Jesus centered, Bible believing Church. The author was a former Protestant who took up medieval studies in order to try to prove the Church wrong. What happened was that he saw through the common Protestant misconceptions and into the truth of Catholic teaching and became Catholic.
The medieval Church was a development from the early Church and the doctrines and practices accepted by all the Early Church Fathers and Sacred Tradition. When you look at the historical record, you find that Sacred Tradition gave birth to Sacred Scripture. In fact, Catholic teaching is a synthesis of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
The medieval saints were largely deeply spiritual monastics, praying the Divine Office daily; were men deeply immersed in Scripture and referenced the ECFs, Tradition and Scripture rigorously. They didn’t create doctrine out of whole cloth to serve political ends as they are commonly misperceived.
They even employed rigorous philosophical argumentation in their theology. I’m thinking of Saint Thomas Aquinas in particular in this. He’d answer a question by stating a position, posing a counter argument to it and synthesizing the two together in a clear and honest manner.
Also: When looking at the historical record, the Church would often examine people for theological orthodoxy in order to prevent false doctrines from entering the Church.
So, looking at the Protestant founders and doctrines, they pretty much threw out the parts of Tradition and the ECFs that didn’t accord with their own idiosyncratic interpretations and built up whole new systems and thus built up their own traditions.
Then, they propounded these systems to the common Catholic, poorly catechized and Little knowledge of Scripture themselves; who couldn’t defend their Faith from Protestant preaching.
Last edited:
G
Gab123
Guest
All Catholic teachings are rooted in Sacred Scripture and backed up by Sacred Tradition. The problem with Protestant Reformers is that they were all self-appointed individuals, no different than if Larry or Curly decided to start teaching new doctrines apart from the Church. Moe and the rest of them have to realize that Christianity is not founded on the Bible, and that the Bible did not fall out of the sky. We got the Bible from God through the Church that Jesus Christ founded and is guided by the Holy Spirit—despite all the scoundrels that were, are, and will always be among both the clergy and the laity.
Those who appoint themselves teachers and pastors and take it upon themselves to independently decipher and interpret the Bible apart from the Church, will always risk becoming false teachers attacking Church teaching, and end up being stooges of Satan, who himself quoted the Sacred Scriptures to Jesus.
“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.” -1 Tim. 1-7
G
Gab123
Guest
Obviously.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Yeah, that’s the one big issue here – the non Catholic Churches do not have protection from teaching error. Clearly this is the case as prior to 1930 none of them were ok with contraception, and now all of them are. So either they were teaching error prior to 1930 or they are teaching error now.
Obviously any intelligent person can discover some truth from private interpretation, but not all truth. So now we can ask the question , how much error is okay? And how do we determine that? I’ve heard guys like Matt Slick claim – well, we all agree on the essentials. And he even made some ridiculous grid determining essential from non essentials – all based on his own imaginary authority to do so.
L
lanman87
Guest
One of the big differences is that we (non-Catholics) do not think the Catholic Church has protection from teaching error as well. And in fact it has done so many times, which is why we don’t believe the same things as Catholics do about many things.
H
Hodos
Guest
I may take you up on that. I do have a book with extensive primary source documents from the early church to today, but additional research is always a good thing.
With regard here, what the Protestant founders do is recognize that there is not a single unanimous witness in the ECF about a number of issues, so it would be dishonest not to be selective when your argument is that the ECF writings should be evaluated in light of scripture.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Can you prove that?
- Status