Catholics must disregard Scripture to satisfy their doctrine.

  • Thread starter Thread starter SIA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
here we go again, please show me in Scripture where Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church and called it the Church.
The covers of the bible are acting as your blinders. Pull your nose out and look at the big picture, please!

Christ founded one church. He used Peter to supervise it. In the early second century, and perhaps earlier, it is written of as the universal church. “Catholic” means universal. Peter, Paul and others went forth to make disciples of every nation. Rome was the center of civilization. The universal, or “catholic” church became headquartered in Rome.

You will not accept this, just as you do not accept Jesus Christ in the Flesh of the Eucharist. That is your free will. It remains sorrowful, but it is your right.
 
Thats faulty logic and you know it Manny. The RCC should be ashamed of the way it tries to pass this logic off on all of its RCIA candidates. Both Hebrew and Greek languages have words to depict and differentiate between brothers, half sibblings and cousins. Scripture speaks of jesus’ sibblings on several occasions.
Yes, and yet, as manny points out, for instance, Lot is called Abraham’s brother when the Bible clearly indicates that he is really a nephew. And you still haven’t answer how what you believe was not believed until very recently (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, let alone the earlies Christians).
 
Mannyfit75;4005927:
Look Manny, you don’t seem to slow down enough to get it. I totally believe that we are required as Scripture says to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. You keep quoting Scripture to me and that’s perfectly fine. What I said is that Jesus ALSO said in Scripture that the bread which comes down from Heaven is his flesh. Catholics disregard this fact in the definition of transubstantiation. That’s what I said.
:confused:
 
This thread shows that Protestants can be just as adept at baiting threads as Catholics can.
Sigh.
 
The covers of the bible are acting as your blinders. Pull your nose out and look at the big picture, please!

Christ founded one church. He used Peter to supervise it. In the early second century, and perhaps earlier, it is written of as the universal church. “Catholic” means universal. Peter, Paul and others went forth to make disciples of every nation. Rome was the center of civilization. The universal, or “catholic” church became headquartered in Rome.

You will not accept this, just as you do not accept Jesus Christ in the Flesh of the Eucharist. That is your free will. It remains sorrowful, but it is your right.
You are wrong because you jumped into something here that you nothing of. I absolutely accept Jesus in the Eucharist. How dare you say that I do not! I do not accept that your priests can make Jesus metaphisically appear (hocus pocus). This is unBiblical although it matters not to you.
 
I read it ALL Manny and i still don’t see Jesus proclaiming the church in Rome as his one and only founded Church. And that’s funny, neither do the Orthodox Christians.
Cherry picking faiths now!!! The LDS and JWs believe differently than you do. Therefore, your beliefs are false. How silly is this “logic”?

Catholics are not the ones with blinders. Many of us believed exactly as you until we pulled our noses out of the book, stopped blinding ourselves by the tiny portion of Christ to be found there, and looked at the larger picture.

You make yourself superior to the Apostles and early church fathers by your statements. As we are both sinners, I find that hard to believe.

Again, you remain stubbornly self-blinded by the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura.
 
Cherry picking faiths now!!! The LDS and JWs believe differently than you do. Therefore, your beliefs are false. How silly is this “logic”?

Catholics are not the ones with blinders. Many of us believed exactly as you until we pulled our noses out of the book, stopped blinding ourselves by the tiny portion of Christ to be found there, and looked at the larger picture.

You make yourself superior to the Apostles and early church fathers by your statements. As we are both sinners, I find that hard to believe.

Again, you remain stubbornly self-blinded by the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura.
??? Who said anything about sola scriptura? I’m saying that your doctrines are anti-Biblical in many instances. Mary being co-redemptrix and such. Sola Scriptura doesn’t apply here. sorry.😦
 
You are wrong because you jumped into something here that you nothing of. I absolutely accept Jesus in the Eucharist. How dare you say that I do not! I do not accept that your priests can make Jesus metaphisically appear (hocus pocus). This is unBiblical although it matters not to you.
That is a misconception. What happens at the Mass is not magic (aka hocus pocus).

2.4. John of Damascus, 665-749 AD
explains how bread and wine becomes Jesus.
And now you ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought… Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit.
God works through the priest to make this happen. The priest by HIS own power cannot do this.
 
That is a misconception. What happens at the Mass is not magic (aka hocus pocus).

2.4. John of Damascus, 665-749 AD
explains how bread and wine becomes Jesus.

God works through the priest to make this happen. The priest by HIS own power cannot do this.
ok, here we go again. Show me where in Scripture, it says that a catholic priest has the power to change bread to flesh and wine to blood. Oh yeah I forgot, it doesn’t have to say it anywhere for Catholics to proclaim it as truth. You can just make it up as you go.
 
You are wrong because you jumped into something here that you nothing of. I absolutely accept Jesus in the Eucharist. How dare you say that I do not! I do not accept that your priests can make Jesus metaphisically appear (hocus pocus). This is unBiblical although it matters not to you.
I respond for those with open minds who are reading this thread. You remain in stubborn refusal to follow the teachings of the early church, the pre-bible church that Christ Himself founded.

If you believe in the Eucharist, why do you reject the church Christ founded to perpetuate His Body, since he remains with it until the end of the age?

It does not sound as though you love Christ enough to follow Him into the Catholic church. I pray that it not the case.
 
ok, here we go again. Show me where in Scripture, it says that a catholic priest has the power to change bread to flesh and wine to blood. Oh yeah I forgot, it doesn’t have to say it anywhere for Catholics to proclaim it as truth. You can just make it up as you go.
Jesus told his Apostles at the last supper, “Do this in rembrance of me.” The priests are the Apostles successors. This is done so by the laying on the hand. This is past on from generation to generation and continues on today. This is Apostolic Succession. Actually, I am not making this up. This has been believed for 2,000 yrs. Read the writings of the ECF.
 
c). Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb’s sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul’s use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.”

Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.
 
??? Who said anything about sola scriptura? I’m saying that your doctrines are anti-Biblical in many instances. Mary being co-redemptrix and such. Sola Scriptura doesn’t apply here. sorry.😦
I am Catholic. You, for some reason, will not disclose your beliefs, except that they sound an awful lot like sola scriptura.

You might as well look over your car and take any parts off that aren’t listed in the owner’s manual, because they are “extra-manualic” and not needed. I’ll bet the engine’s connecting rods are not listed. Dare to throw them away and still claim to have complete car?

Point is, the car (faith) came first and the manual (bible) was written later.
 
I must admit it does seem unfair to employ the sword of Saint Michael against tissue-paper theology.
 
Mannyfit75;4005954:
by your own doctrine, you disregard Jesus saying that the bread which comes from Heaven is his flesh. You just said it. Luther had it right. You people have it wrong. Nobody has the power to metaphisically change anything at will. Where does that come from in Scripture? Jesus becomes present, your priest doesn’t command him to appear, there is no hocus pocus.
So you are saying you believe in consubstantiation? Impanation? Sacramental union? What?
 
And, just where does scripture say, chapter and verse, that it is either complete, the fulness of God’s revelation, or all that you need for salvation? It does not. Now what?
Where does the Bible have the table of contents? You know that there was some issue on the canon (for one thing, the Jews have accepted another one).
 
This thread shows that Protestants can be just as adept at baiting threads as Catholics can.
Sigh.
Unfortunately the quality of the “discussion” is also going down. Name-calling and cheap shots are immature, uncharitable and contrary to the rules of this forum, rules that everyone agreed to in order to register and participate.
 
Jesus told his Apostles at the last supper, “Do this in rembrance of me.” The priests are the Apostles successors. This is done so by the laying on the hand. This is past on from generation to generation and continues on today. This is Apostolic Succession. Actually, I am not making this up. This has been believed for 2,000 yrs. Read the writings of the ECF.
Oh, so ’ do this in memory of me’ translates into:

" Ordained Catholic Priests shall possess the power to summon the Holy Spirit to turn an ordinary piece of bread into the very flesh, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Chris the Son of God. Further more, one must fast 1 hour prior to eating the host, and one may not eat for 15 minutes after eating the flesh of the Son of God. Further more, only ordained Catholic Priests may complete this amazing feat, but no one will be able to tell that a great mystery has taken place and the last thing is that this Eucharist will be able to forgive venial sins of people, now of course, the term venial sin is not yet explained or written anywhere, but when the most Holy Roman Catholic Church gets around to it, you will know what I am talking about."

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top