challenge question, who can answer this

[paidion]

Like the only thing i am getting back on my quesion that still doesnt make sense is now the protestants are Catholic. Now i cant say yes you are or no your arent. Im not Protestant, but now if i say all protestants are Catholic do you really believe they are all going to agree with this. No Way. BUt if i say all Catholic Churchs are Catholic not one Catholic is going to disagree.

rinnie: Please allow me to try to shed some light here. I think what you are saying is how can non-RCs call themselves part of the catholic church?

There’s often a distinction made between Catholic and catholic (one with a capital “C” and one with a lower-case “c”). The capital “C” denotes Roman Catholicism, while the lower-case “c” represents “universal”. The actual definition of catholic means universal or all-embracing.

So when a non-RC says the Apostles’ Creed, they say it using the little “c”, agreeing that there is a universal body of believers in Messiah (vs. a particular denomination).

I hope this helps answer your question.

shalom

 

[rinnie]

Ok, So what you are saying in a way is what the other person said at the beginning of this post is that there are 2 Catholic Church, One is ruled by the Pope and the other is ruled by the People, Or help me get on the right state of mine with this

 

[Apryl]

where does it say that there are 2 catholic churches in the bible. One universal and the other the popes. Please no disrespect just asking.

I’m sure this has been asked many times, and no, I’m not trying to send this thread off on a tangent…

… but why does something have to be ‘in the bible’? This seems to affect so many questions… but ONLY about the Catholic church. This question never comes up when any one is deciding whether to accept, or understand, or tolerate any other questions that may cross their path.

OH, and in answer to your question: there are not two Catholic churches. But there are two ways to describe what a church is, and two ways to describe what Catholic is. This is why many Protestants will say in their worship service the Nicene Creed, and they will say ‘One Holy, catholic and apostolic church’. Because the word ‘Catholic’, as used in the Nicence Creed, means simply ‘Universal’.

… which happens to be what the Roman Catholic church is, anyway.

Then, there is the Catholic Church, as we see it today: with the stained glass windows, with the priest (rather than a regular minister), where people genuflect and we have days of fast and abstinence, and we talk about saints and we have 73 books in our Bible.

When the Nicene Creed was first composed, that was the ONLY church that we had. Today, the word Catholic is used to describe the group that many others broke from.

Sorry for rambling, but I had to point out the whole ‘in the bible’ argument that I have issues with , and I did want to try to answer the question, as it is a very valid question - just that ‘in the bible stuff’ was off-putting.

 

[paidion]

Ok, So what you are saying in a way is what the other person said at the beginning of this post is that there are 2 Catholic Church, One is ruled by the Pope and the other is ruled by the People, Or help me get on the right state of mine with this

(assuming you were “talking to me”)
er… no. I didn’t say there were two Catholic churches. Rather, there are different understandings of what catholic means (and how it’s spelled).

If you consider non-RCs to be brothers and sisters in the faith (to RCs), then to describe the whole, you would say the whole body of believers is the catholic (read “universal”) church. However, not all in the catholic (universal) church are Catholic (RC).

Clear as mud?

shalom

 

[inchrist101]

You were implying that James, not Peter, was directing the council and henceforth the Church. You have to keep up your aversion and rejection of Peter as Prince of the Apostles because to accept this truth would mean that your are in error.

Show me in Acts 15 where Jesus specifically spoke.

Show me here where Jesus specifically spoke to Peter and told him to tell them this.

Jesus didn’t speak in Acts 15 as we both know. But Jesus made it quite clear to the Apostles that the Gentiles were now included in GOD’s kingdom. The Gentiles were more commonly referred to as uncircumcised. Did Jesus instruct them that the Gentiles had to get circumcised? No and this is what upset many Jews and certainly the Pharisees. The Gentiles were given forgiveness for their sins yet they were uncircumcised.

Peter defined doctrine under the guidence of the Spirit, as did all of the Popes to this day.

The fact is that I am using proper proof-texting to explain and defend the Church and what it teaches. You don’y like it so you’re trying to accuse me of taking something out of context.
Not very convincing.

Peter did not define doctrine. Let’s be very clear here on the whole story. 2 men entered the church in Antioch and said Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas said no they don’t. How did they know this?? But they went to Jerusalem anyway to double-check with the Apostles. Not just Peter. The Apostles and Elders held a council meeting in which Peter basically said let’s not yolk the Gentiles with the same practices that we Jews could not even honor. He was referring to all Mosaic practices and not just circumcision. The argument was do Gentiles need to be Jews first to be saved? Peter was basically saying no and he was absolutely right. But look what James did. He said here’s my judgement. We’ll dispatch a letter telling them they have to observe some dietary restrictions and abstain from other practices they were doing but that’s it. James was going slightly counter to Peter. Peter didn’t want to place any restrictions on them. Why didn’t Peter overrule James???

They stopped objecting because they knew what Peter, guided by the Spirit, was teaching to be true.

Brother I appreciate your affinity for Peter but let’s be very clear on why they stopped. Peter had been at the home of Gentiles for which the Jews seriously objected and criticized Peter. Peter basically said no wait let me tell you what happened. He then went on to describe his vision which ultimately led him to the house of the Gentiles. As Peter so candidly states:

Acts 11: 15 “As I began to speak,” Peter continued, “the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as he fell on us at the beginning. 16 Then I thought of the Lord’s words when he said, ‘John baptized with[e] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 And since God gave these Gentiles the same gift he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to stand in God’s way?”

They (the Jews) were amazed at THIS (what GOD was doing) and that’s why they stopped OBJECTING to Peter visiting the house of Gentiles. They realized what GOD was doing not what Peter was doing.

Acts 11:18 When the others heard this, they stopped objecting and began praising God. They said, “We can see that God has also given the Gentiles the privilege of repenting of their sins and receiving eternal life.”

Why can’t you see this? I’m not degrading Peter I’m praising GOD. It seems you’re so caught up that this was Peter’s doing and instead you should be glorifying GOD. You’re so worried about defending Peter’s primacy because you’re viewing my take on it as disrespectful. Do you know how incredible this story is? Do you know how much respect and admiration I do have for Peter for obeying GOD?? But this is about GOD and I think it’s absolutely incredible how GOD works through us to reach people. Peter’s recall of the Lord’s words was definitely the Holy Spirit guiding him. But the Holy Spirit guides us all, not just Peter and I think Peter would tell you that himself.

Peter, Paul, John and other Apostles left Bishops(overseers) all over to direct those local churches that they founded. These are their replacements. St. Polycarp was a direct disciple of St. John, Ignatius was a follower of Polycarp. Many others are recorded that I don’t have the time to name.

But the churches they left them in charge of did not constitute the only Catholic churches. How about all the other churches that were formed not by the Apostles but by those who heard the Gospel being proclaimed? Paul visited many of these churches and their leaders were not appointed by him or any Apostles for that matter. Just like the leaders at our church may not have been appointed by a disciple of an Apostle. Your implication is that the 12 apostles had leaders who succeeded them in just their churches. This would mean there are only 12 churches.

Our teachings and those mentioned above still base their teachings on Apostolic teachings. This is why Paul generated his letter to Timothy giving instructions for the qualifications of church leaders. They simply did not have the time to get to every church to appoint leaders. So they sent letters basically saying, we hear you’re following Christ. Here are some guidelines for the leaders you may appoint within. To believe or think every church had some type of Apostolic succession is ludicrous. They simply did not. This was one of the biggest reasons for the Pauline epistles, Peter’s letters, James, Johns. They were trying very hard to help guide these churches through the false teachers that plagued them, plus offering support for the terrible persecution they faced.

continued…

 

[rinnie]

(assuming you were “talking to me”)
er… no. I didn’t say there were two Catholic churches. Rather, there are different understandings of what catholic means (and how it’s spelled).

If you consider non-RCs to be brothers and sisters in the faith (to RCs), then to describe the whole, you would say the whole body of believers is the catholic (read “universal”) church. However, not all in the catholic (universal) church are Catholic (RC).

Clear as mud?

shalom

I dont think i am talking to you but now im not sure. This was like in the beginning of my post. Now are you talking about please bear with me here, the one that is like how can i explan this right. Okay there is a difference between Roman Catholic and other Catholic churches right. Is that what you mean.

 

[rinnie]

ok im sure i didnt make sense. let me try another way what is the name of your Church. Like mine is Roman Catholic. Do you undertand what i am saying, I think i know what you are, but im not sure.

 

[climer97007]

climer97007;3264833:

Now Gene, I never said GOD is in the cow. Can you show me where I said that or even implied it??

I said you were on the verge of the heresy known as panthiesm. I gave examples of what pantheism looks like. I am glad this is not your view. However, when we are getting down to what God is, and where God is in a concrete sense, these definitions take on greater meaning and significance.

The idea that a non-Catholic or even a Catholic has that God is everywhere (Omnipresence), is different than the Catholic truth that God’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is actually physically present in the Eucharist in the Tabernacle.

God Himself has made Himself present, by turning the Bread into His own Substance (Transubstantiation). The idea of God’s omnipresence is not saying the same or even a comparable thing without taking that thought to the point of pantheism.

I hope I am being clear.

Gene

 

[paidion]

I dont think i am talking to you but now im not sure. This was like in the beginning of my post. Now are you talking about please bear with me here, the one that is like how can i explan this right. Okay there is a difference between Roman Catholic and other Catholic churches right. Is that what you mean.

rinnie:
I apologize for jumping into the mix. I was trying to answer what I thought you were asking.

Let’s just say that the RCs (Roman Catholics) and the non-RCs (Christian, but not RC) have much on which they agree. There are some things on which they agree to disagree. However, all (RCs & non-RCs) are a part of the body of believers/ body of Christ. They are all brothers and sister in Christ. Therefore, they are the catholic church because together they make up the entire body of believers.

The non-RC churches don’t usually call themselves “catholic” by name, but they would say they make up part of the universal church (any who put their total trust/faith/reliance on Jesus, the Messiah).

Is this helping or confusing the issue?

shalom

 

[inchrist101]

Continued from above

What is fact is that both Peter and Paul intended Rome, since it was the center of the ancient world, to be the center of the newly formed kingdom of God-the Church.

Very simple. Rome was the Political epicenter of the World at that time. If Rome would convert, there would be a good chance everyone else would too. Look how brilliant GOD was working. Rome is no longer the political epicenter of the world now and hardly even qualifies as a major power. We should respect the fact that Rome has some major church history asssociated with it. But then again so does Jerusalem.

What is the “entire Christian church?” What is your scriptural basis that Jesus intended this fractured and confused Christianity where so many people disagree with basic truths of faith and how to worship?

I don’t believe Jesus intended for us to be fractured as you say, but I believe he knew it would happen. The question is why did it happen?? I believe Jesus sees all his believers as one big church with some minor disagreements. All believers in Christ are part of HIS church. That’s what I believe. Let me give you some scripture to reflect on. Read it first then tell me what you think.

Divisions in the Church
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters,[c] by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,[d]” or “I follow only Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17 For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

Who do you follow Peter or Christ?? You seem to have a strong affinity for Peter. Not trying to be rude just merely pointing out that sometimes many Roman Catholics get soo hung up with Peter, and the Pope for that matter that it detracts from GOD. To me there is only 1 Holy Father and that is GOD.

Now read this:

1 Corinthians 3:5 After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. 7 **It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters work together with the same purpose. And both will be rewarded for their own hard work. **9 For we are both God’s workers. And you are God’s field. You are God’s building.

Some very strong words from Paul here. It doesn’t matter who plants the seed and waters it, Roman Catholic or Protestant. GOD as Paul says will make it grow. AMEN. This is why Roman Catholics need to be careful about their attitude toward Protestants, and vice versa. The church doesn’t make us grow. They merely plant and water the seed of Christ. For me the Roman Catholic church planted the seed and watered it. Now my current church is watering it but believe me GOD is making it grow.

You also mention how to worship making it seem like there is only 1 correct way to worship. You can’t tell someone that their method of worship is wrong. Paul tells us not to get in the way of what makes another feel close to GOD. If someone finds a Christmas tree pagan worship then I would say don’t get a Christmas tree. But don’t then tell someone else who may get a Christmas tree that they are worshiping wrong.

I would agree there may be limits. We certainly don’t want satanic rituals being used to worship GOD. But please tell me what non-Roman Catholic churches you’ve been to that worship wrong as you say and tell me what it was they did/do.

I never made a judgement against you or said you were going to hell-talk about putting words in people’s mouth!

I am simply warning you out of love of the error of Protestantism and the truth of Catholicism. It is up to you to either accept or reject it.

Definitely not trying to put words in your mouth brother (I say brother affectionately by the way not rudely). I think it’s more of the implication of your words. What is it that are you warning me about exactly?? Just saying that you are warning me implies that the Protestant churches are leading people away from Christ at a minimum. It that’s the case then the obvious can be deducted from there that your warning is to save us from going to hell. Please tell me I’m wrong. Or better yet, give me a more specific warning of what I should be on the lookout for.

PEACE and GOD Bless!!!

 

[Margarite]

Rinnie,
Really quick because I have to go.

What they are talking about is there are 2 different understandings of the words “Catholic Church”

If you are a Roman Catholic, when you say “Catholic Church” you mean the group of people who follow the pope and believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

If you are protestant, when you say “catholic church” you mean the group of people who believe taht Christ died to save us and you believe in the Trinity. So this definition can include all protestants and Roman Catholics.

So really it is two understandings of the same two words. If you want to make sure that you are referring to the Catholics who follow the pope then just say Roman Catholics and everyone will understand.

Most of the time the word Catholic referres to Roman Catholics, it is mostly only in philosophic conversations that it becomes more complicated.

Sorry for my bad spelling. I have to go!

 

[inchrist101]

inchrist101;3267857:

I said you were on the verge of the heresy known as panthiesm. I gave examples of what pantheism looks like. I am glad this is not your view. However, when we are getting down to what God is, and where God is in a concrete sense, these definitions take on greater meaning and significance.

The idea that a non-Catholic or even a Catholic has that God is everywhere (Omnipresence), is different than the Catholic truth that God’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is actually physically present in the Eucharist in the Tabernacle.

God Himself has made Himself present, by turning the Bread into His own Substance (Transubstantiation). The idea of God’s omnipresence is not saying the same or even a comparable thing without taking that thought to the point of pantheism.

I hope I am being clear.

Gene

Yes you are being very clear. Thank you

So let’s separate them then. GOD is everywhere spiritually (omnipresent) but is not in the Cow, rat, building, rock (Pantheism). Jesus physical existence in the bread and wine is not a Catholic truth. It is a Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief. It really is not a truth that can be proven beyond a reasonble doubt. I may agree with you that he is there but I would say it’s because I believe it. Now here’s an interesting question for you.

If Jesus is the bread and wine then how is that not Pantheism?? If he’s physically present then the bread would have to be his body and the wine his actual blood. Then in essence we are eating GOD. But as you say above we cannot eat the rock and be eating GOD. How does this get reconciled then without calling it Pantheism. Interesting dilemma.

 

[rinnie]

rinnie:
I apologize for jumping into the mix. I was trying to answer what I thought you were asking.

Let’s just say that the RCs (Roman Catholics) and the non-RCs (Christian, but not RC) have much on which they agree. There are some things on which they agree to disagree. However, all (RCs & non-RCs) are a part of the body of believers/ body of Christ. They are all brothers and sister in Christ. Therefore, they are the catholic church because together they make up the entire body of believers.

The non-RC churches don’t usually call themselves “catholic” by name, but they would say they make up part of the universal church (any who put their total trust/faith/reliance on Jesus, the Messiah).

Is this helping or confusing the issue?

shalom

No no please dont apologize, like i said in trying to understand. Ok lets put it this way the Aposles creed okay, its called that because its a summary of the apostles faith. Now its authority arises from the Fact that it is the Creed of the Roman Church. Now the Apostles Creed which constitutes, as it were the oldest roman catechism, correct. Lets go that way instead of the Catholic Church way for a minute okay. Now other churchs say this creed correct, see maybe they dont i dont know. Just trying to figure this out . So lets start here. May be a while to get back, i work at home and im up and down.

 

[climer97007]

You also mention how to worship making it seem like there is only 1 correct way to worship. You can’t tell someone that their method of worship is wrong.

What is it that are you warning me about exactly?? Just saying that you are warning me implies that the Protestant churches are leading people away from Christ at a minimum. It that’s the case then the obvious can be deducted from there that your warning is to save us from going to hell. Please tell me I’m wrong. Or better yet, give me a more specific warning of what I should be on the lookout for.

It is not that there is only 1 way to worship, but, certainly, there are more complete ways of worship. Which would be more complete, hearing a disciple talk about Jesus, or listening to Jesus? Which would be more complete, touching a disciple, or touching Jesus? Which would be more complete, eating a piece of ordinary bread that was cut into bits, or eating Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? And which would be more intimate, looking at a picture of your wife, reading a letter from your wife, or having intercousre with her? This is the difference in terms of the intimate relation God has with us when He enters into us during Holy Communion, it is one thing to eat a sign of bread, it is another to eat God. Each is a form of worship, and while each may be right, one is more complete, more intimate, more perfect.

 

[2ndGen]

climer97007;3268554:

Yes you are being very clear. Thank you

So let’s separate them then. GOD is everywhere spiritually (omnipresent) but is not in the Cow, rat, building, rock (Pantheism). Jesus physical existence in the bread and wine is not a Catholic truth. It is a Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief. It really is not a truth that can be proven beyond a reasonble doubt. I may agree with you that he is there but I would say it’s because I believe it. Now here’s an interesting question for you.

If Jesus is the bread and wine then how is that not Pantheism?? If he’s physically present then the bread would have to be his body and the wine his actual blood. Then in essence we are eating GOD. But as you say above we cannot eat the rock and be eating GOD. How does this get reconciled then without calling it Pantheism. Interesting dilemma.

You’re so backwards on this.

The bread doesn’t become meat.

Jesus becomes The Bread.

You are still eating bread,
but Jesus transforms it into His flesh.

Consecrated bread is no longer “just” bread,
but The Body of Christ.

All you have to do is to stop trying to understand it with a carnal mind (where flesh means meat) and submit your intellect to Jesus’ words.

The bread becomes His flesh.

Period.

Accept that first as His words,
“then” go about trying to understand “what” He meant.

I’m saying this to you in the sincerest hope that you will come to accept His teaching as “He” taught it, not as we reveal it.

I’ll tell you what, find a Catholic Church that has Eucharistic Adoration. Go there. Take an hour of your life. Bring your Bible and meditate on John 6. Read it over and over and over and over.

And contemplate the presence of The Eucharist in the monstrance.

Pray to Jesus. Not to the bread, not to the altar, not to the carpet, not to the Bible…Pray to Jesus directly. Don’t ask Him to convince you. Ask Him to reveal to you what “He” wants you to know.

I suggest that to you sincerely.

Trust me, unless you have The Eucharist, you do not have every blessing that He gave us.

Right now, you are like the two Apostles that walked with Jesus but didn’t recognize Him “until” He broke the bread in front of them and thus, He was revealed.

Granted, they feel the fire in their hearts, but even though He was right in front of them, they were blind to His “full” presence.

I hope you’ll take my suggestion. It will only take an hour of your life. At the very least, you can convince yourself that the bread is “not” The Body of Christ as Christianity has believed for 2,000 years.

==============================================

Luke 24
25.
Then Jesus told them, "O, dim sighted and slow hearted* in believing all that was spoken by the prophets.
26.
“Was it not these things that the Anointed One was destined to profess and enter into his Glory?”
27.
And he began from Moses and from all the Prophets and explained about himself from all the Books [of Scripture.]
28.
And they approached the village where they were going and he gave them to understand* as though he was going to a distant place.
29.
And they pressed him and said to him, “Stay with us, for it is almost dark”* And he entered to stay with them.
30.
And it happened as he dined with them, he set the bread and blessed it and broke it and gave it to them.31.
And at once their eyes were opened and they recognized him. And he was taken from them.

 

[paidion]

No no please dont apologize, like i said in trying to understand. Ok lets put it this way the Aposles creed okay, its called that because its a summary of the apostles faith. Now its authority arises from the Fact that it is the Creed of the Roman Church. Now the Apostles Creed which constitutes, as it were the oldest roman catechism, correct. Lets go that way instead of the Catholic Church way for a minute okay. Now other churchs say this creed correct, see maybe they dont i dont know. Just trying to figure this out . So lets start here. May be a while to get back, i work at home and im up and down.

hmmm… I’ll give this another shot…I agree that other churches besides the Roman Catholic Church profess the Apostles’ Creed. Not all of them agree that the words “holy catholic church” refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

Here’s an example of such a group:
reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
(I think I pasted this correctly, if not, just Google “Apostles’ Creed”)

shalom

 

[rinnie]

hmmm… I’ll give this another shot…I agree that other churches besides the Roman Catholic Church profess the Apostles’ Creed. Not all of them agree that the words “holy catholic church” refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

Here’s an example of such a group:
reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
(I think I pasted this correctly, if not, just Google “Apostles’ Creed”)

shalom

Ok but now here is where i am trying to see how they can not agree with the Holy Catholic Church not being roman. but agree that the Apostles creed being the creed of the roman church. And then the creed itself states Holy Catholic Church. Its like you dont have to even say its the Roman Catholic, how can they be separated. Just Asking. See where my problem lies now. Now im not saying you have to agree with me, but how can it be explained away. I sure hope i explained this right.

 

[climer97007]

inchrist101;3268701:

The bread doesn’t become meat. Jesus becomes The Bread. You are still eating bread, but Jesus transforms it into His flesh. Consecrated bread is no longer “just” bread, but The Body of Christ… The bread becomes His flesh.

Jesus is not “with” the bread. This idea is more like the heretical view known as Consubstantiation.

Read more here:
newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm

In consubstantiation, the bread is always present. Jesus’ presence “with” the bread is transitory. Jesus’ presence leaves the bread after the service is over. He does not remain with the un-eaten bread. And His presence relies upon the faith of the one receiving the bread. If you have no faith, then Jesus is not present. This is my feeble understanding of Consubstantiation.

We Roman Catholics are not still eating bread. In the Roman Catholic understanding, only the appearances (accidents) of bread remain. The substance has been changed (Transubstantiation).

Read mre here:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

What appears to be bread, is no longer bread. It is now the substance of Jesus. It is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. His presence remains, because it is now Him. He does not go away. His existance does not depend upon the faith of the Catholic. It depends upon the action of God. His presence can not be called down by a lay person. It must be done by a Priest. He is fully present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under both species, under both the appearance of bread and the appearance of wine. You do not get a partial Christ in either case.

Gene

 

[rinnie]

Ok now i went to your site you sent me. It said the Catholic Church is ONE. It is ONE in origin. as the household of God built upon the foundation of Apotles and prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. ONE Body One Lord One FAITH ONE Baptism distinctive marks of the true allegiance to ONE Lord of a common creed and participation in the same SACRAMENTS. Now i agree with every word of this. This is what the church i got to preaches on. But where does it say that they are separated. Why doesnt it start out to the the church is 2, in 2 origins, see what i mean how are they separated and who separated them. Thats all im asking. Again this is the site you sent me to. And i do agree with what it said. But if anything it confirmed what i am saying no disagreeing with it. Do you see what i am seeing. And why im not seeing what you are trying to show me. I swear im trying but i cant see it.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Do you know what “Consecrated Host” is?

Of course I do.

Quote:
Do you have “Consecrated Host” in your church-building?

Yes

Do you have a priest consecrate the host? If not then you don’t have consecrated host, and apparently DON’T know what consecrated host is, as it is consecrated only by a priest.

That brings up another question: Do you have Catholic Priests in your church/denomination?