Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

I admit I don’t know a lot about the Quaker religion. But they do not partake in Baptism or Holy Communion

no, not as you or even I do , but it is not totally dismissed…and again, they saw some negative fruits both from Catholics and Church of England way back when.

 

[guanophore]

Acts 2:38 Peter said repent and be baptized…The Catholic Douay Rheims says “do penance and be baptized”…how do you confirm that is the true meaning? One word changes a lot!

What makes you think there is any “change”? Do you think a life or repentance is not accompanied by the works that befit repentance?

 

[rcwitness]

I have seen negative fruits in my own parish!!

Should I run away? God forbid, His Son’s body and blood are there compelling us to remain and suffer for His sake

I have produced negative fruits myself, for that matter. And I have remorse. I need His forgiveness.

 

[guanophore]

Dude, you literally just said that marriage is unbreakable because it should mimic the marriage between Christ and the Church.

No, I did not. Christian marriage does not “mimic” anything. It is a sacrament, which means that it embodies that which it signifies. Marriage is a reflection of Jesus relationship with His Church. Jesus said He would never abandon or forsake His Church. This includes is members of the Church are faithless, sinful, or abusive.

I did not say “marriage should be unbreakable”. Jesus said, what God has joined let no man put asunder.

But it can never mimic that as Christ and the Church, as you said, can’t sin while married folk can.

Mimic, not, but reflect the reality that exists spiritually, yes. Sin cannot separate us from the love of God.

had been saying.

@Alex337 is not Christian, nor is he concerned or interested in what Christians believe.

So you don’t care what the word of the Bible is?

Not really. @Alex337 has stated that he does not consider the authors to be inspired or inerrant, and the product is human.

So you do worry about translations?

What benefit would “worry” have? There is one translation that is accurate to what the Apostles believed and taught.

Of course they are fallible, because they are translated too.

This is an anti-Catholic position. Of course we would not adopt it.

And if the Tradition of Doctrine is based on a mistranslation you’d still swallow it? Because it’s the Magisterium, right?

No, and NO.

Catholic doctrine is not based on any translation of Scripture. It comes from Jesus, and was passed to the Church through the Apostles. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the New Testament was ever written.

What is written in the original texts we believe to be a product of the Holy Spirit. Human beings, inspired by God, wrote what God wanted to reveal to humankind.

The duty of the Magesterium is to preserve the One Faith handed down to us from the Apostles.

Also, you accused me earlier of believing texts were fallible which I do, so why didn’t you try this semantics on then?

Christians believe that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant.

it’s fallible

This is a strawman. This is not a Catholic position.

You have zero use for Scripture when you discredit it’s inerrancy.

@Alex337 must discredit Scripture in order to follow a faith practice that disregards the contents.

 

[Alex337]

I see you’re lying a lot. I am Christian. And reflect/mimic are pretty synonymous.

I’ll be more generous and assume you’re just mistaken.

 

[Alex337]

"guanophore:

Catholic doctrine is not based on any translation of Scripture. It comes from Jesus, and was passed to the Church through the Apostles. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the New Testament was ever written.

What is written in the original texts we believe to be a product of the Holy Spirit. Human beings, inspired by God, wrote what God wanted to reveal to humankind.

The duty of the Magesterium is to preserve the One Faith handed down to us from the Apostles.

@Alex337 must discredit Scripture in order to follow a faith practice that disregards the contents.

So here you seem to be saying it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, Magesterium takes presidence.

Also, we have a different interpretation. That’s not the same as discrediting it. Unless you also think all protestants aren’t Christian?

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I am pretty sure Alex is a girl.

 

[guanophore]

So we’re yet again back to the idea that all renditions of the Bible are concurrently correct. Sigh.

This is not a problem for Catholics, since we receive the faith from the Apostles. We can know with clarity which translations are not consistent with what they taught.

We do rely on accurate translation and understanding of the language in order to understand what was written. That’s just how reading works.

Absolutely we do. But we can tell which ones are accurate by which ones are consistent with what Jesus taught.

Many sects who wish to depart from the Apostolic faith will alter the translation to suit their needs.

And disagreeing with your interpretation is not the same as not having one.

Of course not! Clearly people will translate and interpret in whatever way best suits their needs!

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings…

You are still believing in Tradition and the Magisterium over the actual source texts.

No.

Sacred tradition is what produced the New Testament, so there can be no contradiction between the two. The Magesterium has been authorized by God to teach the One Faith. He promised to prevent them from falling into error. They cannot teach that which is contrary to Scripture.

If a better translation appeared (such as ’virgin’=maid=young girl - it’s an example!) wanna bet you’d deny it, because it would run counter to 2000 years of your tradition and practice?

Although this is true, the foundation of the denial is that we cannot accept any gospel that departs from what we have received from the Apostles.

Galatians 1:9As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

We received One Faith, and we cannot depart from it.

if Scripture is problematic, insufficient in itself

I agree. This is why we consider it materially sufficient, while not formally sufficient.

I personally think what Jesus says on the matter is a bit more important than Mark or Luke, but if you prefer them then that’s your prerogative.

This is just the point. Catholics make not distinction between them.

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

That’s your interpretation it’s certainly not everyone’s.

It is especially not that of those who wish to reject the Catholic faith.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

So we’re yet again back to the idea that all renditions of the Bible are concurrently correct. Sigh.

This is not a problem for Catholics, since we receive the faith from the Apostles. We can know with clarity which translations are not consistent with what they taught.

So it is possible for a Bible translation to be wrong. I don’t see what’s so tricky about this concept.

Alex337:

And disagreeing with your interpretation is not the same as not having one.

Of course not! Clearly people will translate and interpret in whatever way best suits their needs!

You have a very dim view of people.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

That last part sounds judgmental.

 

[Alex337]

When accusing millions of people of wilfully misinterpretting God I think that’s a touch more judgemental than pointing out that it’s a dim view.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

If that’s what works for you…

 

[guanophore]

You just said Jesus spoke Aramaic. Seems likely he said this in Aramaic and it was then translated before being written.

He also said “salvation is of the Jews”. We get our concepts of marriage from Jewish beliefs.

That’s your interpretation. It certainly doesn’t seem to be the only one.

You are right of course. Many people search and find a community that has an interpretation that suits their own ideas.

Unless you’re saying that incestuous couples can marry? After all, for them to divorce they need to be able to marry in the first place.

You hit this nail on the head! A pornea marriage never occurred. It was unlawful from the start, and was never valid.

I think it even more likely that it refers to adultery and abuse.

People throughout time have inserted their “more likely” ideas into the teachings of Christ.

Otherwise we accept that God sees incest as a valid marriage, if even only for a time. Which could also be forever if they don’t divorce.

You seem to have misunderstood what you are being told. There is a difference between a civil marriage (in the eyes of man) and a marriage in the eyes of God.

But you said they could get divorced. You can’t get divorced without being married, friend.

People can be civilly “married” but not married in the eyes of God. The reverse is also true - people can be civilly divorced, yet still married in the eyes of God.

If he was dictating how we should treat only non Christian marriages…

Jesus was teaching us how to understand marriage from God’s point of view. Marriage existed for millennia before Christ.

If he was dictating how we should treat only non Christian marriages then it’s still more likely that this also refers to abuse and adultery.

No, God has notabandoned humanity despite our abuse and adultery with Him.

No.

He was talking about the difference between marriage in the eyes of humans, and marriage in the eyes of God.

It’s the exception to the marriage they were just speaking about, friend. He was speaking about a marriage joined in the eyes of God and then gave the exception for when it can be broken.

No.

there’s no need to be insulting. I’ve told you I’ll Christian and if you keep, essentially, calling me a liar I don’t see why I should keep talking to you.

For that matter, not much need to be on CAF. You may have convinced yourself that you are “Christian”, but you have rejected the Christian faith, and joined an ecclesial community that has done the same.

 

[Alex337]

I’m on my phone and cutting up your massive posts is hard. It seems you think all protestants aren’t Christian and that people are pretty terrible. That’s a sad view.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Well if it works for him…

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe my belief system is relativism.

You may not, but it changes nothing. You have espoused moral relativism.

I believe I’ve also explained to you exactly how that passage may not mean what you think it does.

Well, of course! this is what everyone must do to deny the faith passed down to us from the Apostles.

may think Jesus …I think he likely

You have made your own perceptions the center of your faith.

I have explained that I follow Christ. And I do take grave offense when you seek to tell me I don’t.

It is not meant to be offensive. Just pointing out that you are following your own perceptions of what you want to believe about Christ. What you have concluded is sufficiently different than the faith we received from the Apostles so as not to be considered “Christian”.

 

[guanophore]

It seems strange that if such evidence exists years later that it was not apparent to the Priest at the time of the marriage. I

Why does this seem strange to you? Many people play act to be someone they are not in order to get what they want.

But the vast majority of the time, the abuse begins after the marriage, sometimes years after.

Is there no screening and questioning done by the Priest to determine the validity of the couple. ?

Yes, there is marriage prep. People can hide the truth if they try.

Most annulments come from arrangements that were entered without any preparation. The prep is to prevent invalid contracts.

If a non -Catholic couple are married in a civil ceremony and after some time they decide to become Catholics, are they married in the eyes of the Church or do they have to get married again in the Church in order to become Catholics?

It depends upon the circumstances of the arrangement. Some are not free to marry, so their relationship is considered adulterous.

 

[Alex337]

shrugs end of the day I follow Christ and I know what I felt. I can’t deny His presence. And you just seem bitter and a bit repetitive.

 

[guanophore]

I see you’re lying a lot.

Maybe I missed some posts? I am not sure who this post is directed toward, since there was nothing quoted.

I am Christian.

You may believe that you are, and no one can stop you from claiming that you are, but your beliefs are not consistent with the Christian faith. Standing in the garage will not make you are car, no matter how much you claim it does.

And reflect/mimic are pretty synonymous.

OIC. Well, from a Catholic point of view, this is not the case.

[mim·ic mimik verb

1. imitate (someone or their actions or words), typically in order to entertain or ridicule.](Mimic | Definition of Mimic by Merriam-Webster)

It is significant that your idea of mocking and ridiculing is synonomous with “reflect” when it comes to the revelation of God. This says a lot about the condition of your heart.

So here you seem to be saying it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, Magesterium takes presidence.

No.

Also, we have a different interpretation. That’s not the same as discrediting it. Unless you also think all protestants aren’t Christian?

You do not have a Christian view of Scripture, so yes, it is discrediting.

I am pretty sure Alex is a girl.

Oh I thought Alex wanted to “marry” a gay man?

You have a very dim view of people.

On the contrary, I believe God made human beings in His image and likeness, and that we are all created to reflect the dignity of the divine nature. And by “reflect” I do not mean to ridicule or mock it.

When accusing millions of people of wilfully misinterpretting God

You think that people willfully misinterpret God? On the contrary, they do it quite wanting to believe that their own views ARE God’s views!

you think all protestants aren’t Christian

Christians accept that Scripture is inspired and inerrant. You do not, therefore, you are not espousing a Christian view.

people are pretty terrible. That’s a sad view.

People have a natural desire to believe in their own righteousness.

I know what I felt.

Exactly! Each person can create God in his own image according to their own feelings and perceptions. Each one can then “know God” by what they feel is right. This is the definition of relativism.

And you just seem bitter and a bit repetitive.

I think you lost me here.

 

[Alex337]

I think you not understanding that mimicking is different to mocking says more about you than it does about me.

I also don’t think you know what “wilfully” means.

Given you have also said that some Bible translations are incorrect, which is what I said, I guess you’re not Christian either.