Eucharist: Is this Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shawn38
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn’t say that to make fun, only pointing out the perception of your responses. You are right no matter what I or 2000 years of tradition say because your interpretation of scripture is the end all. Excuse me but that is arrogant, and misguided.

Secondly, the scripture you quote is taken way out of context for this discussion, “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you", because I don’t remember anyone asking you to contradict what the Roman Catholic Church has held to in Tradition and Sacred Scripture since this took place in real time. You jumped in a thread and derailed it because you felt it your duty to put us dumb ritz cracker eating Catlicks in our place.

Both of the Gospel quotes you mention point to eternal life but not quite the way you see it. Both point to consumption of Him, the Christ. Neither passage refers to eternal life acquired by eating bread or drinking water. The Living Water is Jesus, the Bread of Life is Jesus, please contradict that with scripture. The Church does not teach nor do I believe that my salvation is from the Eucharistic magical saving bread. It is from Christ and His saving Grace earned for us on the Cross! The sacraments of the Church are rivers of Grace from that sacrifice He performed for us. My belief in and reception of Him is my acceptance of His saving Grace. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Eucharist is real and Jesus is real, and I accept Him with longing in my heart!
 
In light of the fact that I have broken my back to write out long answers on this thread, it is ridiculous to assume that I am trying to avoid anything as you wrongly suppose.
I have not wrongly assumed that you have avoided it, you did avoid it by saying that you thought it was off topic. I do not find it off topic as my question specifically deals with your premise that you introduced in this thread. If you do not want the appearance of avoidance then by all means stop avoiding the question and answer it.
My premise that the Bible doesn’t support the RCC take on Communion, and YOUR premise that the Bible doesn’t support its own canon, are comparing apples and oranges—and therefore it is off-topic. I advise opening another thread at some time in the future, and be sure to invite me to participate, as I will do so as time permits.
It is not apples to oranges. You believe that the Catholic view of Communion is not supported by the Bible and we therefore must rid ourselves of it. So if the Canon of the Bible is also not found in the Bible, do you suggest we rid ourselves of this tradition as well? You and I both know you will not be able to find an infallible list of contents in the Bible nor will you be able to show me where in the Bible the standards to use in order to decide Canon. The Canon of the Bible is a tradition that cannot be supported by the Scriptures. I am just asking you to carry out your premise:
I must emphatically inform you that Jesus Christ DID NOT EAT HIMSELF at the Last Supper.** You must do away with these horrific traditions **that are tied around your neck like a noose. The Bible simply will not support such nonsense.
Again, I will understand why you would wish to avoid this subject considering your reasoning for your condemnation of the Catholic belief.

God bless
 
I have no idea what you mean by this statement, so you must clarify.
Simple, I was pointing absurdity by being absurd.

There is more than the written Word, the Word of God is also held in the Sacred Tradition. You may not agree with the Church, but you cannot expect to come here and use the same scripture to contradict that the Church uses to proclaim, with the backing of tradition.
 
Thank you Ralph for that explanation, which I was quite aware of, being an ex-Catholic myself. Suffice it to say that the metaphysical escape route you have taken to validate your position, cannot be supported biblically. Considering that we will be judged by the Word of God on Judgment Day (Jn 12:48), I should think you ought to feel a little worried…since nothing you say may be found therein. And if and when you find out your metaphysical beliefs were wrong–and hope to find a way out by simply saying, “The Catholic Church told me so”---- by that time it will be too late. Protestants fully embrace the multiple promises of the Holy Spirit as stated by the Text, and you, sir, are embracing promises which do not exist-- such as “being one with Him in the most profound spiritual way”. I do admit it sounds all so very pious. But you are dead wrong.
John 12:48, is the Bible all that Jesus spoke? How does that verse mean that I will be judged by “sola scriptura”?

Sounds to me that you have already judged Ralph. How is embracing the multiple promises of the Holy Spirit a Protestant thing? You illustrate your purpose in your words, to show how much better and smarter you are than a Catholic Christian. Sounds a little presumptuous, I might add.

Sounds like you were never really “in the Catholic Church”, possibly a baptised Catholic but not a practicing Catholic.
 
In light of the fact that I have broken my back to write out long answers on this thread, it is ridiculous to assume that I am trying to avoid anything as you wrongly suppose. My premise that the Bible doesn’t support the RCC take on Communion, and YOUR premise that the Bible doesn’t support its own canon, are comparing apples and oranges—and therefore it is off-topic. I advise opening another thread at some time in the future, and be sure to invite me to participate, as I will do so as time permits.
Let me get this straight, you have been a member of this site, Catholic Answers.com mind you, for one day and you can “advise” a four year Catholic Answers member to start a new thread because you derailed this one and don’t want to answer a legitimate question?

Man I am confused.🤷
 
You were out of order with most of your post so far, but we are a charitable people…I will say that you haven’t made friends here by referring to the Eucharist as a rits cracker. Do you remember that?

We’ll wait for an apology.

Proof texting scripture is a dangerous thing for the soul. One must be mindful that he doesn’t have all the answers before he delves into scripture study.

Didn’t answer my question, First Baptist minister, right?
I am from the reformed camp, if you MUST know.
Might I ask which Catholic denomination YOU are from? Could it be that of “Catholics for a Free Choice?” Or how about, “Roman Catholic Gay Priests United”? Are you a liberal, conservative or charasmatic RC? Or are you an ultra-traditionalist like those of the St. Pius X Society who are extremely critical of the changes brought out by Vatican 2. Maybe you are a “New Age” RC which I read about recently. Or possibly a “Left-Wing Catholic”—the title of a book by Doug Roche. Oh my, there are so many splinter groups in RCism, it could just make your head spin, don’t you agree?

Now as to your hope for an apology in referring to the Eucharist as a Ritz Cracker. No, you will not be receiving one, and here is why. You are taking it by faith that this object is to be worshipped and adored and is, in fact, the Real body of Christ; while I am going on faith that it is not. Since there are only 2 options, there is a 50% chance you are wrong. When one has reason to believe the other side is wrong, strong vocabulary is sometimes warranted. I would remind you of Elijah’s debate with the prophets of Baal. Elijah was very bold in his position and when he saw that his opponents weren’t producing the “goods” from their idol, he said, in effect, “well, what gives? Why isn’t Baal responding? Did he go on a trip? Is he sleeping? Is he out to the (gasp!) bathroom?” (1 Kings 18). I’m sure they were quite offended at Eli’s mocking, but Eli was a prophet of God and so it was acceptable. In a similar manner, I am utterly convinced that you guys are worshipping what amounts to nothing more than a Ritz Cracker, and I stand by that assessment. As you know, there is indeed something called “false doctrine”, as we read, for example, that Jesus “HATED” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes in Revelation 2:15. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the Nicos relates to the bishops and prelates gaining a victory, as it were, over the laity—until they have been compelled to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men. God hates this, and of course the RCC is a pristine example, but I won’t go into that. The point is, if it is true that the RCC Eucharist is an idol, then it follows that Jesus would of course “HATE” that belief. If I, as a servant of God, believe the evidence strongly supports this is indeed the case, then I must be at liberty to stir your emotions with provocative terms in the hope that you will take it to heart and perhaps do some leg work and check things out. I consider these matters the difference between heaven and hell. So I will leave God to be my judge.

As to your other comment about me not winning any friends, I am not here to do so, nor do I expect it. Jesus said, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you” (Luke 6:26). If absolutely everybody loves you, according to Christ you are probably holding to compromising positions which please everyone and cause no controversy. However, that is not to be expected from a true follower of Christ.

Now I must leave for now but will return tonight.
 
I certainly understand that, even for those who believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, “it all has to be kept in perspective.” However, I bet if you were watching CNN as you were getting ready for work one day and a news flash came on saying that a most miraculous thing had happened, that Jesus (yes, JESUS!!!) had appeared down at Sacred Heart, you wouldn’t even bother calling in sick. You’d just beat feet down to Sacred Heart.

Perhaps my understanding of the belief is incorrect, but it seems to me that if one really believed in the real presence, you’d be doing the same thing every time a mass was celebrated at Sacred Heart.
I think you are right in what you say.

Now imagine that you go down to Sacred Heart and Jesus says He “is glad you have cared for your spouse and children well all these years. Come visit me every day and bring your family too. Make sure to care for them.” Would you listen and be sent on your mission? At the end of Mass, the last command from the sanctuary is “Ite, missa est” (It effectively means, within the context of the Mass, you are now sent to bring Christ to the world. Evangelize and serve with the love of God for all mankind.) Thus at Mass, the priest or deacon are sending you out the way Christ sent out the apostles, to bring Christ to the world.

Now if Christ appeared as the Second Coming of Christ, then that would be different. I don’t know how different, but probably when the world is evangelized sufficiently.
 
I keep wondering how you know when he is being literal and how you know he is being figurative.
 
Should we be surprised by the defective views of Scripture and the Eucharist held by an Ex-Catholic? and should we entertain this at all?

IMHO, I do not think so. It’s really not worth the trouble as there can be no outcome that would be satisfactory to us other than entertaining the defective views.
 
Should we be surprised by the defective views of Scripture and the Eucharist held by an Ex-Catholic? and should we entertain this at all?

IMHO, I do not think so. It’s really not worth the trouble as there can be no outcome that would be satisfactory to us other than entertaining the defective views.
It never hurts to discuss. We do not know how the Holy Spirit will move. Sure, the other posters on here may resist the Truth, but someone reading the thread might be touched.
 
I am from the reformed camp, if you MUST know.
Might I ask which Catholic denomination YOU are from? Could it be that of “Catholics for a Free Choice?” Or how about, “Roman Catholic Gay Priests United”? Are you a liberal, conservative or charasmatic RC? Or are you an ultra-traditionalist like those of the St. Pius X Society who are extremely critical of the changes brought out by Vatican 2. Maybe you are a “New Age” RC which I read about recently. Or possibly a “Left-Wing Catholic”—the title of a book by Doug Roche. Oh my, there are so many splinter groups in RCism, it could just make your head spin, don’t you agree?

Now as to your hope for an apology in referring to the Eucharist as a Ritz Cracker. No, you will not be receiving one, and here is why. You are taking it by faith that this object is to be worshipped and adored and is, in fact, the Real body of Christ; while I am going on faith that it is not. Since there are only 2 options, there is a 50% chance you are wrong. When one has reason to believe the other side is wrong, strong vocabulary is sometimes warranted. I would remind you of Elijah’s debate with the prophets of Baal. Elijah was very bold in his position and when he saw that his opponents weren’t producing the “goods” from their idol, he said, in effect, “well, what gives? Why isn’t Baal responding? Did he go on a trip? Is he sleeping? Is he out to the (gasp!) bathroom?” (1 Kings 18). I’m sure they were quite offended at Eli’s mocking, but Eli was a prophet of God and so it was acceptable. In a similar manner, I am utterly convinced that you guys are worshipping what amounts to nothing more than a Ritz Cracker, and I stand by that assessment. As you know, there is indeed something called “false doctrine”, as we read, for example, that Jesus “HATED” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes in Revelation 2:15. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the Nicos relates to the bishops and prelates gaining a victory, as it were, over the laity—until they have been compelled to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men. God hates this, and of course the RCC is a pristine example, but I won’t go into that. The point is, if it is true that the RCC Eucharist is an idol, then it follows that Jesus would of course “HATE” that belief. If I, as a servant of God, believe the evidence strongly supports this is indeed the case, then I must be at liberty to stir your emotions with provocative terms in the hope that you will take it to heart and perhaps do some leg work and check things out. I consider these matters the difference between heaven and hell. So I will leave God to be my judge.

As to your other comment about me not winning any friends, I am not here to do so, nor do I expect it. Jesus said, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you” (Luke 6:26). If absolutely everybody loves you, according to Christ you are probably holding to compromising positions which please everyone and cause no controversy. However, that is not to be expected from a true follower of Christ.

Now I must leave for now but will return tonight.
Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
 
It never hurts to discuss. We do not know how the Holy Spirit will move. Sure, the other posters on here may resist the Truth, but someone reading the thread might be touched.
True, but others may also be mislead, which is my fear.
 
Besides Stormstopper, since the OP of the thread was concerned with the anathemas of Canon Law and not the belief itself, you are already off topic. Something tells me though that you will not allow this to ruin your soapbox moment…

Here was the question in case you had forgotten:

God bless
And I thought I was the only one to smell a troll.

It is obvious that storm is a sola scriptura that is going to come in here and educate us Catholics. :whacky:

You know, 2000 plus years of teaching, researching, and faith have been wrong for all of this time. How on Earth did we survive? 🤷
 
I cant wait for your pride to return.

“Might I ask which Catholic denomination YOU are from? Could it be that of “Catholics for a Free Choice?” Or how about, “Roman Catholic Gay Priests United”? Are you a liberal, conservative or charasmatic RC? Or are you an ultra-traditionalist like those of the St. Pius X Society who are extremely critical of the changes brought out by Vatican 2. Maybe you are a “New Age” RC which I read about recently. Or possibly a “Left-Wing Catholic”—the title of a book by Doug Roche. Oh my, there are so many splinter groups in RCism, it could just make your head spin, don’t you agree?”

Can’t you see the anger and pride spewing from your hate filled posts? Ministers like you stand before their congregation and spew hatred, and then wonder why their flock exhibits hate. You use the word of God as daggers, without regard for the person in the crosshairs. Do you honestly think that I would listen to you for insight and consider your way of thinking? You are not only hate filled but naive.

Is this a list of types of Christians you hate? It doesn’t matter who I am as pertains to your list, you hate me anyway, because I challenge you.

“Now as to your hope for an apology in referring to the Eucharist as a Ritz Cracker. No, you will not be receiving one, and here is why.”

I didn’t expect one; you are way too proud and hateful to do the right thing by being a little respectful. Why are you so angry with the Church? What happened to cause you to leave Her?

“You are taking it by faith that this object is to be worshipped and adored and is, in fact, the Real body of Christ; while I am going on faith that it is not. Since there are only 2 options, there is a 50% chance you are wrong.”

And by your logic, a 50% chance I am correct, so why all the disrespect when my tradition has as much chance at being true as yours?

“When one has reason to believe the other side is wrong, strong vocabulary is sometimes warranted.”

Strong vocabulary is one thing, hate and anger is different.

“In a similar manner, I am utterly convinced that you guys are worshipping what amounts to nothing more than a Ritz Cracker, and I stand by that assessment.”

So you are saying you are a prophet??? Your hatred shows in your continued use of this language.

“As you know, there is indeed something called “false doctrine”, as we read, for example, that Jesus “HATED” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes in Revelation 2:15. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the Nicos relates to the bishops and prelates gaining a victory, as it were, over the laity—until they have been compelled to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men.”

This refers to “imposters” who taught false doctrines, “judaizers” possibly. Nicolas was one of the first seven men ordained to the Diaconate. He broke off from true doctrine and taught heresy. How is that the Bishops? Now I will tell you that the Baptist website that I found while doing a random search of information pertaining to this subject, does back up your accusations, although after some reliable sources were visited, unfounded. The Church rooted out and removed these heretics, because they were not teaching sound doctrine. Do you hate the Bishops? They are what have kept the faith pure, by the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“God hates this, and of course the RCC is a pristine example, but I won’t go into that.”

Please go into it since you seem to have a direct line to God.

“The point is, if it is true that the RCC Eucharist is an idol, then it follows that Jesus would of course “HATE” that belief. If I, as a servant of God, believe the evidence strongly supports this is indeed the case, then I must be at liberty to stir your emotions with provocative terms in the hope that you will take it to heart and perhaps do some leg work and check things out.”

Do you really think I haven’t done legwork? If that means learning it’s ok to show hatred and disdain for people who disagree with me then no, I haven’t. But hey, I’m ok with that one.

I am a 43 year old cradle Catholic who was once weak in his faith. I thought of leaving the Church as a twenty something. But I didn’t. I made a commitment to learn the truth. This truth has kept me here, Praise God! I didn’t understand the Eucharist and didn’t believe until about ten years ago. I have looked and learned what it means to be a Catholic Christian, and my faith has grown tremendously. If the way to measure whether something is of God is to measure the fruit, my faith journey is definitely lead by Christ in His church. My marriage, kids, job, my extended family, the people I interact with about faith; all has been quite fruitful. I work quite a bit in youth ministry, and most of my time is spent teaching teenagers how to defend their faith against the like of haters such as you. You would be amazed at some of the stories kids tell me about from school about people like you, who won’t respect their rights to practice and believe what they believe. The Eucharist is one of the most frequent questions.

“I consider these matters the difference between heaven and hell. So I will leave God to be my judge.”

You sure seemed to be able to judge earlier.

“Jesus said, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you” (Luke 6:26). If absolutely everybody loves you, according to Christ you are probably holding to compromising positions which please everyone and cause no controversy.”

So, if most of my time is spent fighting off wolves in sheep’s clothing I must be a true follower of Christ. Hey thanks for the compliment, I appreciate that, although I didn’t expect it from you.

Until we chat again, may God be with you!
 
Okay, I’m done banging my head against the stone wall called stormstopper!😃
😉
 
The excuses we as Protestants have for rejecting the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist are many…
Hi stormstopper…

I am aware that the Scriptures can be plausibly interpreted in ways different than the Author’s true meaning. I take this to be inevitable. My opposition to sola scriptura stems not from the fact that non-Catholic interpretations are incredible.

However, I know that there are equally credible, plausible interpretations of Scripture that conflict with your own. In my opinion, the only solution to this problem is to doubt the credibility of sola scriptura. I understand that there are Catholics, who sometimes trade Bible verses with non-Catholics apparently imagining that the Scriptures could only support Catholic doctrine. I am not one of them.

If the Catholic Church proposed what you say, I would believe it. I am malleable. I am truly unable to decide for myself. What do I know? The Church tells me what is true and what is false. The Church even tells me what is Scripture and what is not. We don’t even agree on that with you. I am occasionally willing to make a modest effort to show the plausibility of a Catholic interpretation. But it is usually folly. The other party almost invariably thinks that I think his biblical interpretation is excluded by mine. That is not what I think. I instead think the other party’s biblical interpretation is excluded, one might even say,* anathematized*, by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I do indeed understand the biblical excuses for your infidelity to the Catholic faith. But I find your confidence in them to be unreasonable. The energy and acumen with which you have articulated the excuses are in some respects admirable. I don’t have any arguments against your ways of looking at a truncated Bible in an historical vacuum. But I am not in the habit of looking at a truncated Bible, and not in that fashion. So, I pray that you will one day see the folly of trying to resolve doctrinal controversies by swapping biblical interpretations apart from Apostolic Tradition.

Rory
 
I never thought about it like that before, but I have to agree. If someone really believed that the Eucharist was REALLY Jesus, there would be no time in the day for anything other than worship and adoration. I suspect that very few people, Catholic or otherwise, REALLY believe in the true presence.
Before jumping into conclusions here, in the Roman Catholic Church we have many religious orders who have a devotion to our Lord Jesus true presence in the Eucharist. In fact I can give witness that my first cousin who is a cloistered Nun devoted her whole life to Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and Prayer for his Church and those outside of the Church. In other words my cousin gave up her entire life for Jesus presence and she is not alone there are many all over the world. My cousin is shut out from the world, when we visit her, we can only speak to her through a veil and view her silhouette.

Therre is much protestants can learn from these religious orders. In fact I always question why would protestants want to learn from a wedded man with worldly responsiblities when in the Roman Catholic Church our Priest are celebate who have given their life totally for the Gospel of Jesus. Why dont protestants live a gospel life of celebacy, vow of poverty, and a vow of obedience to Jesus and his Church? I would rather learn from a priest who has given up all the world to just serve Jesus and his body the Catholic church. Than from a man or woman who have cares of the world attached to them. But that is just my opinion.

The Catholic Church has a treasure of living saints, and those who lived this Eucharistic life who handed down this apostolic faith since the apostles, in the True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist even at the threat of death these Catholic men and women never denied Jesus in his Eucharist.

So yes there are many Catholic men and woman who have devoted their lives 24/7 to the true presence of Jesus Christ.
 
I am from the reformed camp, if you MUST know.
Might I ask which Catholic denomination YOU are from? Could it be that of “Catholics for a Free Choice?” Or how about, “Roman Catholic Gay Priests United”? Are you a liberal, conservative or charasmatic RC? Or are you an ultra-traditionalist like those of the St. Pius X Society who are extremely critical of the changes brought out by Vatican 2. Maybe you are a “New Age” RC which I read about recently. Or possibly a “Left-Wing Catholic”—the title of a book by Doug Roche. Oh my, there are so many splinter groups in RCism, it could just make your head spin, don’t you agree?
 
The Catholic Church has a treasure of living saints, and those who lived this Eucharistic life who handed down this apostolic faith since the apostles, in the True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist even at the threat of death these Catholic men and women never denied Jesus in his Eucharist.

So yes there are many Catholic men and woman who have devoted their lives 24/7 to the true presence of Jesus Christ.
Not to take anything away from those who are called to a religious life, as a percentage of all the Catholics in the world, their numbers are very small and getting smaller every year. And as devoted to the Eucharist as they may be, they are not at all representative of the average Catholic who professes a belief in the true presence, but in fact, probably doesn’t give it much thought.
 
Hi stormstopper…

However, I know that there are equally credible, plausible interpretations of Scripture that conflict with your own. In my opinion, the only solution to this problem is to doubt the credibility of sola scripturaI. I am truly unable to decide for myself. What do I know? The Church tells me what is true and what is false. The Church even tells me what is Scripture and what is not. I am occasionally willing to make a modest effort to show the plausibility of a Catholic interpretation. But it is usually folly. So, I pray that you will one day see the folly of trying to resolve doctrinal controversies by swapping biblical interpretations apart from Apostolic Tradition.
You’ve really said a mouthful and I couldn’t disagree more. You are correct however in first asserting, “What do I know?”.
God did not make us like computers so we are always having to search out a matter, and the more we learn, the more we should realize how much we DON’T know. But do you really think that God wants you to hold to the “I am so dumb idea” — “so therefore I must check my brain in with the Vatican hat-check girl so that when they empty-headedly lead me past walls of gold, my empty cranium can then be filled with the doctrines of Roman Catholicism by various Vatican personnel?”

The fact that there might be different views on a particular verse is not a reason to be afraid of Scripture! The Lord has not promised us perfect knowledge, nor do we enter heaven based on our getting “everything little point right”. Jesus Christ’s view of Scripture was INTENSE, and He held even the common folk responsible for knowing it. You are exemplifying to me the type of individual who is saying, “it hurts my head to much to think about it so I must let the big boys take care of the disputed facts.” That excuse will not do because in case you don’t know, the RCC has only defined the amount of verses that can be counted on one hand (more or less depending on who you ask since NO ONE agrees—which they ought to if the claim for being the sole arbiter of truth was legit). Anyway, as Mr. Aiken says elsewhere on this site,

“the church has never undertaken the composition of an official Bible commentary. The project would involve a massive expenditure of her resources when there is simply no pressing need to do so. It is much simpler to adopt the approach. . . to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports, provided certain minimal boundaries are met.”

Having now established that the RCC has left 98% of the Bible UNINTERPRETED, who are you to tell me that my interpretation is null and void because it conflicts with “tradition”. WHAT tradition? The further fact of the matter is that your so-called “tradition” is admitted by all to be “unwritten”—so how do you know, ipso facto, that it’s against apostolic tradition? Get ready for a shock: No one has yet been able to trace ONE apostolic tradition back to the apostles. Everything is simply asserted as being apostolic and that’s that! This should rightly disturb you and was one of the reasons I happily made my exit OUT of the RCC 25 years ago when I was 25. So now you know how old I am 🙂

You say that “the church tells me what is true and false”.

And this-- coming from a church which has a history of killing tens of thousands of innocent Christians down through the ages because they refused her doctrines, and who furthermore has a world-wide history of pervasive clerical abuse that continues to this day??? A church that says she has the power of infallibility, but cannot name for us the exact number of times she has invoked this charisma? A church that says we must follow her interpretations of the Bible, but who, in effect, has left that work to “reliable scripture scholars”? A church who says that Tradition must be on the same pedastal as Scripture, when she cannot tell us what those traditions are and hence no one can really know if they are keeping them??? And a laity, who, when they hear from a council, not only need an interpreter to interpret the infallible interpreter because they are unsure of their own interpretation, but cannot even know if such councils, such as Vatican 2, were infallible or not----as I have a long debate in my files of two sons of the church who take polar OPPOSITE positions!

Truly, you have much to learn. But if in the end, you decide to stay with the RCC, just remember that you have made a completely fallible decision to join the allegedly infallibille church. Your infallible choice was no different from my fallible choice NOT to join her!
The RCC has made a claim. Fine. She is subject to scrutiny. Need it be said that the millions of non-Catholics across the world reject her infallibilty claims, and with good reason. You need to examine those reasons, and it appears to me you have not done so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top