For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[flyersfan1088]

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

There are many others. I just wanted to post a sampling of some of them.

 

[mgrfin]

You set your premise as: The Bible is the most verified and the most verifiable book in man’s history. Sounds ok. Most people will nod their heads in agreement with your premise.
However, when we look to verify to see that your thesis falls apart. Let’s examine:

First, the Bible contains more than one book. There are 46 books in the OT, and 27 books in the NT. But, here is where things get a bit mushy, and your opening statement begins to fall apart. There are different canons: canons for the Jews, for Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac and Ethiopian canons.

So, your theorem is wrong. You can’t even come up with one list of books acceptable to all. So your case cannot move on. But, we will just move it, just out of sympathy.

Now, we have Apocrypha. There Anglican apocrypha, and there are Lutheran apocrypha, which are different. So lack of agreements gives us a mess. No help for the masses.

Your case is really over, counselor, but I will move it on. Authorship: Who wrote these books anyway? Scientific evidence proves an array of differences of opinion. Take just the Pauline Epistles. Well, we’ll accept that Paul wrote Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. That is 3 out of 14. We don’t know who wrote the rest. These 11, very important Epistles, they are of unknown authorship. These should be considered inspired, if Paul did not write then?

If you are a lawyer, you are now done. But let’s move on, just to satisfy the gallery.

We don’t have the originals of ANY of these books. We have pieces, literally pieces, of manuscripts. We have some redactions. We have later translations, and some reported to be copies. Should these, from available evidence be considered to be inspired? Not in any court of law I know of! If you are in court, you would not get away with presenting a copy, something with unproven authorship.

Now let’s add one further nail to your coffin, Translation: now we have arrived at the Tower of Babel. There are thousands of translations. You should stake your eternal salvation on forced or unforced errors of translations. Like Luther in Romans 3:28. He translated it as “For we account a man to be justified by faith ONLY, without the works of the Law”. His whole religion was based on this intentional error. (And thousands more.) We are not saved by faith only.

Divine authorship. These books – or rather the original of these books – if we had them – are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Who says so? The Bible? ? We won’t accept it for the Bible. Well, now, we have a case of ‘he said, she said”, or at best, circuitous reasoning. Only the originals are inspired (none of which we have), and the Bible says so – not just improbable, but impossible to prove your case. You won’t allow that for Tradition, even though it is verifiyable in your Bible and historicall Consider your theorem proven false. There is no agreement about anything relating to the Bible. Number of books, Authorship, Translation, Apocrypha, Inspiration, Confirmation.

Failing your case, a better case can be made for Tradition over Scripture. But include them both: you then have true Divine Revelation. Verified and Verifyable.

Credo in…unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam…”

Peace

 

[Krocker]

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

There are many others. I just wanted to post a sampling of some of them.

So I get the interpretation as something like this: You couldn’t verify the “God” in Jesus when He was on the earth, thus you can’t verify the “God” in the eucharist. Is this right?

I suspect it isn’t because, regardless of the inability to verify the God in either Jesus or the eucharist, it doesn’t explain why one form (Jesus) was verifiably human, while the other form (eucharist) is not. In other words, you can’t verify *either *the God or the human in the eucharist, but you could at least verify one in Jesus. So I’m not sure that is a good analogy. Anyway, let me know where I’m missing your point if I am.

And from your quotes, and I did read them this time, I get two things. First, the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. I don’t see an allusion to what was stated earlier that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, but not really. From your quotes, I would think they really believe they’re taking in flesh and blood. Second, you should ignore the fact that it tastes and looks like bread and wine to you. My response is “why”? If it’s really the body and blood, verify the heck out of it. And if you choose not to, you are relying on “faith alone” (I only stressed this phrase to rile up some of you stringent anti-protestant apologist types who despise the term). So it’s your faith that tells you it’s the body and blood and nothing else.

You can’t prove faith, obviously since that’s the definition of faith. So why do you excommunicate and condemn others for something that cannot be proven?

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t whether Mary had to be a virgin, and I don’t know whether she had to be sinless. Christ could have been born to an ordinary person through natural intercourse. He could have other brothers and sisters.

Nothing required any of this. And you look for proofs? I have be be amused. You are a believer, and everything you believe is verifyable from the evidence. Jesus actually forgave sin? What proof is there for that? If I go around and say, “Your sins are forgiven”, does that mean that they are.

And He rose from the dead? His family and close friends say this. What value do these witnesses have my friend. You’d make mince meat of them in Court. A bedraggled bunch of fishermen and tax collectors.

At some place, faith must take over. Don’t make fun of our Faith and our Tradition, and we won’t make fun of yours. Does the Church have a direct line of communication between itself and heaven. Yes, it does. It is called the Holy Spirit, who came on Pentecost Sunday to found the Church, in fulfillment of the Promise it is also with the Church to the end of time.

We believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin birth because the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ, and is guided by the infallible Holy Spirit, says so. For people of faith, that is enough. Away with your requirements of proofs.

Don’t belittle Faith so easily. You remember about “people ijn glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. Why does it bother you so much? Are you so concerned about what Jews believe, or Armenian Catholics? And you belittle their faith?

What faith can you have in your man-founded religion, dating back a few years ago? Maybe you are just jealous that we have our foundation from Jesus Christ, and you from some mere man.

We offer proofs: faith. The same for you and your beliefs.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

You can’t prove faith, obviously since that’s the definition of faith. So why do you excommunicate and condemn others for something that cannot be proven?

Don’t get so antsy about ‘excommunication’. All that means is that you can’t be a member of our church anymore cause you deny an essential belief, or do something, to which there is this special penalty attached. I don’t believe there is an excommunication attached to Catholics who don’t believe in the Eucharist. It is not a ‘crime’ in the canonical sense. (legal sense).

I think Catholics who have abortions are excommunicated. Why? Because we are opposed to murder, and if you abort someone you are committing murder.

Our church, like every other organization, has rules to live by. If you don’t live by them in a public manner, or do something vile in the public forum, the Church has the right to exclude such people. Usually, it is defined as a ‘crime’.

Of course, such can return, by penance and forgiveness.

You’re preaching to the choir here, Crocker. We’re the good guys. Go after the war-mongers, the racists, those committing genocide, or letting their people starve to death, or from sickness and illness. There are plenty of causes out there for people like you - write a op-ed letter to the NY Times. All that will do a lot more good than complaining about the Church excommunicating someone who did violence to the Pope, or some such heinous crime.

peace

 

[justasking4]

mgrfin;3093803]

I don’t whether Mary had to be a virgin, and I don’t know whether she had to be sinless. Christ could have been born to an ordinary person through natural intercourse. He could have other brothers and sisters.

 

[flyersfan1088]

And from your quotes, and I did read them this time, I get two things. First, the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. I don’t see an allusion to what was stated earlier that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, but not really. From your quotes, I would think they really believe they’re taking in flesh and blood. Second, you should ignore the fact that it tastes and looks like bread and wine to you. My response is “why”? If it’s really the body and blood, verify the heck out of it. And if you choose not to, you are relying on “faith alone” (I only stressed this phrase to rile up some of you stringent anti-protestant apologist types who despise the term). So it’s your faith that tells you it’s the body and blood and nothing else.

You can’t prove faith, obviously since that’s the definition of faith. So why do you excommunicate and condemn others for something that cannot be proven?

It can’t be verified except in rare cases of Eucharistic Miracles. I posted one a couple of pages back, but by your own admission you didn’t read it. It does all boil down to faith. If Jesus can rise from the dead, He can affect this miracle too. Personally I thank Him every time I receive Him that He didn’t give us His Body and Blood in the form we usually think of. He knows our nature, He created us. I think He was doing us a favor by giving Himself to us in the forms that He does. All that we have to go on is what Jesus said. The rest depends upon whether He meant what He said or not. I can’t force you to believe, however I have shown you that this belief was held from the earliest times. One more piece of the gigantic puzzle falls into place.

 

[flyersfan1088]

So why do you excommunicate and condemn others for something that cannot be proven?

There are only a few things you can be automatically excommunicated for. Procuring a successful abortion, desecrating the Eucharist, and violence to the Pope. I may have missed one, but I think that’s it. Excommunication is actually an invitation to repentance. All one would have to do is to confess the sins in the Sacrament of Penance to have the Excommunication withdrawn.

 

[Krocker]

You’re preaching to the choir here, Crocker. We’re the good guys. Go after the war-mongers, the racists, those committing genocide, or letting their people starve to death, or from sickness and illness. There are plenty of causes out there for people like you - write a op-ed letter to the NY Times. All that will do a lot more good than complaining about the Church excommunicating someone who did violence to the Pope, or some such heinous crime.

peace

Yes, yes, yes. I won’t “make fun” of your faith. I applaud you for it. But, in turn, don’t “make fun” of mine – or worse, condemn me by saying I would get so much more as a Catholic without identifying what that is outside of general notions of warm fuzzies. How do you react when a Protestant tells you it would be so much better if you believed in God, rather than man? You probably get pretty ticked off, and rightly so because it contradicts your “faith.” I feel the same.

“Faith” is what it is – an unprovable belief. You can’t prove yours and I can’t prove mine. So be it. (Ahh, but I bet I get someone telling my how they can “prove” the Catholic faith, and a round and around we’ll go). A “battle of faiths” is going to get you nowhere. “Faith” cannot be argued or decided, at least not by us. (Now what can be proved are the facts, if any, underlying our faith – but I digress.)

Anyway, I agree with your statement that you’re the good guy. I absolutely agree with that actually. And I agree with that because we’re all on the same team. We’re Christians. So why do we call ourselves Catholics and Protestants? Because some people believe that wine turns into blood and some don’t? Who cares? Or, some people believe Jesus’ mother – not even Jesus, who we’re in agreement on – did not have original sin? Who cares? In the grand scheme of things, these are minute issues. If you believed Jesus was just an ordinary guy, but his mother was without sin – where does that get you? Or if you believed Jesus was just an ordinary guy and your bread turns into his blood – where does that get you? Nowhere. So why do we so fervantly defend and attack these beliefs? I’m proud to call you my brothers and sisters in Christ. I think some of your beliefs are contrary to reason, but so what, you think I’m completely off my rocker.

I think it’s better to deeply examine your faith and then disagree on a few matters of relatively little importance than to blindly believe what somebody else tells you to believe without any thought whatsoever (and I’m accusing Protestants just as much if not more than Catholics here, so don’t read that into the sentence). It is obvious that most of you have considered and live by your faith, as do I.

 

[flyersfan1088]

“Faith” is what it is – an unprovable belief.

I just went to pick my daughter up from school and this statement is exactly what was rattling around in my brain on the drive. God Himself can’t be proven. Sure logical arguments can be made, but He can’t be proven. Our belief in a God at all is based on faith. There is one thing that can be proven, though. How our predecessors have acted upon that faith. That is why I stress the Early Church Fathers so much. It’s almost like studying case-law. I have come to the conclusion that what people believed and taught about Christ in His generation, and the generations immediately following, are probably going to be a more accurate depiction than what you or I can come up with 2000 years removed. This what my study of those writings has uncovered.
They believed in the real presence of the Eucharist
They believed in one Church, holding one belief
They believed in Baptism for the remission of sins
They believed in the Papacy
They believed in Marys Immaculate conception, perpetual virginity,
and assumption

Some people may debate this, but that’s what I found the writings to teach.

I will not try to convert you, but I will answer questions you may have about our beliefs, and where they come from.

 

[mgrfin]

By the way, Catholics believe in God, “Credo in unum Deum…”, and we do not believe in man. Where in one of our creeds does it say we believe in man? Nowhere.

Oh, you are disturbed by infallibility? Like it couldn’t be possible, and it isnt provable from our (yours and mine) Scripture. The number of times infallibility has been called on is what five times? four times? three time? Twice. Yeah, maybe twice in 2,000 years. Something to get upset about, for sure. You pick and chose from Scripture, and *you *say, infallibly. what it means. Then you accuse us of belief in a man. Our belief is solely in the God-man, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Yours is a man-made religion; we never said ours was. Yours was founded last year, or 1982, or 1888, or 1520. So who is believing in a man, rather than God? You are.

You want to be left alone? Fine. This is a Catholic site. You are an invited guest. And you and I are expected live by the rules. If you want to be left alone, don’t attack us, don’t dare us to prove to you things in the faith, or outside, like your challenge about the Scriptures and Tradition.

Oh, one thing. “Outside of the Church, there is no salvation”. Not for one minute do we believe that you are going to be saved in your “Lord, lord…”, in your man-made religion. You need us.

peace

 

[Metaron]

Well said, Mgrfin! Bravo, way to put 'em in their place.

In the end, after all’s said and done-- his religion popped up, oh, somewhere between yesterday and the 1500’s. But ours’-- well, it’s 2,000 years old. And founded by Jesus Christ. Can’t beat that!

 

[mgrfin]

JUSTASKING4
Something wrong here. You attributed my post to Krocker. Give me some credit please. Post 327

Also, I am a Roman Catholic, so what I said reflects the Catholic Church. He is a Protestant.

peace

 

[flyersfan1088]

Guys, if you re-read his posts, he’s a reasonable person until he’s attacked. Let’s have a little charity.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
Why were so many people freaked out about having to eat flesh and drink wine, when it really wasn’t flesh or wine – at least as far as we could tell? (I often hear this retort when discussing transubstantiation – “well, if it wasn’t really flesh and blood, why did so many people freak out?” – you can’t have it both ways.)

Dear Krocker, the reason we believe what we believe is because the proper authority to know what is correct has told us what to believe. The “materialist” mind can’t abide that. People were “freaked out” by the fact that the appearence of bread and wine was said to be not what it appeared to be but was in fact what it was. The Body and Blood.

Some people, of course, simply thought that anyone who’d believe that Catholics would even THINK that they were eating and drinking human Flesh and Blood were mad, and “left Jesus” for that reason. I’m sure SOME thought that it wasn’t REAL Flesh and Blood and stayed, thinking that they understood that Jesus meant what He said in a “symbolic” way.

Those people were most likely disabused of that notion not too long thereafter, or weren’t and founded their own gnostic sects.

And why would a previous poster (I don’t believe it was you) attempt to show me “proof” that the bread and wine were actually scientifically determined to be blood and flesh if this was never the church’s interpretation? Is he (and certainly many other Catholics) completely unaware of this “official” stance? And, if so, why? You’ve only been practicing it for 2000 years, you would think you could make one of your most basic beliefs clear by now.

You’ll have to do your own research on bread and wine changing it’s appearance to actual Flesh and Blood, but no one is “commanded” to believe in any miracle past those mandated by the Magisterium. Every day under the appearance of bread and wine Christ is with us as REAL Flesh and Blood. That occassionally some actual supposed appearential (!?) transformation happens is just a “teaser” that perhaps real miracles DO happen. Do I believe in this miracle of appearance? Not at the moment because I don’t kow very much about it.

And (inside joke) why does my father in law give up alcohol for lent, yet continue taking the eucharist if it’s REALLY still just wine (at least both wine and Jesus simultaneously)?

It appears to be wine, while in reality is God’s Blood.

And as far as the proof issues go, Catholics bring that upon themselves by claiming infallibility. If you claim to have all the answers, people will certainly want more than just your word for it.

People can WANT whatever they like, but they’ll get what they’re given, which is the truth. If people choose not to accept the truth as given, then they’re free to find what truth they can find wherever they think they can trust to get it. But why trust one source over another?

The same does not go for Protestantism, which fully realizes its fallibility. As I mentioned before, if I simply answered all of your questions “because that’s just the way it is, and you can’t prove me wrong because God speaks only through me,” you’d call me crazy and say “prove it”.

No. You’d BE crazy because even YOU’D know you’re either lying or are deluded. There is NO trusting that ANYTHING is TRUE if you accept no authority AS truth telling.

You accept what you want to accept. The only authority you DO accept is the authority of the Church (bible) but you don’t accept everything from that authority (the rest of the deposit of faith).

You’ve put yourself in that position, don’t lament it and don’t try to impose your burden of proof on others who don’t share your “infallibility” beliefs.

If you don’t believe what you believe, then that’s your problem. By that I mean that you DO claim that you know some things “infallibly” (what you DO believe), while you claim that other things are not infallibly known (that which you DON’T believe).

Do you or do you not believe what you believe, and how do you infallibly know it? If you DON’T infallibly know it, then you don’t REALLY believe it, now do you?

 

[RomanPL]

The discussion is very interesting but very hot. I really pray that hosting somebody here would have more peaceful tone no matter how “stubborn” or even attacking is the guest. Please, put a little more love in your hearts… we are all searching and just that is a hard journey. The gate is narrow that requires a lot of patience for ourselves and others… Krocker, I give you a lot of credit for staying on your journey and searching.

I’m thinking the Bible is the start. There is a great book that came out recently by Gary Machuda (?) “Why the Catholic Bibles are bigger.” Good research.
Since the Bible is the base for our Protestant Brothers and sisters we need to find good answers there first.
I’m also trying to find a great answer from Relevant Answers from Relevant Radio. In one or 2 minutes there are some basics explained by author and Catholic apologist, John Salza. He provides concise answers to questions about our faith. Really recommend this one especially the one on Body and Blood of Christ and the picture of somebody’s wife (I’m trying to get the original version to post it here).
God bless us all!

 

[RomanPL]

You can listen to him with his Relevant Answers from:
relevantradio.com/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=996&srcid=996
Really worth your time!!!

 

[mgrfin]

“Faith” is what it is – an unprovable belief. You can’t prove yours and I can’t prove mine. So be it. (Ahh, but I bet I get someone telling my how they can “prove” the Catholic faith, and a round and around we’ll go). A “battle of faiths” is going to get you nowhere. “Faith” cannot be argued or decided, at least not by us. (Now what can be proved are the facts, if any, underlying our faith – but I digress.)
.

Faith is not an “unprovable belief”. Faith is a truth revealed to us by God, who can neither deceive, nor be deceived.
That is why we don’t have to prove anything since it was revealed to us by God.

We believe on the authority of God himself, not any mere man.
And what does it all matter? Ask the martyrs of the Catholic Church that. From St. Stephen, our first martyr, thru the martyrs of the early Church who shed their blood in testimony of the Resurrection, right down to the present day.

It is not belief in ‘just wine becoming blood’, as you put it so rudely, but what Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior left us in remembrance of his Death and Resurrection, the propitiatory act of Salvation for all mankind.

Protestants don’t seem to be able to handle our doctrines. They freely let pass the various thousands of disparite sects of Christianity, but they target Catholicism, because we have held to the truth.

Mary? We argue on her behalf because she is The Mother of God, the only real title that matters to her. And what flows from this is the reward for her “Fiat”, that she be preserved free from the stain of original sin, which Her Son came into this world to redeem. Mary had an important part to play in this act of Redemption. She could do so only being the New Eve, the sinless Mother of God.

Gen 3:15: “I will put enmities betwee thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

peace

 

[paarsurrey]

For those who say the Bible is “sufficient” for salvation

Hi

To me Bible is not sufficient for salvation or for that matter any Scriptures of Hindus, or Buddhists or Zoroastriens etc unless they do not contradict Quran for support Quran, in my opinion.

The Quran is:

[98:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[98:2] Those, who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters, would not desist from disbelief until there should come to them the clear evidence -**
[98:3] A Messenger from Allah, reciting unto them the pure Scriptures,
[98:4] Wherein are lasting commandments. **
[98:5] And those to whom the Book was given did not become divided until after clear evidence had come to them.
[98:6] And they were not commanded but to serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience, and being upright, and to observe Prayer and pay the Zakat. And that is the right religion.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=98

[2:106] They, who disbelieve from among the people of the Book, or from among those who associate gods with Allah, desire not that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord; but Allah chooses for His mercy whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is Lord of exceeding bounty. **
[2:107] Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof.** Knowest thou not that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?
[2:108] Knowest thou not that the Kingdom of the Heavens and the earth belongs to Allah alone? And there is no protector or helper for you besides Allah.
[2:109] Would you question the Messenger sent to you as Moses was questioned before this? And whoever takes disbelief in exchange for belief has undoubtedly gone astray from the right path.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=2&verse=100

Thanks

 

[Bible_Believer]

Faith is not an “unprovable belief”. Faith is a truth revealed to us by God, who can neither deceive, nor be deceived.
That is why we don’t have to prove anything since it was revealed to us by God.

We believe on the authority of God himself, not any mere man.
And what does it all matter? Ask the martyrs of the Catholic Church that. From St. Stephen, our first martyr, thru the martyrs of the early Church who shed their blood in testimony of the Resurrection, right down to the present day.

It is not belief in ‘just wine becoming blood’, as you put it so rudely, but what Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior left us in remembrance of his Death and Resurrection, the propitiatory act of Salvation for all mankind.

Protestants don’t seem to be able to handle our doctrines. They freely let pass the various thousands of disparite sects of Christianity, but they target Catholicism, because we have held to the truth.

Mary? We argue on her behalf because she is The Mother of God, the only real title that matters to her. And what flows from this is the reward for her “Fiat”, that she be preserved free from the stain of original sin, which Her Son came into this world to redeem. Mary had an important part to play in this act of Redemption. She could do so only being the New Eve, the sinless Mother of God.

Gen 3:15: “I will put enmities betwee thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

peace

Can you explain that verse to me please?? Im not trying to be smart or anything…that really is a verse I have never quite understood, and when I saw it here…I thought…good…I can finally ask! Thanks in advance! I didnt mean to include the whole post as a quote…lol…I dont quite have this thing down real good yet!
have a blessed day!