How could anyone believe this?

[jsussvsus]

quote=E.E.N.S.

Hippolytus

**
**

When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (Apostolic Tradition 9 [ca. **A.D. 215
[/quote]

]).

**Origen

**
**
**

Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married (Homilies on Luke, 17 [ca. **A.D. 235]).

**Cyprian

**
**
**

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (*On the Unity of the Catholic Church *6 A.D. 251]).

Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (*Letters *66 A.D. 253]).

Hi
Wow, I’m glad you posted these. I didn’t know that it only took about 110 years for the pride of man to infect the church. I noticed that they used the church to protect there positions in the church, sad. Politics has a way of destroying things. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Atreyu]

I know alot of churches have gone astray, that is why we stay with what the scriptures teach.

Indeed the Catholic Church also stays with what the scriptures teach. And yet the scriptures have never changed; so has the doctrine of the Catholic church never changed. It has developed, but many times, doctrines are only defined after they have been violated. If you think that the Church was led astray less than two centuries after the death of Christ then how can you consistently hold to the doctrine of the trinity, which was only defined later? And don’t tell me that you get it from the bible, because that is the same bible (if not translation) that Jehovah’s Witnesses use, as well as the United Church of God, as well as Arius in days gone by. By what authority is your translation superior to these other people who use the same source?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

jsussvsus:

Hi
Wow, I’m glad you posted these. I didn’t know that it only took about 110 years for the pride of man to infect the church. I noticed that they used the church to protect there positions in the church, sad. Politics has a way of destroying things. Thanks for the insight.

Hey, excuse me. All of these people listed are Holy Martyrs. They died for their faith (the Catholic Faith). These are the people that knew the Apostles and knew what THEY TAUGHT. Just because it goes against your argument doesn’t mean you need to get defensive and attack our Holy Martyrs.

 

[DeniseR]

jsussvsus:

Hi
Wow, I’m glad you posted these. I didn’t know that it only took about 110 years for the pride of man to infect the church. I noticed that they used the church to protect there positions in the church, sad. Politics has a way of destroying things. Thanks for the insight.

These men were not showing their pride. They were teaching, as Jesus commanded them to do. They were teaching about the authority of the Church – the authority Jesus gave them (as he has through the centuries to popes and bishops) when he said to Simon: You are Peter (Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Did Peter live forever? No, he died a martyr’s death. Would the Church Jesus himself established end with Peter’s death? No, because Jesus himself said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So, the church continued on and continues on. The early church fathers weren’t bragging that they were in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – they were stating the truth.

 

[DeniseR]

Atreyu:

Indeed the Catholic Church also stays with what the scriptures teach. And yet the scriptures have never changed; so has the doctrine of the Catholic church never changed. It has developed, but many times, doctrines are only defined after they have been violated. If you think that the Church was led astray less than two centuries after the death of Christ then how can you consistently hold to the doctrine of the trinity, which was only defined later? And don’t tell me that you get it from the bible, because that is the same bible (if not translation) that Jehovah’s Witnesses use, as well as the United Church of God, as well as Arius in days gone by. By what authority is your translation superior to these other people who use the same source?

On vacation I encountered a booth at a roadside flea market with an evangalist. I entered into a discussion with him and he began to tell me about the end of the world, etc. I told him I was taught that Jesus himself said that no one knows when the end will come, only the Father in Heaven. He said there are signs clearly laid out in the bible and we should be ready. I told him I always try to be in the state of grace because whether or not the world ends, my day might end earlier and I want to be prepared spiritually.

I waited awhile to let him know I was Catholic. When he said all the truths were in the bible, I agreed. But then I asked him how he knew what those truths were. He said the Holy Spirit showed him.

I asked why the Holy Spirit shows different truths to different people. There are over 30,000 different protestant denominations, why was his truth correct and theirs wasn’t? I explained that the pope and bishops have been given the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Tradition to lead the church and has done so since the time of Jesus.

He said the authority of Peter was not biblical because James challenged him at the Council in Jerusalem. I explained that Peter had the last word and that the fact that there was a council in the book of Acts in the bible shows the pope and bishops gathering to clear up questions and that have occurred and that this practice has existed throughout the centuries.

He said the Catholic Church doesn’t teach what the bible says. I said that the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the bible, did he believe it? He said he did because even though the word is not in there the concept is in there and the Holy Spirit made it known to him. I said the word was defined by the pope and bishops held a council several hundred years after Christ and defined some terms. I asked if he picked up the bible one day and read it without previous information and just came up with the term “trinity” to define the 3 persons of God. I also wanted to know if he was the author of all the literature he was passing out (books, DVDs, pamphlets, etc.) He said he wasn’t but agreed with it all from his reading of the bible. I questioned him again about where the authority the authors he agrees with came from (Holy Spirit according to him) and why all the denominations believe the same thing – that the Holy Spirit guides them and they don’t agree with one another. He said protestantism is where the **truth lies **(emphasis mine). I let that one drop. Besides, I thought he said it was the bible.

I asked him what the foundation of truth was and he said the bible. Then I opened his bible to Thessolonians 3:15 and showed him that in fact the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth. He kept saying that the Church wasn’t interpreting the bible correctly. I had to meet the rest of my family but said that I would go along with 2000 years of teaching by first the apostles, then their sucessors instead of relying on my own interpretation. The Holy Spirit has given me the ability to trust that He has been with His Church from the beginning and that I am not arrogant enough to think I can interpret the bible more correctly than 2000 years of holy men to whom Christ gave his authority.

I ended saying I had to leave and shook his hand and said we would probably meet again in Heaven because we both loved the Lord and were searching for the truth. He gave me his book and dvd and I asked him to go online and read about the early church fathers and the CCC and learn what the Church teaches. He didn’t say he wouldn’t but I don’t think he’s too open. I read some of his book but it is so off that I can’t continue.

 

[Fidelis]

Nice job, Denise. :clapping:

Don’t ever doubt that you planted a seed which the Holy Spirit will bring to fruition.

 

[anon49823460]

In John 6, Jesus was explaining the Eucharist

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

And in John 6:66

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

Maybe those are the Protestants that existed at that time.

 

[Fidelis]

jsussvsus:

Hi
Wow, I’m glad you posted these. I didn’t know that it only took about 110 years for the pride of man to infect the church. I noticed that they used the church to protect there positions in the church, sad. Politics has a way of destroying things. Thanks for the insight.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very *essence * of arrogance. A lone person and his or her Bible 2000 years removed from the events it describes holding his or her interpretation over saints and martyrs who knew the apostles and their immediate successors and passing judgement on their motives. I wish there were a stronger word than arrogance that could safely be used by a Christian.

jsussvsus, you have my pity and my prayers.

 

[jsussvsus]

Fidelis:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very *essence * of arrogance. A lone person and his or her Bible 2000 years removed from the events it describes holding his or her interpretation over saints and martyrs who knew the apostles and their immediate successors and passing judgement on their motives. I wish there were a stronger word than arrogance that could safely be used by a Christian.

jsussvsus, you have my pity and my prayers.

Hi
It is the catholic church that is arrogant. It is your church that says no one but a catholic may take part in your communion, or that there is no salvation outside the catholic church, it is always your church this,and your church that. Everyone else is lost, except of course for the Muslims as stated in the CCC #841. Which goes directly against scripture. This is about our relationship with Jesus Christ. Don’t build the church up so high that you can no longer see Jesus.

 

[Catholicious]

Fidelis:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very *essence *of arrogance. A lone person and his or her Bible 2000 years removed from the events it describes holding his or her interpretation over saints and martyrs who knew the apostles and their immediate successors and passing judgement on their motives. I wish there were a stronger word than arrogance that could safely be used by a Christian.

jsussvsus, you have my pity and my prayers.

Fidelis,

For sure, I think the word you are looking for is “audacity”.

Peace to all,
Catholicious

 

[Catholicious]

jsussvsus:

Hi
It is the catholic church that is arrogant. It is your church that says no one but a catholic may take part in your communion, or that there is no salvation outside the catholic church, it is always your church this,and your church that. Everyone else is lost, except of course for the Muslims as stated in the CCC #841. Which goes directly against scripture. This is about our relationship with Jesus Christ. Don’t build the church up so high that you can no longer see Jesus.

jesussavesus,

Jesus established the Church [Mt 16:18]. He is the head of the Church, the body [Col 1:18]. Jesus Christ above all is the head of our Church, He is the source and summit of our Catholic Christian faith [CCC 1324]. As far as those outside the Church are concerned, The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCCC] addresses your concerns rather nicely:

*[CCCC 171] What is the meaning of the affirmation: “There is no salvation outside the Church”? *

It means that all salvation comes from Christ-Head through the Church, which is his Body. Therefore, those cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, do not enter it and do not persevere. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those can attain eternal salvation who, without fault, do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church, but seek God sincerely and, under the influence of grace, try to do his will known through the dictates of their conscience.

You will sometimes hear this referred to very briefly as “invincible ignorance”. Muslims too fall under this category because they do not believe that Jesus is who saves them so they are ignorant to the truth. The Catechism [did not check the passage you sited] merely acknowledges the common ground that Christians and Muslims have, in that we both claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In regards to the Church not allowing non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion, your comment is not entirely accurate. First of all, the Church actually permits the majority of Christendom to receive the Holy Communion [when they are in a state of grace]. Please note that Catholicism [the Latin and all Eastern Rites] accounts for nearly 66% of all Christians. Furthermore, since the Orthodox have such a similar understanding of the Eucharist, they too are permitted to receive. The Orthodox on the other hand do not return the favor. With the Orthodox added, that is even more of a majority. But even that being said, the Church is not being clicky or exclusive in who is permitted to receive Communion just to be clicky or exclusive, they do this because partaking in the same Communion means that we all hold the same belief, and when that comes to the Eucharist, Catholics believe that the consecrated bread and wine truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71].

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 (KJV)
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

That is why in order to receive Holy Communion, a person has to understand that this is truly Jesus and be in a state of grace.

jesussavesus, all of this is not a demonstration of arrogance, but rather responsibility, for it was the Church that Jesus established that protects and passes on the faith to every generation until He comes again in glory. I do hope this helps, and that I explained the faith in a charitable manner.

Peace my friend,
Catholicious

 

[jaz1976]

Atreyu:

Quoted from another thread:

Several times I have heard some Protestant denominations claim that there have been Protestants around since the time of the Apostles. Well, I have heard Catholics claim that some Protestants claim this, so I am assuming that it is true (feel free to rebut). Now when I was reading the above post, the hypocrisy of the entire situation suddenly hit me. How could any truth-seeking Protestant possibly believe that? First of all, it seems to violate sola scriptura in that (I am guessing) there is some kind of Tradition that I assume these Protestants are passing down. And secondly there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it (at least, not that I’m aware of). The former point is the one I would like to address in this thread, how is it not hypocritical for Protestants (not all of them, just the ones who fit the above criteria) to reject Catholicism because they don’t believe in Tradition, and then go and claim that their denomination has been around since the Apostles?

I hope this makes sense, it’s late and I’m sleepy and I’m not sure I understand the situation entirely, especially as I have only really heard it second hand.

Allow me to give my educated opinion of John Hagee ( I hope this doesn’t get me suspended from the board.)

He is a fat little loud mouthed idiot. He spews hate towards the Catholic Church every chance he gets. He has nothing to back up his claims , except Boettner. Hagees view of Christian history is just slightly skewed and incorrect.

And as far as him being Protestant goes, he says he that he isn’t one. He claims that his church is the true church. Sure John, the true church just popped up in America in the 20th century.

John is nothing more than an entertainer and shouldnt be given anymore credit than that.

 

[The_Augustinian]

jsussvsus:

Hi
It is the catholic church that is arrogant. It is your church that says no one but a catholic may take part in your communion, or that there is no salvation outside the catholic church, it is always your church this,and your church that. Everyone else is lost, except of course for the Muslims as stated in the CCC #841. Which goes directly against scripture. This is about our relationship with Jesus Christ. Don’t build the church up so high that you can no longer see Jesus.

We’re getting off-topic here.

The point of this thread is the historical continuity of the Church. There are some Protestants out there such as the Plymouth Brethren who believe that the “bible Christians” were continuous from Christ, and were persecuted by the institutional Church under such forms as the Paulicians, Cathari, Anabaptists, and so forth. This is based upon many false assertions, and is ridiculous on the face of it.

Let’s look at the question of historical continuity. The Church claims that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Continuity comes under these last two marks, catholic and apostolic. “Catholic” means universal, ministering to all times and places. “Apostolic” refers to the succession of bishops from the time of the Apostles. This is the Catholic interpretation.

Christianity is a religion of witnesses. Although there are a few privae revelations (Guadalupe, Fatima) all public revelation has been closed for more than 19 centuries. We believe with we believe because it has been handed down (tradere) to us (tradition). This includes the sacred scriptures. Thus, we can know nothingabout Jesus without the witness of the Church. And, in order for the Church to be a witness, it needs to be pure, it needs to be correct. If the Church is wrong, then there’s no way to know who to trust.

“But wait a minute!” Protestants may say. “We have the Bible, and that’s all we need.” The Bible, however, can’t be read in a vacuum, because for something to have meaning, it needs a context. Without the context of the Church, the Bible can mean whatever we want it to mean. Without the authority of the Church, the authority of the Bible becomes questionable as well. Protestantism set the stage for Higher Criticism and the Jesus Seminar.

So, it’s no surprise that to many the Church is “arrogant” if they *a priori *believe that what the Church says is false. But, if it’s true then the critic has much to answer for.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

jsussvsus:

Hi
It is the catholic church that is arrogant. It is your church that says no one but a catholic may take part in your communion, or that there is no salvation outside the catholic church, it is always your church this,and your church that. Everyone else is lost, except of course for the Muslims as stated in the CCC #841. Which goes directly against scripture. This is about our relationship with Jesus Christ. Don’t build the church up so high that you can no longer see Jesus.

Hello,

Jesus Christ Himself only let his 12 closest Apostles take part in the Eucharist with Him. Are you calling Christ arrogant for this? In order to receive the Eucharist, you must first have a proper understanding of what it is and not be in schism with the Church that Christ established. As for your problem with CCC 841, see: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea4.asp

By the way, it never states that Muslims are “saved,” all it states is that all who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are part of the plan of salvation. No where is your assertion correct and misquoting the Catechism will not help you win your argument.

God bless,

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

Several times I have heard some Protestant denominations claim that there have been Protestants around since the time of the Apostles

i think they dont know how to use their calendars.

to reject Catholicism because they don’t believe in Tradition, and then go and claim that their denomination has been around since the Apostles?

then they dont know their Bible.

there is some kind of Tradition that I assume these Protestants are passing down.

that they dont believe on what Jesus said during the passover meal nor Jesus selected only male apostles?

 

[Lonevoice]

Catholicious:

Fidelis,

For sure, I think the word you are looking for is “audacity”.

Peace to all,
Catholicious

With a bow to our Elder Bretheren in the Faith(as JPII referred to our Jewish friends), I think that the word is"Chutzpah"



( I was a S. Baptist for 35 years, I can sympathize with how this jsussvsus feels. Perhaps, as I did, he’s starting to see the Truth. Pray for him!)

 

[Church_Militant]

jsussvsus:

Hi
It is the catholic church that is arrogant. It is your church that says no one but a catholic may take part in your communion, or that there is no salvation outside the catholic church, it is always your church this,and your church that. Everyone else is lost, except of course for the Muslims as stated in the CCC #841. Which goes directly against scripture. This is about our relationship with Jesus Christ. Don’t build the church up so high that you can no longer see Jesus.

I DO wish you’d get off that high horse of yours and cease bashing on the Catholic Church when you don’t know or understand what you’re talking about. The church that Christ founded has always been exclusive as to communion because it has always been Eucharistic in it’s beliefs in large part because of the scriptural basis that teaches that it really is the body and blood, soul and divinity of our risen Lord. You can see that laid out Here and Here and Here and again Here , so there are every good reasons for what we do. The early church (even as we are today) was troubled by pagans who would attempt to infiltrate the church and bear away the holy Eucharist in order to publicly desecrate it. Not to mention the fact that the early church was under deadly persecution and participation was a death sentence and there were those who were not believers who sought to join at the Lord’s Supper and then sell them all out to the Romans,. That’s one reason that they used to only allow “noobs” into discussions of the Word (We call it the liturgy of the Word today) and then dismiss them before the Eucharist. The historic fact is that the early church maintained a period of catechesis prior to allowing a new adult member during the persecutions and that is something that we still do today. The object being to insure that the persons coming into the church know what they are ascribing to and why.

You have pulled out one part of the CCC and chosen to allege something that is not true in an area where context is indeed everything for understanding. One passage from the CCC stands out though I suggest that you see it’s context Here

**"835 "Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or . . . the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she puts down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world."318 The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches "unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church."319

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God… and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.“324”**
Without the context you will always misunderstand.
Pax tecum

 

[jsussvsus]

Semper Fi:

Hello,

Jesus Christ Himself only let his 12 closest Apostles take part in the Eucharist with Him. Are you calling Christ arrogant for this? In order to receive the Eucharist, you must first have a proper understanding of what it is and not be in schism with the Church that Christ established. As for your problem with CCC 841, see: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea4.asp

By the way, it never states that Muslims are “saved,” all it states is that all who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are part of the plan of salvation. No where is your assertion correct and misquoting the Catechism will not help you win your argument.

God bless

Hi
You say that in order to take part in the eucharist you must have a proper understanding of what it is. The Apostles must not have understood it using your analogy. Catholics tell me that John 6 gives a clear understanding of the real presence in the eucharist.
The last supper that Christ had with the Apostles occured after that which is told of in John chapter 6, correct?. If the Apostles, as you say,’’ Understood the real presence" they would have stopped Jesus when he “Broke bread” and said, How can this be your body, it is just bread and how can this be your blood when it is just wine?. The reason that they didn’t is because they understood that the emblems represented his body and blood that was given for them.
Thanks.

 

[Eden]

The first heresy of the Eucharist as being merely symbolic did not appear until 500 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.
Even 1500 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ, the first “Protestant”, Martin Luther retained the belief in the “Real Presence”. The idea of a symbolic bread and wine in Christianity was not developed in a religion until 400 years ago.

Have you read this article?

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp

Matthew 16:5–12 is one such example where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed.” These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

One last passage worth considering is John 10:9, where Jesus says, “I am the door.” Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, “And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’” This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink.

 

[Malachi4U]

Atreyu:

Quoted from another thread:

Several times I have heard some Protestant denominations claim that there have been Protestants around since the time of the Apostles. Well, I have heard Catholics claim that some Protestants claim this, so I am assuming that it is true (feel free to rebut). …

Believe it. When I went to Baptist churches they taught that Christ founded the Christian church which was totally Baptist - just a different name. The Catholics broke off in 313 A.D. when the pegan Roman Emporer Constitine founded the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself to be the first Pope! And yes, I have saved all the silly Baptist pamplets from my last year in their church that said goofy things like this. I even have one pamplet that states the Roman Catholics murdered close to 100 MILLION Baptists during the Inqusition!:whacky: (Where there that many people on even alive on earth?)

I used to beleive all the crazy talk my old preachers used to spew out too. One day I just decided to search for the truth and low and behold, I came home to Rome and Jesus Christ. I thought I knew Jesus as a Protestant, but now I really do. Catholics are so much closer with Him, they even become one with Him at communion!

Amazing what you can learn if you study history and not what Baptist preachers yell at you? (My daughter used to sit in the front row and she claimed she coould take a shower when the preachers got going up front on stage during their stage show productions)