I'm going out on a limb here

[MagdalenaRita]

You mention things and proofs but you yourself are not saying anything specific about the early church except that it wasn’t Catholic but catholic.
That it was both protestant and Catholic, which that part I agree with. There have been protestants since Jesus sad “eat My Body and drink My Blood”.

Otherwise you are entitled to your opinion but I stand with the Church and the historical evidence it provides.
You can also ask me to stop speaking about the Catholic church, so, as you say to save me the trouble but I will keep on.

I have been both protestant and Catholic and I have never seen any evidence that what the Catholic church says about Peter and the apostles is incorrect.

God bless

 

[Gab123]

Still have issues with the Pope

As for the pope, when Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom He was echoing Isaiah. the Keys are a symbol of authority that the king gives to his steward in his absence. Compare what Jesus said:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” - Matt. 16:18-19

Compared to Isaiah 22:21-22

“He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open .”

The word “Pope” (Latin: papa from Greek: πάππας pappas, means “father”. The pope is the fatherly figure whom Christ put in charge of all the flock, as we read in Scripture:

"Jesus said to him, ‘ Feed my lambs ’. He said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ’ Tend my sheep . Jesus said to Peter the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘ Feed my sheep ’” -John 21-15-17

 

[MichaelP3]

It is late here. I will respond thourouly tomorrow.

I do not think you are reading all my posts. I do think people like you will gain so much when you start to understand the point a non-Catholic would make.

And most importantly “missing” the history when that non-Catholic is saying “that”. Yes that’s when its tested what you really know.

Kind Regards

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I do think people like you will gain so much when you start to understand the point a non-Catholic would make.

As I said I was protestant and for many years. I made all these same arguments myself. I thought all these same things that protestants think. So if you want to know “people like” me, know that I once was where you are and I do understand. I have just not seen or ever really heard any sound evidence to support the protestant early Christian theory, nor the protestant theology in general, not when I was protestant and not now. This is why I am no longer protesting Holy Mother Church. Besides the Catholic church has way more evidence for it being the Church Christ gave us.

God bless

 

[Babaganoush]

From my perspective either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is true or the whole of Christianity is false. Continuity from Christ is necessary because he promised his spirit would be with them and that he would lead them into all truth. If the church went astray then Christ’s promise was false.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Pretty self explanatory.

A symbolic Eucharist is pretty meaningless…what is the point?

The author of the Didache is telling you that it is not merely symbolic and is a spiritual drink/food with some actual effect therein…

This aligns with Paul telling us to exam ourselves before partaking lest we bring judgment upon ourselves as others have died from receiving this spiritual drink as they were outside a state of grace.

Ever see a symbol kill anybody? Me either.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Precisely.

To those who actually think the Church went apostate…explain Christ’s promise to the Church and those 1500 years prior to Luther.

My guess is that most Protestants here dont think it’s apostate, they just disagree on some issues. But it’s a good question for James White and Matt Slick to try and answer.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

One thing is absolutely certain – the early Church was apostolic and remained so all the way to Luther.

Is your Church apostolic, MichaelP3? If not, why not?

 

[MichaelP3]

I am somewhat confused by your reply?

I never said anything about a symbol but from your reply it seems you believe it is either a symbol or the real presence and thats the end of it.

Im am pretty sure not Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, Zwingli, Huss or any of the early Reformers advocated mere symbolism. They actually defended it as a sacrament in the same way none of them will say Baptism is merely symbolic.

I totally agree with your reply but it still doesn’t answer the original question I had to your post concerning the Didache.

 

[Wannano]

Pretty self explanatory.

A symbolic Eucharist is pretty meaningless…what is the point?

The author of the Didache is telling you that it is not merely symbolic and is a spiritual drink/food with some actual effect therein…

This aligns with Paul telling us to exam ourselves before partaking lest we bring judgment upon ourselves as others have died from receiving this spiritual drink as they were outside a state of grace.

Ever see a symbol kill anybody? Me either.

Have you honestly seen the Transubstantiated Eucharist kill anybody?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No, but I do know of one that miraculously transformed into heart tissue of a 30’s something year old Middle eastern man in distress.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So you believe in some sort of real presence then. Excellent. You are on your way to the Catholic Church. Let me call Trent Horn and he can give you a call and guide you along

 

[MichaelP3]

So you believe in some sort of real presence then. Excellent.

No I wouldn’t say that and there are definitely many things to be fleshed out. The real presence is actually very low on my very Long list.

But it is definitely not merely symbolic as I tried to explain. Help me if I am wrong but I find it on CAF that many assumptions about Protestants are based on American Catholics thinking ALL PROTESTANTS fall in the American Evangelical camp or at least very very similar beliefs. Many times I am like “what did I just read” when I hear claims in that fashion.

I would like all Catholic posters on here reading this post to understand that not all Protestants are from an American Evangelical background and many of your claims are pretty foreign and puts us in a position of going “HUH”.

Regards LA and good to hear from you.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well, that’s the case usually with cradle Catholics not understanding the wide variety of Protestant theological beliefs.

In my case, I’m sort of teasing you a bit because I think there can’t be a sorta real presence anymore than a woman can be sorta pregnant lol.

Good talking to you again as well…i think it’s been a few years.

 

[MichaelP3]

You are actually bringing up something else now that I never intended for this thread. I see you got two likes so far and I really hope those posters read this reply.

We all hate double standards right? So let me explain. My wife grew up very Polish Catholic and today she is a non-Catholic. Would it be fair for her to post on here as if she know all what you are going through as a Catholic? No… she would probably be branded as poorly Catechised as “no Catholic would move away if they properly understood it ALL” . Do you see where I am going with that? So do NOT come with “I was a Protestant” unless you advocate double standards. Please just don’t.

We all have a faith journey, yours just led you to the Catholic Church which is Okay.

Whether you do not see what I am saying is just that. “You are not seeing it”. Fine. But that’s you and it doesn’t change anything. My point is to take note of why what you are saying will fall on deaf ears as it is not agreed and will not hold any relevance when used as proof as it is NOT PROOF. It is mere assumptions of what you have been told to believe.

God Bless

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Should we have Trent Horn call your spouse as well? Hello, why aren’t you two Catholic?

Both sides have their fair share of converts. So not really proof of anything. However, I think it’s more than fair to say I was protestant like you, believed in Sola Scriptura, and here is why i now believe it is not a legitimate and biblical practice, etc, etc. Just an example.

 

[MichaelP3]

The way you explain it, it sounds fine. But then again you had a way of explaining something I utterly reject to sound “fine” so I don’t trust my initial judgement just yet

I just see double standards and this is not the only time. If a Catholic "was Protestant " they are praised but if a Protestant “was Catholic” then they are burnt at the stake. I don’t see any value in stating “I was Protestant” as that just puts many more questions on your head as in this specific case. We don’t need double standards here.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Would it be fair for her to post on here as if she know all what you are going through as a Catholic?

So, I have to say I am totally lost at why you are attacking me here. I never said I knew what anyone was going through. I was discussing the canonization of the NT with someone else, not saying anything about anyone here not liking the Church Fathers and you commented to me something that I am sorry I apparently did not understand nor do I understand yet even after going back and reading it.

My point is to take note of why what you are saying will fall on deaf ears as it is not agreed and will not hold any relevance when used as proof as it is NOT PROOF. It is mere assumptions of what you have been told to believe.

So, you are right, some things I say or any other Catholic anywhere will say will fall on deaf ears but some of it will not. Some people are here to learn and discuss. Isn’t that why we are all here. Can a Catholic view not be stated. I guess, what I don’t understand is why I should stop saying on a Catholic forum what IMHO I have been taught about the Catholic faith.

I am not saying that my posts are proof of anything or even that I am correct but just saying what the Church teaches and historically shows, as best as I know it. That is why I said if you have something that shows me wrong, please point it out.

God bless

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If a Catholic "was Protestant " they are praised but if a Protestant “was Catholic” then they are burnt at the stake. I don’t see any value in stating “I was Protestant” as that just puts many more questions on your head as in this specific case. We don’t need double standards here.

So, I understand this. CAF should be a place where no one is burned at any stake. The only reason I mentioned that I was protestant was because you made the comment that I did not understand non Catholics.

Fair enough and I am sorry if I seemed attacking.

No problem. Just a misunderstanding.

God bless.

 

[MichaelP3]

I am not saying that what my posts are proof of anything or even that I am correct but just saying what the Church teaches and historically shows, as best as I know it. That is why I said if you have something that shows me wrong, please point it out.

God bless

Fair enough and I am sorry if I seemed attacking.

I have been on CAF for far too long and my health is probably suffering because of it. Your post just echoed (and I admit it does not seem like this was your intention) the triumphalism that I find very uninformed and just “not there yet”. The understanding which I actually go to the Catechism (which I read from cover to cover more than once) but from the other side it’s just hearsay.