I'm praticing being a Catholic Apologetic. Can you help?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xScottx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
xScottx said:
I would respond, “You don’t need to be a priest to be a good Christian. You can just be a respectful member of Christendom.”
Click to expand...
you misunderstood the question. it wasn’t “do i need to be a priest to be a good christian” – it was “why do i need the services of a priest (at mass, during the sacrament of reconciliation, at last rites, etc) to be a good christian?”

incidentally, this is not my point of view; i’m just playing devil’s advocate for your benefit.
 
tomarin said:
you misunderstood the question. it wasn’t “do i need to be a priest to be a good christian” – it was “why do i need the services of a priest (at mass, during the sacrament of reconciliation, at last rites, etc) to be a good christian?”

incidentally, this is not my point of view; i’m just playing devil’s advocate for your benefit.
Click to expand...
Thank you muchly. I responded, I believe, to a similar question in one of the previous posts.
 
Scott;

My advice to you would be to read along in the Forum with your Catechism and Bible handy, without trying to answer any questions on your own, just yet.

When you see a question that you want to answer, look up the key words of the question in the index of your Catechism, and read all of the sections that are indicated.

When people start quoting Bible verses, look them up in your Bible and make sure you read before and after the verses given, to get the immediate context. Also look at the footnotes, and use the study helps in the front and back of your Bible, as well.

When reading the questions, make sure you take care to read carefully and understand what is being asked, as well.

For example, in the question about the priesthood, you answered what you thought the person asked, instead of what he really asked, which led to confusion. If you want to be a teacher of the faith, you have to be careful that you yourself don’t become a source of confusion. So, read carefully and slowly. Don’t rush. And then make sure you know the correct answer, before giving an answer.
 
jimmy85 said:
lol anti cahtolic sites are kind of halarious

Their main argument is to talk about something they dunno about.

they think the bible is “completely literaly”
Click to expand...
are you serious? they are not that stupid. you are understimating the anti-catholics.
 
xScottx said:
And if you don’t mind me asking, what religion are you? I assume that your agnostic
Click to expand...
An agnostic believer. I believe in the Divine, but that he or she is completely unknown and unknowable. I only have faith, not religion. I was also a former catholic, without the grudge. I still have a lot of respect for it. I just dont find it believable anymore. 🙂
 
AgnosTheist said:
are you serious? they are not that stupid. you are understimating the anti-catholics.
Click to expand...
no, I just meant that it amaze me the way they think that just by reading the bible they are alone able to understand everything that the bible is about.
without theological courses and without being in seminaries but they believe they know everything about the bible just by reading it, and like that they get their own inconclusive conclutions.
 
AgnosTheist said:
are you serious? they are not that stupid. you are understimating the anti-catholics.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it would be a step up, if they were to take the Bible literally, since one can do that without losing the sense of it.

What they do is much worse, which is that they read their own preconceived ideas into the text, without examining it to see whether there could be anything in the text that contradicts their understanding of it.

At least if they were taking it literally, they would be reading the actual words on the page, but as it is, they simply read their assumptions into it.

For example, I have no idea how someone reads “Baptism now saves you” to mean that the baptism of infants is forbidden. 🤷
 
Hey Scott, I was wondering in your signature you have “In nomine et Patris”?
 
How about these:

If Jesus is equal to and one person with the Father, why does Jesus pray to Him?

And if Jesus is God, how could He be tempted?
 
Hey there Scott and welcome to the forums 🙂

As a fellow catholic, i dont really have any questions to ask you, but just to welcome you to these forums!👍

You have come to the right place to practice your apologetic’s, but as you have probably observed, there can be some disrespect towards people on these forums.

If some disagree with you, expect a bit of a heated debate.
Good luck and i hope this site fulfills what you are looking for.
God Bless
Dolphinlove
 
Hijikata said:
Hey Scott, I was wondering in your signature you have “In nomine et Patris”?
Click to expand...
I believe that’s Latin for “In the name of the Father…”

Is that correct? I’m not good at Latin at all.
 
xScottx said:
I believe that’s Latin for “In the name of the Father…”

Is that correct? I’m not good at Latin at all.
Click to expand...
“et” is eqeuivalent to “and” so it isn’t needed in the first part.
 
xScottx said:
I believe that’s Latin for “In the name of the Father…”

Is that correct? I’m not good at Latin at all.
Click to expand...
No, that is not correct. What you are looking for is

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

If you would like to learn your prayers in Latin here is a nice link.

preces-latinae.org/preces.html

Dominus vobiscum
 
xScottx said:
First of all, if you are being serious, then I find it a little offensive: saying that the Holy Communion is cannibalism and an idiotic and disgusting image. That insult has been thrown at the Church for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
I am being serious because apologist from your church claim that many left because he was being literal. I didn’t say anything about canibalism, if you wish to defend the faith you’d better learn to read words for what they are!
xScottx said:
Well, what would have happened if everyone in first century Judea ate Christ’s Flesh? For one, He wouldn’t have been crucified, He wouldn’t have died for our sins, and His Resurrection for our salvation would be nonexistant.
Click to expand...
So if he wasn’t literal then where did you get the idea that transubstantiation became his true flesh?
xScottx said:
I seem to think that any Christian would of thought cannibalizing Christ would have made the Christian movement utterly false, and, ultimately, an idiotic religion. - since their Messiah was consumed by many people.
Click to expand...
Is the eucharist as you know it the TRUE body and blood as YOU know it?
 
xScottx said:
The way you are contradicting Christ’s teaching is disrespectful:
Christ said:
Click to expand...
You may think I am contradicting, but I speak of the gospel as it has unfolded to me, For you to suggest that I am being offensive sharing the gospel as I know it and questioning your doctrine based on how it has been presented to me here at this forum then I’d say you are the one being unloving and affronting to me. But no harm! THICKEN your skin a lil my friend, when you become more confident in your faith you’ll learn to appreciate my fundamental bend! ask some of the regulars!
 
xScottx said:
I seem to think that any Christian would of thought cannibalizing Christ would have made the Christian movement utterly false, and, ultimately, an idiotic religion. - since their Messiah was consumed by many people.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that receiving the Eucharist is cannibalism (as I understand it).

However, the Church’s insistence that Jesus is “really present”, bodily, only in the Eucharist, makes this charge somewhat difficult to refute. Cannibalism, by definition, is when one eats the flesh of his own kind. In this case, communicants eating the human flesh and drinking the human blood of Jesus, seems to fit the definition. Recently we had a thread here on the miracle of Lanciano, apparently the Eucharist became cardiac tissue. Case in point favoring cannibalism by definition.

What is the proper Catholic understanding which avoids the problem of cannibalism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top