C
csmatyi
Guest
But if you are credible yourself then read the other 9.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
csmatyi
Guest
If I read the book, I would be contributing money to a man that has disparaged a wonderful group of religious people. That is offensive to me.
But how can you say you know what the book says when you havent even read a single word from it?!
So you are ex-catholic? That’s surprising. The biggest anti-smokers are often ex-smokers. The biggest anti-drinkers are often ex-drinkers. The biggest anti-catholics are often ex-catholics - especially because, if they were truly Catholic, they know what leaving the Catholic Church means, in regards to their Salvation. If I were you, I’d spend my time trying to justify my decision as well.
I am currently in debate with Catholics over this issue in the topic “if you are Christian then what is your reason for not being Catholic”. If you are interested then I can email you my testimony… what is your reason for being Catholic? According to salvation: beleive in your heart and proclaim with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and then salvation is yours. It’s as simple as that. No sacramental add-ons needed. I experienced much hypocrisy within the Roman church (as well as dogmatic fallacies), that’s why I left.
*Why don’t you look at what the Catholic Church itself teaches, not one individual. It’s easy, the Catechism in online. The Church teaches that one can believe in the 6 day Creation account, or one can believe that the earth was created over billions of years. Either way it doesn’t matter. What one has to believe is that God was the author of all Creation. Period.
If you want to read what the Church teaches, read the Catechism.
The Catholic Church is open to creationist. If you want to read what the Church teaches, read the Catechism.*
Hm, okay, but I generally get the feeling that Catholics are hostile to 6 day creationists because they smack of so called Protestant fundamentalism. Also, get this: John Paul II stated in an assembly before the pontifical academy of sciences in 1996 that he shall declare war against all those mainly Protestant sects who are spreading mainly in the United States who state that creation occured in 6 days and set themselves up against progress (I first read about this in the Novembr 1997 issue of Jo Hir, a Hungarian religious magazine). That’s pretty arrogant if I may say so myself.
You judge all Jesuits by the lack of response of one? Wow!!! Are you so judgmental of all people?
The Jesuits were responsible for a bloody counter-reformation in Hungary here in the 16th, and 17th centuries. I’m simply wary of them.
That does not make sense. We are not gods when we become part of the Body of Christ. Don’t you believe that you are part of the Body of Christ when you were baptized? Don’t you believe that those who have died and gone to heaven are part of the Body of Christ? Have you read ANY of Paul’s writings? John’s?
I never stated that the RCC states that people become gods. I just asked if all of the trillion wafers given out at catholic masses throughout time all become Jesus, then does this mean that there are many gods? When I was baptized I didnt become part of the body of Christ yet. Only when I convert and repent. By the way, I was asking does Jesus physically multiply Himself in the wafers of the Mass? Physically, I mean. Or are you saying that when Christians repent, then they all physically glom together and form into Jesus’ physical body? But this is absurd!
But how can you say you know what the book says when you havent even read a single word from it?!
So you are ex-catholic? That’s surprising. The biggest anti-smokers are often ex-smokers. The biggest anti-drinkers are often ex-drinkers. The biggest anti-catholics are often ex-catholics - especially because, if they were truly Catholic, they know what leaving the Catholic Church means, in regards to their Salvation. If I were you, I’d spend my time trying to justify my decision as well.
I am currently in debate with Catholics over this issue in the topic “if you are Christian then what is your reason for not being Catholic”. If you are interested then I can email you my testimony… what is your reason for being Catholic? According to salvation: beleive in your heart and proclaim with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and then salvation is yours. It’s as simple as that. No sacramental add-ons needed. I experienced much hypocrisy within the Roman church (as well as dogmatic fallacies), that’s why I left.
*Why don’t you look at what the Catholic Church itself teaches, not one individual. It’s easy, the Catechism in online. The Church teaches that one can believe in the 6 day Creation account, or one can believe that the earth was created over billions of years. Either way it doesn’t matter. What one has to believe is that God was the author of all Creation. Period.
If you want to read what the Church teaches, read the Catechism.
The Catholic Church is open to creationist. If you want to read what the Church teaches, read the Catechism.*
Hm, okay, but I generally get the feeling that Catholics are hostile to 6 day creationists because they smack of so called Protestant fundamentalism. Also, get this: John Paul II stated in an assembly before the pontifical academy of sciences in 1996 that he shall declare war against all those mainly Protestant sects who are spreading mainly in the United States who state that creation occured in 6 days and set themselves up against progress (I first read about this in the Novembr 1997 issue of Jo Hir, a Hungarian religious magazine). That’s pretty arrogant if I may say so myself.
You judge all Jesuits by the lack of response of one? Wow!!! Are you so judgmental of all people?
The Jesuits were responsible for a bloody counter-reformation in Hungary here in the 16th, and 17th centuries. I’m simply wary of them.
That does not make sense. We are not gods when we become part of the Body of Christ. Don’t you believe that you are part of the Body of Christ when you were baptized? Don’t you believe that those who have died and gone to heaven are part of the Body of Christ? Have you read ANY of Paul’s writings? John’s?
I never stated that the RCC states that people become gods. I just asked if all of the trillion wafers given out at catholic masses throughout time all become Jesus, then does this mean that there are many gods? When I was baptized I didnt become part of the body of Christ yet. Only when I convert and repent. By the way, I was asking does Jesus physically multiply Himself in the wafers of the Mass? Physically, I mean. Or are you saying that when Christians repent, then they all physically glom together and form into Jesus’ physical body? But this is absurd!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
And the leopard further reveals his/her spots…Killing bison with guns…
hmmm… they had to reload after each shot.
Killing people at short range with swords is just as simple. Note, they killed thousands of Protestants in 1 single night in 1572 on the night os st. Bartholemew’s…
M
mercygate
Guest
I find absolutly no mention of Protestant sects or any mention of war, or any mention of creationism as being “against progress” in the text of that address.Hm, okay, but I generally get the feeling that Catholics are hostile to 6 day creationists because they smack of so called Protestant fundamentalism. Also, get this: John Paul II stated in an assembly before the pontifical academy of sciences in 1996 that he shall declare war against all those mainly Protestant sects who are spreading mainly in the United States who state that creation occured in 6 days and set themselves up against progress (I first read about this in the Novembr 1997 issue of Jo Hir, a Hungarian religious magazine). That’s pretty arrogant if I may say so myself.
Whenever you come across a statement such as “declaring war on Protestant sects”, which on the surface appears to be absurd, you can be sure that it has either been mis-quoted or invented from scratch.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
For Exhibit A, I give you Jack Chick Publishing, that great Truth-Dealer who gave us Father Rivera.But how can you say you know what the book says when you havent even read a single word from it?!
For Exhibit B, I give you the Review of the Book by the Editor:
No, I don’t need to give a single dime to this man, even if all I wanted to do with the pages of the book is to line my bird cage with it. I wouldn’t want to offend my bird.Out of Europe, a voice is heard from the secular world that documents historically the same information told by ex-priests. The author exposes the Vatican’s involvement in world politics, intrigues, and the fomenting of wars throughout history. It appears, beyond any doubt, that the Roman Catholic institution is not a Christian church and never was. The poor Roman Catholic people have been betrayed by her and are facing spiritual disaster. Paris shows that Rome is responsible for the two great world wars.
Yeah, you’re right. Jesus was just joking when he confronted the Jews 4 times with “Truly, Truly, You must eat my body and drink my blood….” And that whole “forgive others and retaining their sins” thing was an April Fool’s joke. But that’s another thread.I am currently in debate with Catholics over this issue in the topic “if you are Christian then what is your reason for not being Catholic”. If you are interested then I can email you my testimony… what is your reason for being Catholic? According to salvation: beleive in your heart and proclaim with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and then salvation is yours. It’s as simple as that. No sacramental add-ons needed. I experienced much hypocrisy within the Roman church (as well as dogmatic fallacies), that’s why I left.
And you’re testimony for leaving the Church? Sorry, not interested.
Did your November 1997 issue of “Jo Hir” give a reference for this quote. I’d be willing to bet that it’s not in the context of what you just presented.Hm, okay, but I generally get the feeling that Catholics are hostile to 6 day creationists because they smack of so called Protestant fundamentalism. Also, get this: John Paul II stated in an assembly before the pontifical academy of sciences in 1996 that he shall declare war against all those mainly Protestant sects who are spreading mainly in the United States who state that creation occured in 6 days and set themselves up against progress (I first read about this in the Novembr 1997 issue of Jo Hir, a Hungarian religious magazine). That’s pretty arrogant if I may say so myself.
No, you sound more than simply “wary of them”.The Jesuits were responsible for a bloody counter-reformation in Hungary here in the 16th, and 17th centuries. I’m simply wary of them.
Yes, this is absurd for someone to claim to be “once Catholic” and then reveal their complete ignorance of the Eucharist. If you spent half as much time reading what the Church has taught consistently for 2000 years instead of the tripe that Jack Chick puts out, you may have stayed with the True Church and released yourself of all this anger you obviously have.I never stated that the RCC states that people become gods. I just asked if all of the trillion wafers given out at catholic masses throughout time all become Jesus, then does this mean that there are many gods? When I was baptized I didnt become part of the body of Christ yet. Only when I convert and repent. By the way, I was asking does Jesus physically multiply Himself in the wafers of the Mass? Physically, I mean. Or are you saying that when Christians repent, then they all physically glom together and form into Jesus’ physical body? But this is absurd!
Csmatyi, in this one post, you’ve confirmed everything the typical ex-catholic anti-catholic is. The only thing that will complete this stereotype is if you tell me that you went to Catholic school growing up and even considered the priesthood or being a nun before the Lord opened your eyes to what the Church is all about.
C
csmatyi
Guest
Dear everybody:
Read this source which they referred me to in another topic (If you are a Christian then what is your reason for not being Catholic):
gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/gd/IFMA_World_Trends.pdf
Quote:
Martyrdom
70 million Christians have been martyred since Christ
The 5 Most Dangerous Vocations
Bishops
Evangelists
Catechists
Colporteurs
Foreign Missionaries
This means that 70 million Christians have been murdered in 2000 years since Christ. Do the math: 600 years of Inquisition is 30% of this time. 30% of 70 million equates to 21 million people.
It is still feasible!
Read this source which they referred me to in another topic (If you are a Christian then what is your reason for not being Catholic):
gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/gd/IFMA_World_Trends.pdf
Quote:
Martyrdom
70 million Christians have been martyred since Christ
The 5 Most Dangerous Vocations
Bishops
Evangelists
Catechists
Colporteurs
Foreign Missionaries
This means that 70 million Christians have been murdered in 2000 years since Christ. Do the math: 600 years of Inquisition is 30% of this time. 30% of 70 million equates to 21 million people.
It is still feasible!
C
csmatyi
Guest
NotWorthy,For Exhibit A, I give you Jack Chick Publishing, that great Truth-Dealer who gave us Father Rivera.
For Exhibit B, I give you the Review of the Book by the Editor:
No, I don’t need to give a single dime to this man, even if all I wanted to do with the pages of the book is to line my bird cage with it. I wouldn’t want to offend my bird.
Yeah, you’re right. Jesus was just joking when he confronted the Jews 4 times with “Truly, Truly, You must eat my body and drink my blood….” And that whole “forgive others and retaining their sins” thing was an April Fool’s joke. But that’s another thread.
And you’re testimony for leaving the Church? Sorry, not interested.
Did your November 1997 issue of “Jo Hir” give a reference for this quote. I’d be willing to bet that it’s not in the context of what you just presented.
No, you sound more than simply “wary of them”. Yes, this is absurd for someone to claim to be “once Catholic” and then reveal their complete ignorance of the Eucharist. If you spent half as much time reading what the Church has taught consistently for 2000 years instead of the tripe that Jack Chick puts out, you may have stayed with the True Church and released yourself of all this anger you obviously have.
Csmatyi, in this one post, you’ve confirmed everything the typical ex-catholic anti-catholic is. The only thing that will complete this stereotype is if you tell me that you went to Catholic school growing up and even considered the priesthood or being a nun before the Lord opened your eyes to what the Church is all about.
You do prove yourself to ne not worthy… to talk to. Do you sense any anger in my words? Because I have not been angry with any of the Catholic posters here for the past couple weeks. I have lots of friends who happen to be Catholic! Please don’t give me an excuse to get dissapointed with you. Please give me the benefit of the doubt that I have no bad intentions! Maybe is it you think I have all this pent up anger in me is because you yourself are angry with those who criticize your church? (you know, it’s psychological that people project their own feelings onto others).
Well yes, my own brother once said that he wanted to be pope. Since our uncle was a Franciscan priest it slighty occured in my mind once what it would like to be a priest… but then I thought otherwise…
Please,
I asked you time and time again to read the sources I refer to but you simply take an easy cop-out and just through all sorts of baseless allegations at me and the authors of the books which I read. In the end I simply cannot say that this is an objective attitude.
Regarding the Eucharist:
read Mark 14:22-25:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the* covenant**, which is poured out for many," he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
Read very carefully:
Jesus says that the bread is His body, and that the wine is His blood. This is when Catholic dogma teaches that transubstantiation is said to have occured (although the transubstantiation formula is obviously lacking from Jesus’s words here, mind you). But afterwords notice that Jesus describes the liquid that He and the disciples are drinking as the fruit of the vine, that is: the liquid found in grapes, that is wine. If you think through it logically, the wine does not turn into Jesus’s blood, because it remains wine!! It is purely figurative!! Paul recants himself that during the Last Supper Jesus’s sacrifice was to be remembered, not reenacted.
Still unconvinced? Then think about it:
Did Jesus tear bits and shreds of His body which He offered up to the disciples to eat? Clearly not!
Is the Catholic Eucharist or the Last Supper a ligitimate reenactment of Jesus’s sufferings? How could it be, since it happened on Thursday, and not Friday, the day Jesus died and made atonment for our sins.
You see, if you look closely, the Catholic interpretation doesn’t make sense.*
M
mercygate
Guest
NotWorthy,
You do prove yourself to ne not worthy… to talk to. Do you sense any anger in my words? Because I have not been angry with any of the Catholic posters here for the past couple weeks. I have lots of friends who happen to be Catholic! Please don’t give me an excuse to get dissapointed with you. Please give me the benefit of the doubt that I have no bad intentions! Maybe is it you think I have all this pent up anger in me is because you yourself are angry with those who criticize your church? (you know, it’s psychological that people project their own feelings onto others).
Well yes, my own brother once said that he wanted to be pope. Since our uncle was a Franciscan priest it slighty occured in my mind once what it would like to be a priest… but then I thought otherwise…
Please,
I asked you time and time again to read the sources I refer to but you simply take an easy cop-out and just through all sorts of baseless allegations at me and the authors of the books which I read. In the end I simply cannot say that this is an objective attitude.
Regarding the Eucharist:
read Mark 14:22-25:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant**, which is poured out for many," he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
Read very carefully:
Jesus says that the bread is His body, and that the wine is His blood. This is when Catholic dogma teaches that transubstantiation is said to have occured (although the transubstantiation formula is obviously lacking from Jesus’s words here, mind you). But afterwords notice that Jesus describes the liquid that He and the disciples are drinking as the fruit of the vine, that is: the liquid found in grapes, that is wine. If you think through it logically, the wine does not turn into Jesus’s blood, because it remains wine!! It is purely figurative!! Paul recants himself that during the Last Supper Jesus’s sacrifice was to be remembered, not reenacted.
Still unconvinced? Then think about it:
Did Jesus tear bits and shreds of His body which He offered up to the disciples to eat? Clearly not!
Is the Catholic Eucharist or the Last Supper a ligitimate reenactment of Jesus’s sufferings? How could it be, since it happened on Thursday, and not Friday, the day Jesus died and made atonment for our sins.
You see, if you look closely, the Catholic interpretation doesn’t make sense.Perhaps a serious review of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and how Transubstantiation explains that would be helpful. ALL Christians from the beginning, evidenced in the earliest writings of the NT, in Paul’s writings, and in the Fathers, ALL the Eastern Churches to this day believe in the Real Presence.
I encourage you, when you approach a Catholic teaching that you believe to be “false”, change your way of addressing the problem from “This makes no sense” to Our Lady’s query of the Angel: “How can this be?”
Do not assume that because *you *can pose an objection to a teaching that your objection (e.g.: "Did Jesus tear bits and shreds of His body which He offered up to the disciples to eat?) closes the case. In fact, the objection you raise concerning the Real Presence is the VERY objection the disciples posed in John 6 – the disciples who left.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, not angered at all. Sad is the term. For someone to cast stone at the Bride of Christ is almost as bad as casting stones at Christ Himself. Those who know me also know that anger is not in my makeup.NotWorthy,
You do prove yourself to ne not worthy… to talk to. Do you sense any anger in my words? Because I have not been angry with any of the Catholic posters here for the past couple weeks. I have lots of friends who happen to be Catholic! Please don’t give me an excuse to get dissapointed with you. Please give me the benefit of the doubt that I have no bad intentions! Maybe is it you think I have all this pent up anger in me is because you yourself are angry with those who criticize your church? (you know, it’s psychological that people project their own feelings onto others).
I think my point was clear. Not one dime of mine would go to anyone who slops that swill that Mr. Paris and Jack Chick pass out (like pigs in a pen).Well yes, my own brother once said that he wanted to be pope. Since our uncle was a Franciscan priest it slighty occured in my mind once what it would like to be a priest… but then I thought otherwise…
Please,
I asked you time and time again to read the sources I refer to but you simply take an easy cop-out and just through all sorts of baseless allegations at me and the authors of the books which I read. In the end I simply cannot say that this is an objective attitude.
Regarding the Eucharist:
read Mark 14:22-25:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant**, which is poured out for many," he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” Weren’t you complaing recently about Catholic’s hesitance to take the creation story literally? And yet you are doing exactly that here.
csmatyi;3846451:
What words are lacking. These are the very words the priests says in Mass.Read very carefully:
Jesus says that the bread is His body, and that the wine is His blood. This is when Catholic dogma teaches that transubstantiation is said to have occured (although the transubstantiation formula is obviously lacking from Jesus’s words here, mind you).
. If you think through it logically, the wine does not turn into Jesus’s blood, because it remains wine!! It is purely figurative!! Paul recants himself that during the Last Supper Jesus’s sacrifice was to be remembered, not reenacted.Look up animnesis and poien. You will find out how base-less your last statement is.But afterwords notice that Jesus describes the liquid that He and the disciples are drinking as the fruit of the vine, that is: the liquid found in grapes, that is wine
definately.Still unconvinced?
Very good non-sequiturThen think about it:
Did Jesus tear bits and shreds of His body which He offered up to the disciples to eat? Clearly not!
The God who created the earth by merely saying, “Let there be…” can certainly have the Last Supper meal look forward to Calgary, just as the Mass brings us backwards to Calgary.Is the Catholic Eucharist or the Last Supper a ligitimate reenactment of Jesus’s sufferings? How could it be, since it happened on Thursday, and not Friday, the day Jesus died and made atonment for our sins.
Then you need to explain that to 2000 years of Catholics. People who were able to spend years with St. John, such as Ignatius and Polycarp would have certainly asked at least one time, “Hey, John? What exactly did Jesus mean during the ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse”. These people believed in Transubstantiation.You see, if you look closely, the Catholic interpretation doesn’t make sense.
I’m sorry, csmatyi, but I’m going to follow their Sacred Tradition over your tradition of man.
C
csmatyi
Guest
Well, well, okay… how can this be? But if I find the Catholic stance on a certain question illogical, then I try alternative explanations. The Protestant stance makes sense to me in saying that the bread and wine are figurative symbols of Christ’s body and blood, since Paul declares that we are to perform the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him: it is not a sacrifice in itself and does not propitiate.Perhaps a serious review of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and how Transubstantiation explains that would be helpful. ALL Christians from the beginning, evidenced in the earliest writings of the NT, in Paul’s writings, and in the Fathers, ALL the Eastern Churches to this day believe in the Real Presence.
I encourage you, when you approach a Catholic teaching that you believe to be “false”, change your way of addressing the problem from “This makes no sense” to Our Lady’s query of the Angel: “How can this be?”
Do not assume that because *you *can pose an objection to a teaching that your objection (e.g.: "Did Jesus tear bits and shreds of His body which He offered up to the disciples to eat?) closes the case. In fact, the objection you raise concerning the Real Presence is the VERY objection the disciples posed in John 6 – the disciples who left.
I can also quote to you writings from the early fathers which clearly show that they did not beleive in the real presence.
It is however possible that they made contradictory statements from time to time, like Origenes, and Augustine revised much of his theology later in his life.
btw if this is so, then why do the church fathers count as part of the Roman Catholic tradition? That is, if they contradict each other and therefore Catholic tradition annuls itself.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I would love to see some evidence of the Church Fathers denying this.I can also quote to you writings from the early fathers which clearly show that they did not beleive in the real presence.
It is however possible that they made contradictory statements from time to time, like Origenes, and Augustine revised much of his theology later in his life.
M
mercygate
Guest
The word “remembrance” - anamnesis - MEANS “make present.” It’s a question of what the word “is” means. It is not “a” sacrifice, it is “the” sacrifice of Calvary, eternal because the Son is eternal, unbloody because the bloody sacrifice was limited to time. It is proptiatory because it IS Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins, as Scripture affirms in Rom 3:25, 1Jn 2:2 and 1Jn 4:10.Well, well, okay… how can this be? But if I find the Catholic stance on a certain question illogical, then I try alternative explanations. The Protestant stance makes sense to me in saying that the bread and wine are figurative symbols of Christ’s body and blood, since Paul declares that we are to perform the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him: it is not a sacrifice in itself and does not propitiate.
I have come across quotations from the Fathers that refer to the “symbols” of bread and wine. I have not come across quotations that claim that the symbols of bread and wine are NOT also the Body and Blood of Christ. Clearly, even now, with a fully developed theology of the Real Presence, we understand “bread” and “wine” to be symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. In transubstantiation, the symbols become what they signify.I can also quote to you writings from the early fathers which clearly show that they did not beleive in the real presence.
Of course. The Fathers, while their views carry much weight, are not absolutely definitive. Some of the Fathers, like Origen and Tertullian, who ultimately became heretics, also discerned and delineated orthodox Christian teaching with perfect clarity. Their orthodox writings are much valued today.It is however possible that they made contradictory statements from time to time, like Origenes, and Augustine revised much of his theology later in his life.
The Fathers are the “record” of the thinking as doctrine is clarified. Contradictory views do not cancel each other out. The Church, not any individual theologian, is the authoritative teacher of doctrine.btw if this is so, then why do the church fathers count as part of the Roman Catholic tradition? That is, if they contradict each other and therefore Catholic tradition annuls itself.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.