My Problems With The Church

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

No offense but are to sure? To me it still sounds like Christ told a bunch of people that they needed to eat his flesh. This is what the Eucharist is. See, there’s the classic problem of Protestantism- I came up with a different interpretation than you. Sorry, but I respectfully massively disagree with you.

 

[da_nolo]

Yes, I’m considering Catholicism. I still have some problems with it, to be honest…

It seems we need to live a perfect life for salvation. That, or constant confession. I don’t get it…Even anger is classified as mortal sin. Looking at the Catholic view, it looks pretty impossible for salvation. Also, wasn’t Christ’s “It is finished” enough? Why do you still sacrifice when the final sacrifice of Christ has occurred? Again, Did He not say it was finished? Also, what about Hebrews 10?

And what about the teaching of little to no salvation outside the Church? Did Jesus not say “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father exept through me”? Not, “The Catholic church is the way the truth and the life, no ond comes to the Father exept through it”?

Thanks. God bless

…and heres where the Saints come in. we understand we are not perfect and mistakes will occur, however life is one big fight if you will. even if we get knocked down, we must bounce right back up. this is a journey and the inbetween…the road you travel determines your destination.

It is true after Jesus, He freed us, but that doesn’t mean we are without sin nor uncapable of obtainning sin. We now have a bridge where as before there wasn’t. Our sacrifice will always continue, as Jesus ask that we carry our own Cross. a sometimes tiresome event, however rewarding in more than one way. it would appear you have studied well and understand the deadly sins…have you discovered their influence through out world history? honestly, the source to most conflicts world wide are those 7 words/actions. war, famine at times, slavery, scandals, tyrany, etc. byproduct of someone’s or some group’s actions to justify their own means.

as a little description…the deadly sin is wrath not anger. wrath being;
Punishment or vengeance as a manifestation of anger. we do not frown upon anger so much as times may call for anger to get us motivated for action. one example…moving away from sin. do not hate yourself, but realize a anger towards one’s weakness and it may help to move things forward. or howbout injustices? it’s not just our understanding of it being wrong, but our anger towards it to make us move.

now your last point is interesting and very good. heres another side…this will explain St. Mary. at the wedding who did the people go to first? Mary…who did she point them to? Jesus. its the same today, especialy amung most mothers today. moms tend to lead people to their sons, its natural. my mom, just yesterday, told me to look outside the window because there was a cute girl trying to sell my dad produce. its the same anywhere, she points people in my direction and wants them to know me. I dont understand 100% why, but with Mary it is no different. she guides us to Jesus. another thing to point out is who allowed the hundreds to thousands of people to follow Jesus after His death and resurrection? The appostles, the Church.

 

[redrosetea]

Tristain if you start to read the early church fathers you will discover all roads lead to Rome…they always have and always will

Christ gave us the church with a head called the pope, and the 12 apostles were the first bishops…the church gave us the bible some 400 years later…This is why tradition is so important…Remember our roots are very Jewish

As far as all the things that are considered sins…Christ told us to be ye perfect…It means we all need to work on ourselves constantly…venial sins add up, and they keep us from being perfect as Christ commanded

This is why we have confession

 

[ac_claire]

Then why doesn’t she obey them?

TLM08: I’m sorry if this derails the thread further, but your posts here have stopped me short. I guess I haven’t been spending as much time in the Apologetics and TC forums as I used to, but I totally missed this. I remember you as being a very traditional Catholic. What happened to you? Have you left the Church…?

 

[TLM08]

TLM08: I’m sorry if this derails the thread further, but your posts here have stopped me short. I guess I haven’t been spending as much time in the Apologetics and TC forums as I used to, but I totally missed this. I remember you as being a very traditional Catholic. What happened to you? Have you left the Church…?

In short, I have come to realize that while Traditional Catholicism is the only catholicism that stands by it’s principles in faith and practice, it is still not biblical. I’ve read the works of Karl Keating, Dave Armstrong and Scott Hahn and no matter how much spin is involved, there simply is no way biblically to justify a significant portion of catholic practice especially the idea that there is anything we can do to contribute to our salvation. As the New Testament proclaims, salvation is a gift from God to all those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay our sin debt, rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

 

[ac_claire]

In short, I have come to realize that while Traditional Catholicism is the only catholicism that stands by it’s principles in faith and practice, it is still not biblical. I’ve read the works of Karl Keating, Dave Armstrong and Scott Hahn and no matter how much spin is involved, there simply is no way biblically to justify a significant portion of catholic practice especially the idea that there is anything we can do to contribute to our salvation. As the New Testament proclaims, salvation is a gift from God to all those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay our sin debt, rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

You know Luther was so overwhelmed by a sense of his own sinfulness and inadequacy that he grew to fear and loathe the justice of God. Not understanding that the other side of the coin was Divine Mercy, which could have saved him. This shame, frustration and fear led to a consideration of God very similar to what you said above: "…especially the idea that there is anything we can do to contribute to our salvation."

He felt that since there was no way he could “measure up” to the standards of a vengeful and punitive God, he’d just invent a new understanding of God and salvation that would give him some fleeting and false temporal comfort. He wanted comfort more than he wanted Truth. And somehow, he put greater trust in his made-up ideas about the nature of God than in the revealed Truth handed down through the Church and the Sacred Scriptures.

The tragic irony of course his his vew of the vengeful and angry God wasn’t even real. He essentially rebelled against a straw man; a straw God. I pray you aren’t doing the same thing and that you’ll eventually find your way back home.

 

[DonLeon]

Quote:
Also, wasn’t Christ’s “It is finished” enough? Why do you still sacrifice when the final sacrifice of Christ has occurred? Again, Did He not say it was finished?

Reading Luke 22:17-20, when Jesus gave the Apostles the bread and wine as His Body and Blood, He did say to do this ( the same sacrifice ) in memory of Him. He did not say
it was just symbolic, but actually His Body and Blood. Therefore, in obedience to Jesus,
the Church, at each Mass, offers the Father His Son’s Body and Blood as the Son has
requested.

( Christ’s statement that “It is finished” most likely refers that His mission on earth is done
This is my personal understanding, but I may be wrong. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[TLM08]

Quote:
Also, wasn’t Christ’s “It is finished” enough? Why do you still sacrifice when the final sacrifice of Christ has occurred? Again, Did He not say it was finished?

Reading Luke 22:17-20, when Jesus gave the Apostles the bread and wine as His Body and Blood, He did say to do this ( the same sacrifice ) in memory of Him. He did not say
it was just symbolic, but actually His Body and Blood. Therefore, in obedience to Jesus,
the Church, at each Mass, offers the Father His Son’s Body and Blood as the Son has
requested.

( Christ’s statement that “It is finished” most likely refers that His mission on earth is done
This is my personal understanding, but I may be wrong. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Yes, Christ’s mission on earth was indeed finished… and what was his mission? According to the writer of Hebrews, his mission was to become man and offer himself as a once for all sin offering making perfect forever those who are being made holy.

At the last supper, Jesus asked to be remembered, not sacrificed.

 

[DonLeon]

Yes, Christ’s mission on earth was indeed finished… and what was his mission? According to the writer of Hebrews, his mission was to become man and offer himself as a once for all sin offering making perfect forever those who are being made holy.

At the last supper, Jesus asked to be remembered, not sacrificed.

Primarily for the Jews, and also to open the gates of Heaven for all. Until then, Heaven was
closed.

As for the sacrifice, if we are to do as He says, that is to offer up His Body and Blood, then we must sacrifice. His sacrifice supplants the sacrifices in the temple,which Our
Father requires of us.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[qui_est_ce]

Reading John 6 in it’s full context many times over really showed me that Christ was driving home a point to the followers about who he was and what he could provide, which was not free dinners, but eternal life!

Here Jesus scolds the crowd of followers who were only following Jesus for another free meal

When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. John 6:25-26

I don’t know about you, but within an hour or so after communion, I still get hungry and thirsty. Jesus was obviously not talking about physically eating here. Jesus did the same thing with the woman at the well a couple of chapters prior:

John 6 has nothing to do with the last supper. They are two different events that occured 3 years apart. Jesus also called himself a “door”, “vine” and a “gate”. When Jesus declares that he is the “Bread of Life” he is not speaking physically. This was simply his method of teaching.
Jesus flesh and blood are spiritual food. Food for our souls. It is true that Jesus called himself door, vine, etc. But notice he emphasized His flesh as real food at least 8 times. The people murmured at this, “it is is hard to believe.” Did Jesus correct their interpretation? No, he reiterated that one must eat His flesh to have everlasting life. Many left Him. Did He run after them and say, “Hey wait, I didn’t mean it the way you thought, it’s just a metaphor!” There is no mention of the "door, “vine,” and other metaphors causing drama and disbelief. He didn’t have to reiterate.

It may be that John 6 and the Passover Meal where two different events. The first is the Teaching, the second is HOW to follow the Teaching.

Nevertheless, your interpretation that it is metaphorical is NOT what the early Christians believed. St. Ignatius of Antioch warned against people not believing in the Real Presence.
Smyrneans:

Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

(emphasis mine)

Luther believed in the Real Presence. The Real Presence was believed for 1500 years, until it was challenged, and the Church had to call the council of Trent, in part because of this heresy.

St Ignatius wrote this in the first century. He knew the Apostles. Not once did the Apostles correct Ignatius’ writings. Ignatius was an eyewitness to what the early Church taught and practiced.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Quote:
Also, wasn’t Christ’s “It is finished” enough? Why do you still sacrifice when the final sacrifice of Christ has occurred? Again, Did He not say it was finished?

( Christ’s statement that “It is finished” most likely refers that His mission on earth is done
This is my personal understanding, but I may be wrong. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Actually, “It is finished” means that Jesus had fulfilled the Covenant of OT, and the New Covenant, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, which is the Church, was in effect.

It is finished is what the High Priest said at 3 PM of Good Friday when he slaughtered the lamb on the altar for the Passover.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/passover.html:

**Good Friday was the day of the Passover celebration and the day that the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed. For the previous 1,200 years, the priest would blow the shophar (ram’s horn) at 3:00 p.m. - the moment the lamb was sacrificed, and all the people would pause to contemplate the sacrifice for sins on behalf of the people of Israel. On Good Friday at 3:00, when Jesus was being crucified, He said, "It is finished"18 - at the moment that the Passover lamb was sacrificed and the shophar was blown from the Temple. The sacrifice of the lamb of God was fulfilled at the hour that the symbolic animal sacrifice usually took place. At the same time, the veil of the Temple (a three-inch thick, several story high cloth that demarked the Holy of Holies19) tore from top to bottom20 - representing a removal of the separation between God and man. **Fifty days later, on the anniversary of the giving of the law (Pentecost), God left the earthly temple to inhabit those who call on the name of Jesus through His Holy Spirit.21

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, Christ’s mission on earth was indeed finished… and what was his mission? According to the writer of Hebrews, his mission was to become man and offer himself as a once for all sin offering making perfect forever those who are being made holy.

At the last supper, Jesus asked to be remembered, not sacrificed.

Actually, Jesus used the term "

6 And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 27 And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. 28 For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.

Of course, we know in John’s Gospel, that he drank of the wine offered Him on a HYSSOP. Then He said, “It is finished.” God instructed the Jews to spread the blood of the lamb with a HYSSOP on their lintels. They were then to EAT the Lamb.

 

[TLM08]

Actually, Jesus used the term "

6 And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 27 And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. 28 For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.

Of course, we know in John’s Gospel, that he drank of the wine offered Him on a HYSSOP. Then He said, “It is finished.” God instructed the Jews to spread the blood of the lamb with a HYSSOP on their lintels. They were then to EAT the Lamb.

If Jesus just changed the wine into blood, why did he call it “wine” again at verse 29?

 

[qui_est_ce]

If Jesus just changed the wine into blood, why did he call it “wine” again at verse 29?

vs 29 of which Gospel, which Chapter?

 

[DonLeon]

If Jesus just changed the wine into blood, why did he call it “wine” again at verse 29?

If you read and understand what He says, he calls it wine again in a different context and
does not refer to it as His blood.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem…Baruch haba aShem Adonai

 

[TLM08]

vs 29 of which Gospel, which Chapter?

ooops! Here it is:

“…And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:28-29

Obviously if Jesus just turned the cup of wine into his actual blood, he would not have called it “wine” immediately afterward. From a biblical standpoint it is very reasonable to believe that the wine was to be a representation of his blood.

 

[ac_claire]

ooops! Here it is:

"…And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." Matthew 26:28-29

Obviously if Jesus just turned the cup of wine into his actual blood, he would not have called it “wine” immediately afterward. From a biblical standpoint it is very reasonable to believe that the wine was to be a representation of his blood.

No offense but this is weak, weak, weak.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believed in, defended and participated in the Real Presence as a Catholic could change their mind about it based on a weak private interpretation of certain Scripture verses. This is a classic example of proof-texting.

If you truly believe your arguments on this thread, then you don’t want the truth…you just *don’t want *to believe in the Real Presence and you’re looking for ways to back that up.

 

[LilyM]

If Jesus just changed the wine into blood, why did he call it “wine” again at verse 29?

Paul also calls the Eucharistic species ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup’ - but nonetheless makes it abundantly clear that there’s much more, and different, going on than bread and wine.

Hence his teaching that whoever received them ‘without discerning’ (pray tell, what IS there to discern in mere bread and wine which looks like bread and wine?) was guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. So how exactly does the partaking of mere bread and wine even relate to being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord unless it’s NOT just bread and wine?

 

[TLM08]

At the council at Jerusalem the Gentile Christians were told that they were not to drink blood!

“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things…” Acts 15:29

This is terribly problematic for the catholic interpretation of drinking the actual blood of Jesus Christ at the Mass.

 

[LilyM]

At the council at Jerusalem the Gentile Christians were told that they were not to drink blood!

"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things…" Acts 15:29

This is terribly problematic for the catholic interpretation of drinking the actual blood of Jesus Christ at the Mass.

You can’t be serious … there’s all the difference in the world between the saving blood of Christ which He commands us to drink so as to have eternal life, and the blood of animals (had any black pudding lately, by the way?).