Non-Catholic Christians, which ONE doctrine...

[elvisman]

I have trouble with much in the RCC. I stayed for many years after I dried up spiritually which was a mistake. I praise God everyday for showing me the way back to him which absolutely was not the Catholic church.

Oh, that’s right - Henry VIII was the one shining beacon and bearer of truth throughout the ages - not Jesus, who built the Catholic Church.

 

[elvisman]

Mary’s immaculate conception.

Because of 2 Cor 5:14’s two 'all’s…its the same all.

(since I just started RCIA this comment is not about whether or not CC is true, just what I still disagree with)

What, may I ask does this passage have to do with the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Chancellare]

Fully agree. If you want to read an amazing book that explains a lot about the real roots of Roman Catholicism, get The Two Babylons by Hislop. An amazing documentation of where things like pontiffs, purgatory, mother and child obsession, and even the pointy thing the pope wears on his head come from. Most of it goes right back to the pagan religious system of Babylon a couple of millenia before. It’s not that they researched and modelled after that system, but rather, I think, the same ‘guy’ inspired it all, if you know what I mean.

If Hislop is your standard of historical sources, then Dan Brown is more authoritative!

 

[Martin777]

No! It’s not. It is very well documented. Can’t shoot the messenger!

 

[Sailka]

If Hislop is your standard of historical sources, then Dan Brown is more authoritative!

Two 100% fictions better than one. Even Dan Brown’s driving through Paris was Wrong. Babylon’s street layout kinda old.

 

[grannymh]

do you disagree with most, and more importantly why? I don’t want this to be a flame fest, but I do respect our brothers in Christ and want to know which doctrine, of all that the Catholic Church Teaches, leads you to believe that she is not the true Church founded by Christ?

Fellow Catholic Christians, I wanna sit back and see what people say, and not necessarily be quick to jump on anyone, but if and when necessary correct our brothers in Christ in what we believe.

I feel like a thread like this may already be posted, so if it is moderators please edit, but I’m interested in what people have to say. Thx

 

[grannymh]

do you disagree with most, and more importantly why? I don’t want this to be a flame fest, but I do respect our brothers in Christ and want to know which doctrine, of all that the Catholic Church Teaches, leads you to believe that she is not the true Church founded by Christ?

Fellow Catholic Christians, I wanna sit back and see what people say, and not necessarily be quick to jump on anyone, but if and when necessary correct our brothers in Christ in what we believe.

I feel like a thread like this may already be posted, so if it is moderators please edit, but I’m interested in what people have to say. Thx

Hopefully someone caught that the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist is “Spiritual”,

 

[1edyson]

Hopefully someone caught that the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist is “Spiritual”,

thank you for the post, please answer the more important part of my question…why?

 

[Martin777]

I’m not sure if anyone caught the following regarding that the teaching of the Church is that the “Real Presence” in Eucharist Is “Spiritual”, Plus transubstantiation does not imply spiritual.

I would have thought that if the bread and wine actually became the literal body and blood of Jesus, Paul, would have said exactly that, as important as that is. He said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Wouldn’t he have said, “For as often as you eat…you are actually eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, because it is transformed. That is why it tastes like real flesh and real blood when you consume it!” Hmmm…but he didn’t. By the way, why doesn’t it taste right, if that’s what it is? Could all this be because Jesus said it was his body and blood figuratively, like He said He was a door and He was a shepherd, and He was the light???
When did the popes first decide to pronounce ‘hokum pokum’ over the bread and wine, and that that is when they become the literal body and blood of Jesus.
And here is the real issue, one that some other supernatural creatures are interested in, I think: Don’t they think Jesus shed enough blood when He cried out, “Tetelestai” (It is finished/{Paid in full)? If it was paid in full, why does Rome think they need to create more and more blood? Know anyone else that is into bloody rituals?? Just a thought.

 

[SIA]

Oh, that’s right - Henry VIII was the one shining beacon and bearer of truth throughout the ages - not Jesus, who built the Catholic Church.

This sounds exactly like something that would come from you.

 

[SIA]

I would have thought that if the bread and wine actually became the literal body and blood of Jesus, Paul, would have said exactly that, as important as that is. He said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Wouldn’t he have said, “For as often as you eat…you are actually eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, because it is transformed. That is why it tastes like real flesh and real blood when you consume it!” Hmmm…but he didn’t. By the way, why doesn’t it taste right, if that’s what it is? Could all this be because Jesus said it was his body and blood figuratively, like He said He was a door and He was a shepherd, and He was the light???
When did the popes first decide to pronounce ‘hokum pokum’ over the bread and wine, and that that is when they become the literal body and blood of Jesus.
And here is the real issue, one that some other supernatural creatures are interested in, I think: Don’t they think Jesus shed enough blood when He cried out, “Tetelestai” (It is finished/{Paid in full)? If it was paid in full, why does Rome think they need to create more and more blood? Know anyone else that is into bloody rituals?? Just a thought.

What you said here really cuts to much of the problem I have with Catholicism. Sometimes it’s what is mentioned in the Scriptures that really makes Catholicism suspect and other times it’s what is not mentioned in the Scriptures.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Fellow Catholic Christians, I wanna sit back and see what people say, and not necessarily be quick to jump on anyone, but if and when necessary correct our brothers in Christ in what we believe.

I guess the original post has no bearing or merit, anymore?

And this thread has ample example already on why I’m not going to answer an otherwise perfectly valid question. I’ve had about all the “just give him the same standard, unreflected, auto-dial response”-answers I can take today…

Ditto.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I would have thought that if the bread and wine actually became the literal body and blood of Jesus, Paul, would have said exactly that, as important as that is. He said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Wouldn’t he have said, “For as often as you eat…you are actually eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, because it is transformed. That is why it tastes like real flesh and real blood when you consume it!” .

If that was all he said, you might have a point.

Here’s what else he said:

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of** sinning against the body and blood** of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[grannymh]

thank you for the post, please answer the more important part of my question…why?

The following is in Post 11 and I can’t figure out where it comes from, let alone why.

• The Church teaches that the “Real Presence” in Eucharist Is “Spiritual”, although there have been Several widelly acclaimed Eucharistic Miracles, impossible to otherwise explain: Heart, Blood of Dropped Host in Italian Chapel Centuries ago, No preservatives, original state.

---

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

papal infallibility,I would accept the pope as first among equals though, transubstantiation; try as I might in good conscience I can believe in the "spiritual’ presence only, apostolic succession: is not relevant to me,i believe all who are baptized in the name of father,son,and holy spirit are in apostolic succession,wisdom means much more than a laying on of hands by a bishop.sorry thats 3 instead of one.but there are many things about the Roman Catholic church I love,charity works,standing up for life,St Francis, St patrick,Chesterton,Bishop Sheen,mother theresa,pope JP2, and many priests and nuns i have gotten to know. In Christian Unity.

Dear universalist,

I’m glad to read the positive things you wrote about the Roman
Catholic Church.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[Martin777]

What you said here really cuts to much of the problem I have with Catholicism. Sometimes it’s what is mentioned in the Scriptures that really makes Catholicism suspect and other times it’s what is not mentioned in the Scriptures.

I wouldn’t be so intense about it if I didn’t think it was so deadly. I partake of communion on a regular basis, and it is a very special time. I just think what they teach is foreign to God’s word, and as I noted above, part of something that is very seriously wrong. I had a man in my church who is dead now, but he went to mass every day of his life for years and years, since he was a child. He was extremely knowledgable of doctrine. His son went to a Baptist vacation Bible school and found out what Jesus meant when He said, “You must be born again.” The parents eventually had the pastor over for dinner and it wasn’t long before he had led both of them to saving faith. That man left the RCC and started a ministry to instruct Catholics in the errors of their ways. He was a brilliant man and very devoted. He was able to help a lot of people both in and out of the RCC. I lost track of him and his ministry when I moved. I believe he is the one that pointed me to the book, The Two Babylons.

 

[Martin777]

If that was all he said, you might have a point.

Here’s what else he said:

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of** sinning against the body and blood** of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

That’s right, because they deny what communion represents–the physical death of Jesus–in the flesh, a real body–on the cross. But again, Paul does not make a plain statement that indicates the bread all of a sudden becomes actual flesh.
When did the pope first establish the practice of saying those Latin words over the bread and wine and declaring that they transform to real flesh and blood?

 

[narrowpath]

When you say “He found out what Jesus meant when he said “You must be born again””, do you mean that the Baptists backed it up with scripture, proof that this was the early Church interpretation, and so on? Or just that they made it seem like what they said was true by throwing out a bunch of scripture verses.

I myself have only found the fullness of the faith in the Catholic Church.

 

[narrowpath]

That’s right, because they deny what communion represents–the physical death of Jesus–in the flesh, a real body–on the cross. But again, Paul does not make a plain statement that indicates the bread all of a sudden becomes actual flesh.
When did the pope first establish the practice of saying those Latin words over the bread and wine and declaring that they transform to real flesh and blood?

Do you know, Martin777, that the word Jesus uses in John 6 when telling the crowds to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” actually means to literally take into your mouth, chew, and swallow?

For the life of me I cannt understand how this is symbolic. I can only see it apply to the Eucharist.

 

[1edyson]

The following is in Post 11 and I can’t figure out where it comes from, let alone why.

• The Church teaches that the “Real Presence” in Eucharist Is “Spiritual”, although there have been Several widelly acclaimed Eucharistic Miracles, impossible to otherwise explain: Heart, Blood of Dropped Host in Italian Chapel Centuries ago, No preservatives, original state.

---

Blessings,
grannymh

my bad, didn’t catch the post in post 11.