Pope Says There is Only One True Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter sadie2723
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would beg to differ. Many Protestants pay a great deal of attention to what the Catholic Church does. Their websites and forums prove this.

I might suggest that you “broaden your horizons” and spend some time wandering about on other sites. While the question of what the Pope recently said…has created a bit of a buzz lately, what you will find on most “Protestant sites” are direct and incessant attacks on the Catholic Church that are rife with lies, deception and false information.
Actually I have had pretty strong interaction with a number of Protestant denominations and they really do ingore the RCC. From many of their point of view you are wrong, lacking academic biblical knowledge, governed by supersition and they just ignore you (I am NOT saying this is correct). Sorry to break it to you but for most Protestants you are barely on the radar screen. Only with some fringe obsesives and obsessive groups.

Rev North
 
I might suggest that you “broaden your horizons” and spend some time wandering about on other sites. While the question of what the Pope recently said…has created a bit of a buzz lately, what you will find on most “Protestant sites” are direct and incessant attacks on the Catholic Church that are rife with lies, deception and false information.
Most protestants I know have no conflict with the Catholic church whatsoever. They see it as just one among others of many denomination. They don’t even view themselves as Prosetant, just Christian. And the particular church they end up attending should they move often has little to do with denominational issues at all, but with the particulars of the specific congregation. I have no doubt that you can find some Protestant websites that attack the Catholic church, but I hardly think that you will find those sites to be representative of the vast majority of protestantism (if it can even be called that anymore).
 
Ahhhh you mean like the Pope that split himself and the Latin Church off from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (continued as the Orthodox Church). The RCC was born in schism so why condemn Dr. Luther who followed the example already set.
Actually the “RCC” or Church of Rome was a thriving Christian community, whose faith was praised by St. Paul before he ever visited there.
Plus while there is much mixed about him he did cause the church to look at its own corruption and have a counter reformation (so a nun Professor of mine said).

Rev North
Actually, as history and patristics amply shows, the pope and the Church at Rome are the source of sacerdotal unity, those who break communion with them, remove themselves from Christ’s church.
 
Ahhhh you mean like the Pope that split himself and the Latin Church off from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (continued as the Orthodox Church). The RCC was born in schism so why condemn Dr. Luther who followed the example already set.

Plus while there is much mixed about him he did cause the church to look at its own corruption and have a counter reformation (so a nun Professor of mine said).

Rev North
Mr. North, the Catholic Church loves you because Jesus is truly present in His Church… Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity. We would not be able to love you otherwise. We welcome you with open arms to partake of this Holy food, which can only be found in His glorious Church. Because you do not eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you, as He himself (I am who am) has said. That sir, is why you rail against truth, because the truth is not in you. I was a fool like you, who thought I knew better…there is time left, so come home, won’t you?

peace
 
Mr. North, the Catholic Church loves you because Jesus is truly present in His Church… Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity. We would not be able to love you otherwise. We welcome you with open arms to partake of this Holy food, which can only be found in His glorious Church. Because you do not eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you, as He himself (I am who am) has said. That sir, is why you rail against truth, because the truth is not in you. I was a fool like you, who thought I knew better…there is time left, so come home, won’t you?

peace
I agree! Come Home to the Catholic Church so that you can partake of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. We’ll be waiting RevDrNorth. Only the Catholic Church has the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.
 
I agree! Come Home to the Catholic Church so that you can partake of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. We’ll be waiting RevDrNorth. Only the Catholic Church has the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.
You believe that only the Catholic church has the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ.

Funny, because I know others that believe they also have it. But they don’t say that they are the only ones to have Christ’s real presence.

Here is what I believe:
I believe that were the Spirit of the Lord is there is the one true Church, apostolic and universal.
I believe that where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there he is in the midst of them.
I believe that the spiritual world is no less a real world than the physical world, so that if Christ is spiritually present then he is really present.
I believe that it is possible to make an idol out of even the things that are intended to help us in our worship of God. And while I’m not going to argue against your concept of the REAL PRESENCE, what I would say is that if you are hung up on making too big a deal out of this concept so that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. When we miss the fact that Christ is really present and with us in the midst of our brothers and sisters because we are so insistent on the REAL PRESENCE that we miss Christ’s actual presence, then something is wrong – maybe not with our theology, but with its practice.
 
You believe that only the Catholic church has the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ.

Funny, because I know others that believe they also have it. But they don’t say that they are the only ones to have Christ’s real presence.
.
When Catholics say true presence they mean Physical presence. Protestants don’t believe that the bread actually transforms in to the Physical Body of Christ. Jesus said “This is My Body” and Catholics believe Him. Protestant are correct in not believing that they have the Physical Body and Blood of Jesus because they don’t. I heard Steve Wood a Protestant minister converted to Catholicism put it this way, Protestants have platonic relationship with Christ, but Catholics have a conjugal relationship with Jesus the Church’s Spouse. The Catholic Church is the one true Church, the bride of Christ because Jesus Physically enters into her (us) to give her (us) new life.
 
When Catholics say true presence they mean Physical presence. Protestants don’t believe that the bread actually transforms in to the Physical Body of Christ. Jesus said “This is My Body” and Catholics believe Him. Protestant are correct in not believing that they have the Physical Body and Blood of Jesus because they don’t. I heard Steve Wood a Protestant minister converted to Catholicism put it this way, Protestants have platonic relationship with Christ, but Catholics have a conjugal relationship with Jesus the Church’s Spouse. The Catholic Church is the one true Church, the bride of Christ because Jesus Physically enters into her (us) to give her (us) new life.
I wish people would quit telling me what I believe as a Protestant.

One of the complaints that hear Catholic raise about Protestantism is that different churches can each believe different things because there is no a single source for teaching like Catholics have. And then someone will turn right around after that and dare to tell me what I believe rather than actually listening to what I say I believe.

I know exactly what AlegreFe meant by speaking of the REAL PRESENCE… I also know that there are many protestants who believe in the Real Presence and that elements of communion indeed do become the body and blood of Christ. Now, I it is true that I don’t believe in any such transformation. I don’t believe it not because I don’t take Jesus’ words seriously, but because I do. And where you believe that when Jesus said “this is my body” I think too think Jesus was telling us that he was offering his body for us, but I think the reference to the bread was metaphorical and that Jesus never intended for us to take it literally. But my beef with you in particular is not that you think one thing and I think another, but that you dare to tell me what I believe because I happen to be a protestant. The very fact that I am should tell you that you do NOT know what I believe unless you ask me about my particular set of beliefs. So, let me again reiterate what I have already said, and I ask you to listen this time.

YOU believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, the bride of Christ because Jesus Physically enters into her (you) to give her (you) new life.

Funny, because I know others that believe they also are of the Church. But they don’t say that they are the only ones to be of the Church.

I believe that were the Spirit of the Lord is there is the one true Church, apostolic and universal.
I believe that where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there he is in the midst of them.
I believe that the spiritual world is no less a real world than the physical world, so that if Christ is spiritually present then he is really present.

Now, if you think that somehow makes me less a part of Christ’s Church than you, that is your problem. But don’t take it up with me, take it up with Christ for he is the one that has invited us in. Take it up with God who has raised me and a whole host of non-Catholic believers and told us that we are co-raised with Christ and co-heirs with Jesus Christ. It is not by agreement with the teachings of the Catholic church that this is accomplished; it is by the will and power and grace of God. In him, not your teaching, I will stand. So, whether you believe it or not, I guess we are all a part of the very one same church. You are right, you are part of the one true Church. It’s just a little bit bigger than you have been told.

Now, might I ask you to meditate on this thought that I closed my last post with, for I think you missed my point. I believe if you had really understood me, you would not have posted as you did.
And while I’m not going to argue against your concept of the REAL PRESENCE, what I would say is that if you are hung up on making too big a deal out of this concept so that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. When we miss the fact that Christ is really present and with us in the midst of our brothers and sisters because we are so insistent on [the theology of] the REAL PRESENCE that we miss Christ’s actual presence, then something is wrong – maybe not with our theology, but with its practice.
 
I wish people would quit telling me what I believe as a Protestant.

One of the complaints that hear Catholic raise about Protestantism is that different churches can each believe different things because there is no a single source for teaching like Catholics have. And then someone will turn right around after that and dare to tell me what I believe rather than actually listening to what I say I believe.

I know exactly what AlegreFe meant by speaking of the REAL PRESENCE… I also know that there are many protestants who believe in the Real Presence and that elements of communion indeed do become the body and blood of Christ. Now, I it is true that I don’t believe in any such transformation. I don’t believe it not because I don’t take Jesus’ words seriously, but because I do. And where you believe that when Jesus said “this is my body” I think too think Jesus was telling us that he was offering his body for us, but I think the reference to the bread was metaphorical and that Jesus never intended for us to take it literally. But my beef with you in particular is not that you think one thing and I think another, but that you dare to tell me what I believe because I happen to be a protestant. The very fact that I am should tell you that you do NOT know what I believe unless you ask me about my particular set of beliefs. So, let me again reiterate what I have already said, and I ask you to listen this time.

YOU believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, the bride of Christ because Jesus Physically enters into her (you) to give her (you) new life.

Funny, because I know others that believe they also are of the Church. But they don’t say that they are the only ones to be of the Church.

I believe that were the Spirit of the Lord is there is the one true Church, apostolic and universal.
I believe that where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there he is in the midst of them.
I believe that the spiritual world is no less a real world than the physical world, so that if Christ is spiritually present then he is really present.

Now, if you think that somehow makes me less a part of Christ’s Church than you, that is your problem. But don’t take it up with me, take it up with Christ for he is the one that has invited us in. Take it up with God who has raised me and a whole host of non-Catholic believers and told us that we are co-raised with Christ and co-heirs with Jesus Christ. It is not by agreement with the teachings of the Catholic church that this is accomplished; it is by the will and power and grace of God. In him, not your teaching, I will stand. So, whether you believe it or not, I guess we are all a part of the very one same church. You are right, you are part of the one true Church. It’s just a little bit bigger than you have been told.

Now, might I ask you to meditate on this thought that I closed my last post with, for I think you missed my point. I believe if you had really understood me, you would not have posted as you did.
In the words of Fr. John Corapi.

“We desire Protestants to be Catholic.” So come to the fullness of Truth. You can’t find Real Presence in Protestantism. Yes, indeed some believe in it but there Holy Communion is not valid. They lack valid ordained priests, who has been annointed by the bishops, whom the bishops been annointed by cardinals, who had been annointed by the Popes. All these ordination can be traced their orgins to the Apostles who were ordained by Jesus Christ.

When it comes to Real Presence, they lack it. They have no Apostolic Succession. You can blame the Reformers for that.

The Apostolicae Curae is the title of a papal bull issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, declaring all Anglican holy orders “absolutely null and utterly void”.

The principal objection, according to Leo XIII, was the alleged deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. In the case of deficiency of intention, the pope defined that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the “sacrificing” priesthood of the Catholic Church and reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, appointment or blessing, instead of a conferral of actual grace by the action itself.

No priests, no consecrated Hosts.
 
In the words of Fr. John Corapi.

“We desire Protestants to be Catholic.” So come to the fullness of Truth. You can’t find Real Presence in Protestantism. Yes, indeed some believe in it but there Holy Communion is not valid. They lack valid ordained priests, who has been annointed by the bishops, whom the bishops been annointed by cardinals, who had been annointed by the Popes. All these ordination can be traced their orgins to the Apostles who were ordained by Jesus Christ.

When it comes to Real Presence, they lack it. They have no Apostolic Succession. You can blame the Reformers for that.

The Apostolicae Curae is the title of a papal bull issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, declaring all Anglican holy orders “absolutely null and utterly void”.

The principal objection, according to Leo XIII, was the alleged deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. In the case of deficiency of intention, the pope defined that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the “sacrificing” priesthood of the Catholic Church and reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, appointment or blessing, instead of a conferral of actual grace by the action itself.

No priests, no consecrated Hosts.
If you can keep beating this dead horse, I guess I can keep responding till someone listends:

I’m not here to argue against the Catholic concept of the REAL PRESENCE. You believe it and it is important to you. Fine.

What I would say is that if you are hung up on making such a big deal out of this concept that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have made too big a deal out of it. You have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. Christ should should bring us together, not divide us.

When we miss the fact that Christ is really present and with us in the midst of our brothers and sisters because we are so insistent on a theology of the REAL PRESENCE that we miss Christ’s actual presence, then something is wrong – maybe not with Catholic theology, but with its practice.
 
What I would say is that if you are hung up on making such a big deal out of this concept that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have made too big a deal out of it. You have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. Christ should should bring us together, not divide us.

When we miss the fact that Christ is really present and with us in the midst of our brothers and sisters because we are so insistent on a theology of the REAL PRESENCE that we miss Christ’s actual presence, then something is wrong – maybe not with Catholic theology, but with its practice.
One can never make too big a deal out of Our Lord being truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. No Catholic denies that Christ is among us in a spiritual way. However, the Eucharist is the fullness of Christ’s presence, and it is this fullness that we Catholics want to share with our non-Catholic brethren. Let’s face it, Our Lord did say
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
Abiding in Christ and having Him abide in us is a special fulfillment of the new covenant, and is something we Catholics take very seriously.
 
If you can keep beating this dead horse, I guess I can keep responding till someone listends:

I’m not here to argue against the Catholic concept of the REAL PRESENCE. You believe it and it is important to you. Fine.
Its important to EVERYONE or Christ would not have instituted it NOR told us in no uncertain terms that were to eat his Body and drink his Blood
What I would say is that if you are hung up on making such a big deal out of this concept that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have made too big a deal out of it. You have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. Christ should should bring us together, not divide us.
Actually the perversion wnet the other waysaround-Protestants rejected the things God gave us and perverted them into things like substituting crackers and grape juice for Christs Body and Blood
When we miss the fact that Christ is really present and with us in the midst of our brothers and sisters because we are so insistent on a theology of the REAL PRESENCE that we miss Christ’s actual presence, then something is wrong – maybe not with Catholic theology, but with its practice.
Another example of Protestants settling for a pale shadow of the truth. I held Jeseus in my hands this morning-the man who died for me on the cross.I ate his Body(as he isnstructed me to). Why would I settle for this nebulous notion that he is is spirtitually around when I can have the real thing? The difference is profound-it like the differenc between talking to you spouse on the phine and holding her in your arms.
 
Just for reference, here are some passages from the Bible that support a Catholic Church stance on Mass and the Sacraments.
Code:
  The Mass is a true Sacrifice: Christ, as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, offers the graces of His once and for all Sacrifice on the Cross to us sacramentally under the appearances of bread and wine through the ministry of His ordained priests
   
*

  Christ's ordained priests offer Christ to the Father under the appearances of bread and wine. Christ is really and truly present, under the appearance of bread and wine, in every way: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
   
*

  The Church, as the Body of Christ, offers Herself to God. Each member, as a part of the royal priesthood ("the priesthood of believers") offers his or her own sufferings and prayers, uniting them with Christ's offering of Himself. This includes the entire Church: Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant.
   
*

  Christ is not recrucified; the Sacrifice of the Mass is unbloody -- after the order of Melchizedek. Christ died once at a finite point in History; but God is outside of time and His offering of Himself is eternal. The Grace Christ offers in the Divine Liturgy and what He offered on the Cross are of the same sacrifice; therefore, in no way can the liturgical Sacrifice be a "repetition" of the Crucifixion. His sacrifice is re-presented ("made present again in some way"). As the Council of Trent put it, "The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former."
   
*

  The Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, it is made for the remission of sins and for the appeasement of the Father. The Old Testament sacrifices were ineffectual, but the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, which the Mass re-presents, is effectual because Christ Himself is both the High Priest and the perfect Victim. Partaking of His Body (with right intention, as with all Sacraments) remits venial sin and sanctifies.
All Christians agree that Jesus Christ is a High Priest, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:17-20) and that we are members of His royal priesthood, “the priesthood of believers,” as Protestants say (1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10 , Revelation 20:6). And Catholics, Orthodox, and a few Protestants know that there is an ordained priesthood (the Greek word for “elder” is “presbuteros,” which became “presbyter” in Latin and “priest” in English. So whenever you see “elder” in the New Testament, see the word “priest”!). In all these cases, the word “priesthood” entails “sacrifice” as sacrifice is what priests do.

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were infeffectual in the eternal sense, but they prefigure the New Testament Sacrifice instituted by Christ from Maundy Thursday (the day before Good Friday) to His Crucifixion – actually the same day by Jewish reckoning, from sunset to sunset. Recalling the Korban Pesach, He’d told his disciples beforehand that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. That He was understood to mean this literally is obvious when one reads that people were offended, disgusted, when they heard Him say so! They were so revolted, that many walked away – but Jesus didn’t stop them and clarify, “You idiots, you misunderstand! I speak in spiritual terms and am not talking literally!” No. What He did was let them go:
Code:
John 6:51-69
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [Note: if all Our Lord was talking about was a monthly-or-so gathering together to sing "Shine, Jesus, Shine" and eat some bread in memory of Him, how could it be such a "hard saying"?]
 
I continue here…

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Code:
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Some Protestants say that when Jesus said “This IS my body, this IS my blood,” His use of “is” means “symbolically represents.”

Hmmm… Where have I heard “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” before?

He told what was to come about and then, on that Thursday, He fulfilled Passover, taking bread and wine, after the order of Melchizedek, and saying “This IS My body, this IS My blood.” (Matthew 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20 – absolutely parallel in the synoptic Gospels). In Luke 22:20, recalling Moses in Exodus 24:8, He says, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” He took bread and gave thanks (todah). “Do this,” He said, “in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). On that day, this “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29) prepared for His once and for all, perfect Sacrifice.

At the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Catholic priest offers that same Sacrifice to the Father, and then eats and offers to us the glorified Body of Christ in a form whose “accidents” look like bread and wine after the order of Melchizedek. Calvary is pulled out of time and re-presented before our very eyes! Read again: St. John’s Heavenly vision of our Lord, glorified and ascended, is that of a “Lamb as it had been slain” (Revelation 5:6) with an Altar (Revelation 8:3), whence He offers Himself to us in “hidden manna” (Revelation 2:17), the Eucharist. Even in Heaven, the resurrected, glorified Christ, the King of Kings, appears as a “lamb as it had been slain,” the perfect Oblation.

Read the prophecy of Malachi again:
Code:
Malachi 1:10-11
Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense "Sacrifice" in the Douay-Reims] shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering "clean oblation" in the Douay-Reims]: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.
“In every place…” How can there be predicted pure sacrifice in every place in the New Covenant if Protestant theology is true, if Christ’s once and for all Sacrifice is not to be re-presented as it is at the Catholic Mass?

Protester, where are this incense and pure oblation offered? This sacrifice is prophecied! Where is it? Are your grape juice and saltines a “pure offering”? Are they pure in themselves? Or do your undoubtedly good intentions and personal holiness make them pure? Are they an offering worthy of God Almighty?
Code:
Matthew 27:27-29
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.
Will eating your grape juice and crackers unworthily make you sick and possibly die? How do you make sense of Paul’s words to the Corinthians?
 
And again here.

(I am sorry if this is very long but I feel it is important. If I shouldnt do this please let me know.)

I Corinthians 11:23-30
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

“Not discerning” what (say it out loud now!)? What did Paul say the apparent “bread” and “wine” are?

If consuming your grape juice and saltines unworthily can’t make you sick, then you are not eating what Paul was eating!
 
What I would say is that if you are hung up on making such a big deal out of this concept that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have made too big a deal out of it. You have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. Christ should should bring us together, not divide us.
Tell that to your 33,000 Protestant denominations who differ in belief than you. There are so many division in Protestantism claiming to have the Gospel Truths…

or you can ask, why the Reformers wanted to divide the Body of Christ by breaking with the Catholic Church. If Christians truly want unity, there is no reason for Schism or Reformation. Christ’s Church was intended to be One Church, one faith. It’s beliefs doesn’t differ. If one Council Church says that baptism is necessary it is, or that infant baptism is right and worthy Christian practice.

There is no unity in Protestantism. You find unity in doctrinal issues in the Catholic Church. Just as Pope Benedict XVI said, Jesus Christ only founded One Church and it is the Catholic Church.
 
If you can keep beating this dead horse, I guess I can keep responding till someone listends:

I’m not here to argue against the Catholic concept of the REAL PRESENCE. You believe it and it is important to you. Fine.

What I would say is that if you are hung up on making such a big deal out of this concept that it divides you from others who are also in Christ, then you have made too big a deal out of it. You have taken the things that God gave to us in order to bless us and have perverted them for other purposes. Christ should should bring us together, not divide us.

When we miss the fact that Christ is really present and with us in the midst of our brothers and sisters because we are so insistent on a theology of the REAL PRESENCE that we miss Christ’s actual presence, then something is wrong – maybe not with Catholic theology, but with its practice.
we are indeed hung up on the real presence because it is not a concept…but real…not an idea or imagination but real. not a concept, as you say. Christ does bring us together and the summit of this communo is the Eucharist.

peace and love to you and a warm extension to say yes once, Jesus will do the rest. Just keep saying yes.

peace and come on home, we love you.
 
Tell that to your 33,000 Protestant denominations who differ in belief than you. There are so many division in Protestantism claiming to have the Gospel Truths…

There is no unity in Protestantism. You find unity in doctrinal issues in the Catholic Church. Just as Pope Benedict XVI said, Jesus Christ only founded One Church and it is the Catholic Church.
No…it is the Orthodox Church. You developed many new doctrines such as purgatory, Papal infallibility and on and on. The “schismatic” Protestants are thanks to the Latin Rite Schism. In fact as you criticize Protestants you too have a number of schisms within the Latin Rite Church.

Check out the 7 Ecumenical Councils and see how many of the Latin Rite doctrines are innovations from the apostolic church. Only Orthodoxy has maintained fidelity to the apostolic faith.

Please note that I am not condenming you or saying you are going to hell, etc but you do not have too much room to criticize what could be considered your fellow Protestants. Maybe you could drop Purgatory, Papal infallibility and so on and return to the fullness of the faith in Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Orthodoxy has preserved this through the centuries (Thanks Be to God)

Rev North
 
People seem to think that Papal Infallibility seems to be some kind of claim by the Pope that everything that comes out of his mouth is infallible, aren’t there very few doctrines that have been claimed as a result of papal infallibility?

If the Pope is the successor to Peter, and he is, then I do not see anything wrong with Pope making infallible truths, Jesus’ words to Peter had deep implications of workings with the Holy Spirit in the Church he builds upon him.
 
mr. north
well thanks for not saying we deserve hell. papal infallibility means only that the pope is preserved from teaching error regarding faith and morals. just thought i’d clarify that for you. it’s biblical as is purgatory and both are pretty good ideas for us all, don’t you think?
papal infallibility and impeccability are not the same, as you attribute the first as meaning the second. “and on and on”, you say, about all these inventions, list them and tell everyone the horrible nature of them as to how they are bad for us.

peace:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top