Protestant? right

[JoeyWarren]

shawn34_a

I don’t think he is Catholic. I’ve looked at his other comments. They are for a better lack of a word BAPTIST.

Shawn, if you are not Catholic, just say so. There is no need to lie about your religion here at Catholic Answers. We don’t ban people for that reason.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t think he is Catholic. I’ve looked at his other comments. They are for a better lack of a word BAPTIST.

Shawn, if you are not Catholic, just say so. There is no need to lie about your religion here at Catholic Answers. We don’t ban people for that reason.

His wife is a Baptist and I think she is feeding him lies about the Church, which you can see from his threads.

 

[JoeyWarren]

His wife is a Baptist and I think she is feeding him lies about the Church, which you can see from his threads.

Hmmmmmmmm I was close…

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s not true. Look at all the posts regarding the consecration. The topic pertained to transubstantiation and whether, during the consecration, does the bread and wine become the physical body and blood of Christ. I will not go on about it, but in a nut shell, no. Spiritually it becomes the physical body and blood or Christ, but not literally or else science could prove it. But go to Consecration: Physical or Spiritual if you want to read all about it.

I don’t have to I have already refuted your misguided propaganda, especially since it is not supported by either the Bible or the verifiable historic writings of the ECF.

Read it and weep.

If you think you’re right about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, then explain to me why you are plainly at odds with the ECF on that.

Look here at what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about people like you.

*CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) 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.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.*

 

[shawn34_a]

I think (and hope) that you will receive multiple posts to your query… and there are others here who can provide a wealth of info for you…

to that end,… for a start

When Peter had the name change and received the Keys… the link to the OT Isaah is important. In 20:22, I believe, we read of the importance of the chief steward who holds the keys of authority “while the King is away”. He is totally and singularly in charge. The other stewards yield to his authority…“while the king is away”

That office, which is vacated “let another man fill”

Catholic Teaching… using the OT and its fulfullment in the NT, refers to this in Matthew 16:18 St Peter is being annointed, choosen, by Christ the King, to be the “chief steward” and the holder of the “keys”… while the King is away. The King will build his church (kingdom) and it will be upon the Rock who used to be named Simon. This is not unique. God often gives a “special assignment” or a special power to someone whose name is also changed.

In early ACTS, we see it again… the office of one of the “stewards” - Judas - must be filled. It is a first order of business in the infant Church. But not just anyone is qualified to be chosen. For that important position as one of the 12, only two men were qualified.

Today, the Catholic Church is huge… in fact there are about 280 “churches”’/“bishops”/dioceses in America alone. But each 'office" is meant to be filled if it becomes vacant. That happens with the (name removed by moderator)ut of advisors to the Pope and then by appointment of a qualified man by the pope… not by those of the local diocese.

With the Vicar of Christ, however, we do not see the successor Pope selected by the previous Pope… the office is filled as it was by lot… by ballot… often like the first - not unanimous.

It is the office that is so important… Some of the men who were pope were blots on the history of the Church. But their office retained all the authority of the “chief steward”. And, according to Jesus’ promise… the gates of hell will not prevail …

Isaia 22:22 The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.

Matthew 16:17Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth £will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Revelations 3:7 These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”

We have some issues here I suppose. Who then holds the key? The three references refer to the “key of David.” Each time it’s singular denoting one key. How’s that possible then in 95 to 96 ad. In the letter to the church of Philadelphia, John writes to inform them that Jesus holds the key of David.

1. He made reference to the Eternal City in his first Epistle by noting that he writes from Babylon . It is certain that Peter died in Rome and that his martyrdom came during the reign of Emperor Nero, probably in 64. Testimony of his martyrdom is extensive, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus. According to rich tradition, Peter was crucified on the Vatican Hill upside down because he declared himself unworthy to die in the same manner as the Lord.
2. According to early tradition, the writing of this book of Revelations took place near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96.
3. Unable to find the year Eliakim died, but it was way before the birth of Christ for there was 37 more generations til Jesus.

Is it unreasonable to think that upon Peters death, Jesus held the key. I don’t think so. There would have to be two keys then for Jesus, in Revelations (25 to 30 years after the death of Peter), said he holds the key to the house of David. Notice that everywhere key is mentioned, it’s singular denoting one key. So in 95 or 96 ad there would have to have been two keys, one with Jesus and the other with the Pope. Like apostolic succession, there’s no evidence that this key to Heaven was ever passed on. How do we reconcile?

 

[shawn34_a]

I don’t have to I have already refuted your misguided propaganda, especially since it is not supported by either the Bible or the verifiable historic writings of the ECF.

Read it and weep.

If you think you’re right about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, then explain to me why you are plainly at odds with the ECF on that.

Look here at what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about people like you.

*CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) 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.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.*

Let’s not base any understanding of the Eucharist on anything but the Bible. According to your belief a Christian-Jew would have to sin against one of the two presense of God, God of the OT, or Jesus in the NT. Jews were prohibited, by God, from drinking anything that contained it’s life blood. Even when they did sacrifices in the OT, they cut the throat of the animal, drained it off its life blood on the alter, and then cooked it up. This would be a contradiction of God’s own commandments. The NT did not void the OT.

 

[shawn34_a]

His wife is a Baptist and I think she is feeding him lies about the Church, which you can see from his threads.

I’m Catholic. I went through the RCIA in 2001 at St. Michaels Catholic Church in Cary, NC.

Answer the question to my last reply just before this regarding the consecration. How is it possible?

The issue at hand is that I can defend my position biblicly and without contradiction, based on other scripture. Your unable too.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m Catholic. I went through the RCIA in 2001 at St. Michaels Catholic Church in Cary, NC.

Answer the question to my last reply just before this regarding the consecration. How is it possible?

The issue at hand is that I can defend my position biblicly and without contradiction, based on other scripture. Your unable too.

Yes, but you are not taught because according to your threads, your views are typical Protestant arguments. Whatever they taught you in RCIA probably didn’t soak into your brain.

If you were indeed Catholic, you would agree with the Magisterium of the Church, and accept Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition as the God of God.

You however believe in Scripture Alone, which itself is a fundamental Protestant Doctrine.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is the Disciple of John, who know Jesus, and he was taught. Do you think John did not teach Ignatius?

 

[shawn34_a]

I don’t think he is Catholic. I’ve looked at his other comments. They are for a better lack of a word BAPTIST.

Shawn, if you are not Catholic, just say so. There is no need to lie about your religion here at Catholic Answers. We don’t ban people for that reason.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Please Lord give me patience

Here we go again. Could you please answer the question I pose. Or maybe the inability to answer the question is that you don’t have an answer. Well how can that be possible? I do not that the Jews couldn’t eat things with its life blood in it for God forbid it in several locations in the OT. I know that the apostles were Jewish also. And Jesus in the NT said to drink this for this is my blood, the blood of a new and everlasting covenant.
I know you being a good Catholic know that the NT did not do away with the OT.

 

[shawn34_a]

Yes, but you are not taught because according to your threads, your views are typical Protestant arguments. Whatever they taught you in RCIA probably didn’t soak into your brain.

If you were indeed Catholic, you would agree with the Magisterium of the Church, and accept Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition as the God of God.

You however believe in Scripture Alone, which itself is a fundamental Protestant Doctrine.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is the Disciple of John, who know Jesus, and he was taught. Do you think John did not teach Ignatius?

All right you had me break out the Celebrating the Mass book.

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

People: Blessed be God for ever.

Priest: By the mustery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

People: Blessed be God for ever.

That was from one of the three books that we received in RCIA.

 

[Mannyfit75]

All right you had me break out the Celebrating the Mass book.

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

People: Blessed be God for ever.

Priest: By the mustery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

People: Blessed be God for ever.

That was from one of the three books that we received in RCIA.

What else did you learn in RCIA about the Eucharist? What does it say?

 

[shawn34_a]

At some point you’ll understand that I’m saying it is the spiritual manifestation of Christ/Holy Spirit in the flesh. If it truly became the physical body and blood of Christ through the consecration, all would believe in Christ (doubting Thomas). There would be no need for faith. But by believing it’s the spiritual manifestation of Christ in the flesh, we harmonize both the NT and OT allowing for all to join in the Lord’s Supper, and maintain that mystery of faith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

At some point you’ll understand that I’m saying it is the spiritual manifestation of Christ/Holy Spirit in the flesh. If it truly became the physical body and blood of Christ through the consecration, all would believe in Christ (doubting Thomas). There would be no need for faith. But by believing it’s the spiritual manifestation of Christ in the flesh, we harmonize both the NT and OT allowing for all to join in the Lord’s Supper, and maintain that mystery of faith.

So is the Eucharist Real Presence, or symbolic? Just answer yes and no.

 

[shawn34_a]

What else did you learn in RCIA about the Eucharist? What does it say?

What I’m saying here is no different than what the Father taught as my daughter went through her 1st Holy Communion. I had to sit through all the classes with her.

 

[shawn34_a]

So is the Eucharist Real Presence, or symbolic? Just answer yes and no.

It absolutely is not symbolic. It’s the spiritual manifestation of Christ in the flesh by way of the Holy Spirit who is the giver of life. This is what I’ve been saying all along. This is a difference between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants believe it is only symbolic.

 

[mercygate]

I’m Catholic. I went through the RCIA in 2001 at St. Michaels Catholic Church in Cary, NC.

Answer the question to my last reply just before this regarding the consecration. How is it possible?

The issue at hand is that I can defend my position biblicly and without contradiction, based on other scripture. Your unable too.

Were you a convert or a revert? If a convert, how on earth did you get up in front of all those people, not to mention the Good Lord God and say:

“I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

I am astounded.

 

[Godfollower]

Let’s not base any understanding of the Eucharist on anything but the Bible. According to your belief a Christian-Jew would have to sin against one of the two presense of God, God of the OT, or Jesus in the NT. Jews were prohibited, by God, from drinking anything that contained it’s life blood. Even when they did sacrifices in the OT, they cut the throat of the animal, drained it off its life blood on the alter, and then cooked it up. This would be a contradiction of God’s own commandments. The NT did not void the OT.

Your point actually supports Catholic theology. The Jews, as you correctly point out, were prohibited from eating human flesh or drinking blood. Then they sit there and listen to Jesus saying

If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

(John 6:52) and they can’t believe it, because it goes against Jewish teaching. So they said to each other,

How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

(John 6:53). So Jesus became more graphic:

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. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

(John 6:54-55).

The thing is, the actual word Jesus used best translates as “munch” or “gnaw.” He was being very graphic about eating his flesh. And it’s clear that His disciples understood it that way, too:

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

(John 6:61).

Now read the rest of the passage:

But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you 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 have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

(John 6:62-70).
The disciples at the time understood that Jesus was talking about His true flesh and blood. They were so offended at the concept that many of them abandoned Him. But He didn’t run after them, saying “Wait! I was speaking metaphorically!” He let them go. Because they could not accept it. But the Christians did accept it – which is why Paul also made clear that it really is the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[JoeyWarren]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Please Lord give me patience

Here we go again. Could you please answer the question I pose. Or maybe the inability to answer the question is that you don’t have an answer. Well how can that be possible? I do not that the Jews couldn’t eat things with its life blood in it for God forbid it in several locations in the OT. I know that the apostles were Jewish also. And Jesus in the NT said to drink this for this is my blood, the blood of a new and everlasting covenant.
I know you being a good Catholic know that the NT did not do away with the OT.

That is correct the NT did not od away with the OT. How about starting a new thread on this subject and we can discuss it thoroughly.

 

[shawn34_a]

(John 6:62-70).
The disciples at the time understood that Jesus was talking about His true flesh and blood. They were so offended at the concept that many of them abandoned Him. But He didn’t run after them, saying “Wait! I was speaking metaphorically!” He let them go. Because they could not accept it. But the Christians did accept it – which is why Paul also made clear that it really is the Body and Blood of Christ.

But if it were the real Body and Blood of Christ, Paul and the other apostles could not eat it for they were Jewish. Jesus spoke in Parables through out the NT for he knew that the true believers in him would understand. He even says it himself when asked why he speaks this way. In John 6, Jesus was trying to get the religious leaders to see beyond the physical aspects of His teaching to the real issue, that if you believe in him, you would have everlasting life. Because the did not believe, many of the disciples did not follow Jesus any longer. Many did not believe because it was not granted to them by the Father (Romans 11)

 

[shawn34_a]

That is correct the NT did not od away with the OT. How about starting a new thread on this subject and we can discuss it thoroughly.

Sounds good. I’ll have to start it a little later. I have to go now for my daughter has Girl Scouts, my son has the Chess club, and I have to get them fed.