S
SteveVH
Guest
Who really cares what university professors think about anything having to do with the Church? The number of detractors does not determine Truth. The truth remains the truth even if no one believes it.
- Status
R
Radical
Guest
probably a good percentage of those who want to present their faith as being both informed and reasonable
true, but there sure seems to be a pretty strong coorelation between scholarly opinion and truth…so I would suggest that one should be cautious in disregarding their opinion(s) altogether…and one should be very concerned if that is what is required by one’s faith.
and error remains error even if everyone believes it
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay…and? Have you bothered to read the Mandatum guidelines? What’s the problem? It is very easy:
Adhere to the teachings and discipline of the church.
Your comment really proves nothing.
By all means go ahead and provide some legit sources backing up your comment.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Oh…much like your belief in a symbolic Eucharist? You just rebuked your own errors.
M
MatthewMark
Guest
Well, in this case I was referring to “doctrine” as “formal teaching.” Perhaps I misused the term.Wait…isn’t accepting Christ as savior accepting a correct doctrine?
-Chris
M
MatthewMark
Guest
“The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation” - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” - Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” - 11th Session of the Council of Florence, under Pope Eugene IV
M
MatthewMark
Guest
Actually, this comes from the document you refer to:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336”
A
andrewstx
Guest
I would appeciate if you got back to me with the words of your Pastor, if only to satisfy my curiosity. I can’t return to the Church of the Nazarene since I was never baptised or a member
. but an answer would be good.
R
racing59
Guest
There are many beautiful things about RCC, but my main objection is the controversy when the subject of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit come up. My understanding of RCC is this was only given to the Apostles, At Penticost there were 150 there and 3,000 more recieved the Holy Spirit. I believe in spirit,soul,and body, that God made us after his image, that we are tri-union beings also. One third of me is Holy Spirit and have the power and gifts there of through the Blood of Jesus and in the name of Jesus. In my experence, this is very convtorsual thinking in RCC.
M
MatthewMark
Guest
Noted. However, the CC clearly changed doctrine on the fate of Protestants. Perhaps they didn’t use the term “Hell,” but what does it mean when they use terms such as “damnation” and “cannot be saved”? For example: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” - 11th Session of the Council of Florence, under Pope Eugene IV
The Catholic view of the thief on the cross is interesting. In Protestant churches the thief is saved because he realizes Jesus is who he says he is. He is saved by accepting Christ as Lord. This also illustrates the differences in interpretation between faiths. Though Protestants and Catholics would both use this as evidence to support their beliefs, the truth is, whether the thief was saved by confession or by his acceptance of Christ, it is left to interpretation.
These exchanges are valuable because I am finally getting a clearer picture of the Catholic faith, which I have never had before. As I understand your interpretation (again, tell me if I’m wrong), truth and salvation lie within the CC. In contrast, Protestantism teaches that truth lies within the Bible alone and salvation lies with Christ alone. Christ’s church is the whole of Christianity, the followers and believers in Christ. We are all His–Catholics and Protestants alike–and we all make up His church. The Catholic Church believes it is the one true Christian church. Truth is divine inspiration which is mainly delivered to the people through the Church’s spiritual leader on earth, the Pope.
E
enickman
Guest
no, that is just something that some people read into scripture…Luke didn’t beat around the bush and merely give hints that John the Baptist should be seen as Elijah. He flat out said it. ….but supposedly, regarding seeing Mary as the Ark, he resorts to a subtle code.
your parallel falls apart…the old ark was pure, but Mary was rendered unclean by her monthly period….the old ark couldn’t be touched w/o killing the toucher, but Mary could be touched w/o consequence.
you are fudging the passages to make connections:
A. Your first is a comparison of Exodus 40:34-35 to Luke 1:35. In the one case a cloud covered the Tent of Meeting which housed the ark and in the other case Mary was overshadowed by the power of God. The ark doesn’t even get mentioned in the first instance. When the correspondence is cloud <=> Holy Spirit and unmentioned Ark (as opposed to the mentioned Tent) <=> Mary the correspondence strikes me as being manufactured
B. David danced and leaped as the ark was moved to Jerusalem. John, leaped inside Elizabeth’s womb. These are considerably different movements and the mere use of “leaped” in both cases does not make a connection. Further, if any connection is to be made it would be the Jesus-Ark connection for 2 Sam twice specifies that David danced in front of the LORD.
C. Luke 1:43 reads: And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 2 Sam 6:9 reads: And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? And he would not have the ark of the Lord brought in to himself into the city of David… David and Elizabeth really ask two totally different things. Elizabeth’s question is an expression about an honour. She wonders why she should be blessed with the presence of the mother of her Lord. David’s question is one of dread. He is afraid and wonders how he can possibly transport the ark…and ends up not wanting the ark brought to him in Jerusalem. These near opposites do not make a connection.
agreed, but you are saying that there isn’t even a solid argument against your claim.
there are indeed renowned Mormon scholars, but I don’t think that there is one renowned Mormon historian who has gained a good reputation through a process that saw him put forward (for peer review) a history particular to conservative Mormonism. (that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, wandered through the wilderness and sailed to the Americas where they founded vast civilizations with a decidedly Semitic cultural flavour). The Mormon scholar realizes that only devote Mormons take such a “history” seriously….everyone else dismisses it. That should set off alarms. You seem to think that there is no sound argument against your claims, but what we find is renowned scholars, specialists in the area in question, who have gained their good reputations (in part) through a process that saw them put forward (for peer review) a history that contradicts your claims. That should set off alarm bells in your head. For example, regarding your claim about transubstantiation, experts in that matter peg the introduction of the belief in a real somatic presence at the 4th century Antiochene school. Some Catholic biographers of Augustine conclude that he did not hold to a real bodily presence. You probably think that Newman’s famous dictum is sound, but the mere existence of so very many renowned conservative Christian historians gives the lie to that dictum.
that job was about complete by the end of the second century….apart from tightening up the loose fringes.
those councils were local and not particularly significant…they ratified what had already been established by practice.
technically, I don’t view the canon as being infallibly set….if a “dead sea scroll” site was found for early Christian works, I wouldn’t be adverse to revisiting the books to be included in the NT
it is my way of expressing my incredulity during a discussion, but I’ll try to refrain from expressing it…just know that it is often there
- How is she not the New Ark? Is she not the vessel that brought the fulfiller (Jesus) of the Old Ark? She isn’t pure? She was a virgin when she gave birth. The uncleanliness due to the period is Mosaic law. Mary ushered in the new era with Jesus, who came to fulfill Mosaic law. The point wasn’t that no one could touch Mary, it was just that she is pure as is the Old Ark pure. Sure, Luke didn’t flat out say she was the Ark. But where in the Bible does it flat out say there is a trinity? Couldn’t you say “that is just something that some people read into scripture…” regarding that also?
- You may call my comparing of the passages “fudging” in order to help your own cause, but that does not erase the fact of their similarities. The Holy Spirit is the cloud that overshadows the tent of meeting. The ark is within the tent of meeting, in fact it’s in the tabernacle. “… the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” What’s in the tabernacle? The ark. Perhaps read all of Exodus 40. Now when Mary asks how she can conceive a child, the Angel said “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you…”.
It doesn’t matter in what regard they ask the question, they are still asking the same question. David does ask in fear, why the ark has come to him. Elizabeth asks with honor, why the Mother of our Lord should come to her. Consider this. I have been chosen by the president of my company to give a speech in front of the whole company on work ethic. I ask why did you choose me and feel worried that I’m not qualified or I ask why did you choose me and wonder what good I did to deserve the honor. Either way I’m still asking the same question, regardless of the manner.
I’m glad you didn’t bring up the other comparisons I made. So is all this mere coincidence? Or is it “just something that some people read into scripture…”? Or are all these valid comparisons that shine a light on the fact that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? I go with the last one.
3 . As I have just pointed out, we have great reason for these Marian beliefs. We have 3 days for her. Jan. 1, Aug. 15, and Dec. 8.
- So the Catholic Church was the true Church until it’s doctrines developed? What problems do you have with Papal and Church infallibility? I would have a problem if the Church weren’t infallible. If it were, so then would the Bible be, and if that were infallible, our faith would begin to crumble.
- Your interpretation of John 6 is so clever I almost want to believe it to be symbolic. But why in 1 Cor. 11:23-29 does it say “This is my body… this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” No symbol. As far as the real presence only being taught in the 4th century, why then does Ignatius of Antioch say “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” in his letter to the Romans dated A.D. 110? He also says “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 110. Justin Martyr also adds “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” in his book First Apology dated A.D. 151.
- What can you prove by saying a lot of experts and historians don’t believe in the Real Presence? I can say there are a lot of experts and historians that do believe in the Real Presence. Does that sound bells in your head?
- The canonization of the Bible was complete in the 2nd century?*
S
SteveVH
Guest
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good theologian and we have many teaching in Catholic universities. There are also those who believe they are enlightened above and beyond the teachings of the very Church in which they claim membership. The fact that one is a university professor does not necessarily impress me, even in so-called Catholic universities.
Our faith was not handed down to us by professors. It was handed down to us by the Apostles and, necessarily to their successors, the bishops. I submit to the teachings of the Church which is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Those who detract from that faith, intelligent though they may be, are in error regardless of their credentials.
Amen.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
If people believe the Eucharist symbolic, not only are you denying the Covenant of the Blood, mentioned 22 times in Scripture, but you can also go to the next step and say the Resurrection was symbolic as well.
You reduce faith down to the local language, you then put faith into text base. You put faith into text base, you greatly hamper the work of the Holy Spirit at work in the universal Catholic church that transcends local language, customs, race, geography, and politics.
Isn’t this the apostolic fruits of the apostles, who were sent out?
Catholics receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation, willfully accepting to be confirmed, marked as Christians, and given the strength to hold on to their faith in trial.
The former language of the Church was that. The strict language of the reference given here, of the Church warning those was prior to the subsequent dismantling of one faith and one body, to the point that they could be truly jeopardizing their salvation.
The first Christian Church was 100% Jewish. The history of the Jewish Christians who remained in that part of the world in time became obscured in the face of the growth of the Church throughout the world, the Church sending out founders of new churches who had apostolic zeal. Likewise the Church drew from the faith of these new churches, giving the Church a more growing and actualized universal character.
The Breaking of Bread as sacred meal was held as common practice from the beginning. Jesus said to eat of this Bread, one would gain eternal life. If you break from the Church that provides this Divine Bread, you jeopardize your salvation and eternal life.
There are Jews who followed Christ. There were Jews who rejected Christ.
There are Catholics who have never left the faith. There are Catholics who lost faith and fell away, loosing their trust and fidelity to God.
When I come to Mass, I do not come to look at man. I am not looking at the ministers of the One High Priest. I come to the Catholic Church for full truth about Jesus Christ, I hear His Word in a community gathering, and I receive His Manna from Heaven at the altar, the fulfillment of the Covenant of the Blood, Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb Himself, Who did not provide a lamb at the Last Supper, only bread and wine.
If one were to go to daily Mass for 3 years, one would hear the entire Bible.
Christ gave His apostles the power to forgive sin, to loosen and bind on the evening of the Resurrection, affirming His death and resurrection defeated the power of sin and death. This is the sacrament of penance. It is the means we take when we have broken from Christ and His Church through grave sin. We cannot receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin or else we commit a sacrilege.
When we are in mortal sin, we are not in Christ, we are likewise not in His Church. The life of the Church IS Jesus Christ. He is the new Temple. The Church in essence is not symbolic, but as a living sacrament composed of all of us in sacramental, mystical, and eternally in communion with Her Groom, the Lord for those who remain faithful to her.
So the Holy Father was speaking on absolute terms to those in times when the dismantling of faith was about to begin.
Look at the thousands of sects claiming to understand the Bible the right way and everybody else in error. The problem is as always the veil of language. Language is most susceptible to interpretation, personal interpretation and singular application outside Christ’s Church and means of salvation. Look at local people in a local neighborhood, and see how many different even contradictory takes there are to an event.
Today many Protestants are being actively indoctrinated through deliberate misrepresentation of Catholicism. There are those who say we worship Mary, willfully ignoring the worship of Christ at Mass and our source of nourishment for life. I consider these who are indoctrinated as being if those deemed ignorant in the Holy Father’s words. It takes some people a long time to get over such indoctrination in following their desires to become a Catholic. The power of mass media is most extreme.
Regarding the Jews, a rabbi came out and apologized for accusing Pope Pius XII for doing little for the Jews during WWII. www.pavetheway.org, a Jewish organization, went to the Vatican Library to research Pius and expose him. Instead, what they found out was that Pope Pius XII had done more for the Jews than any other human being in this world during that time. And furthermore, they looked at more documents and wondered why the Church didn’t defend itself more.
The Church during the Spanish Inquisition actually did most of its work exonerating and releasing many of the accused, and likewise, those who died under temporal rulers were in a number of low thousands vs the extreme exaggerated numbers assumed and put out by bigoted Protestant writers.
You reduce faith down to the local language, you then put faith into text base. You put faith into text base, you greatly hamper the work of the Holy Spirit at work in the universal Catholic church that transcends local language, customs, race, geography, and politics.
Isn’t this the apostolic fruits of the apostles, who were sent out?
Catholics receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation, willfully accepting to be confirmed, marked as Christians, and given the strength to hold on to their faith in trial.
The former language of the Church was that. The strict language of the reference given here, of the Church warning those was prior to the subsequent dismantling of one faith and one body, to the point that they could be truly jeopardizing their salvation.
The first Christian Church was 100% Jewish. The history of the Jewish Christians who remained in that part of the world in time became obscured in the face of the growth of the Church throughout the world, the Church sending out founders of new churches who had apostolic zeal. Likewise the Church drew from the faith of these new churches, giving the Church a more growing and actualized universal character.
The Breaking of Bread as sacred meal was held as common practice from the beginning. Jesus said to eat of this Bread, one would gain eternal life. If you break from the Church that provides this Divine Bread, you jeopardize your salvation and eternal life.
There are Jews who followed Christ. There were Jews who rejected Christ.
There are Catholics who have never left the faith. There are Catholics who lost faith and fell away, loosing their trust and fidelity to God.
When I come to Mass, I do not come to look at man. I am not looking at the ministers of the One High Priest. I come to the Catholic Church for full truth about Jesus Christ, I hear His Word in a community gathering, and I receive His Manna from Heaven at the altar, the fulfillment of the Covenant of the Blood, Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb Himself, Who did not provide a lamb at the Last Supper, only bread and wine.
If one were to go to daily Mass for 3 years, one would hear the entire Bible.
Christ gave His apostles the power to forgive sin, to loosen and bind on the evening of the Resurrection, affirming His death and resurrection defeated the power of sin and death. This is the sacrament of penance. It is the means we take when we have broken from Christ and His Church through grave sin. We cannot receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin or else we commit a sacrilege.
When we are in mortal sin, we are not in Christ, we are likewise not in His Church. The life of the Church IS Jesus Christ. He is the new Temple. The Church in essence is not symbolic, but as a living sacrament composed of all of us in sacramental, mystical, and eternally in communion with Her Groom, the Lord for those who remain faithful to her.
So the Holy Father was speaking on absolute terms to those in times when the dismantling of faith was about to begin.
Look at the thousands of sects claiming to understand the Bible the right way and everybody else in error. The problem is as always the veil of language. Language is most susceptible to interpretation, personal interpretation and singular application outside Christ’s Church and means of salvation. Look at local people in a local neighborhood, and see how many different even contradictory takes there are to an event.
Today many Protestants are being actively indoctrinated through deliberate misrepresentation of Catholicism. There are those who say we worship Mary, willfully ignoring the worship of Christ at Mass and our source of nourishment for life. I consider these who are indoctrinated as being if those deemed ignorant in the Holy Father’s words. It takes some people a long time to get over such indoctrination in following their desires to become a Catholic. The power of mass media is most extreme.
Regarding the Jews, a rabbi came out and apologized for accusing Pope Pius XII for doing little for the Jews during WWII. www.pavetheway.org, a Jewish organization, went to the Vatican Library to research Pius and expose him. Instead, what they found out was that Pope Pius XII had done more for the Jews than any other human being in this world during that time. And furthermore, they looked at more documents and wondered why the Church didn’t defend itself more.
The Church during the Spanish Inquisition actually did most of its work exonerating and releasing many of the accused, and likewise, those who died under temporal rulers were in a number of low thousands vs the extreme exaggerated numbers assumed and put out by bigoted Protestant writers.
M
MatthewMark
Guest
Pastor Gary–thank you!
C
Contarini
Guest
An eminent Nazarene theologian, Rob Stables, has written a book on sacramental theology called Outward Sign, Inward Grace, in which he laments this very fact and calls his fellow Nazarenes (and other Wesleyans) back to a more sacramental piety.
Edwin
A
adrift
Guest
As far as I know, this is considered spurious by the Church and was the result of gnostic-influence written in the second or third century, long after the canonical gospels were penned.
This is an example of what it contains
It doesn’t enter into the realm of private revelation like Lourdes.
What do you mean by approved? Where did you get the information?
R
Radical
Guest
I find that to be an odd question…tis like asking: how is your wife not your car? Do you feel a need to explain why Stephen is not the new Ark simply b/c I can make a bunch of forced connections? (at post #78)
yes, she was a virgin…and the apostles claimed no more than that…the rest appeared much later and starting with a very dubious source…let’s not forget that and let’s not act as if you can actually trace these Catholic teachings all the way back to the apostles w/o jumping many decades in some instances and many centuries in other instances.
and she was under the law of Moses.
the point is that you find the few similarities that exist in the passages, fudge the wording to enhance the similarities, ignore the many more dissimilarities and then declare that there is a connection….it is hard for me to imagine a more subjective and contrived methodology
it flat out names Jesus as God, flat out names the Father as God, it flat out gives the Holy Spirit divine qualities and it flat out states that God is one….the concept of the Trinity is an effort to reconcile these flat out statements. Your Marian doctrines don’t have any basis in flat out statements.
fudged similarities it seems.
again, David is said to have danced in front of the Lord (I don’t think the Septuagint even mentions jumping/leaping)….yet those trying to make the connection stress both “leaped” as if the same word was used.
you stress form over substance…in substance they have no similarity. Also, there is Araunah’s question in 2 Sam 24:21: Then Araunah said, “Why has my lord the king come to his servant?” Shall we conclude that Mary is also David?
no, not a coincidence at all…just as my demonstration (that Stephen is really the New Ark) has nothing to do with coincidence. It is a designed result achieved by taking two passages of sufficient length to find a number of connections, fudging the wording to make the connections stronger, not being shy about claiming any possible connection no matter how much of a stretch it is and then ignoring all the dissimilarities.
it seems more to be the case that you have great desire to hold these beliefs….I see no reason, let alone a great one
I define the true Church as all those possessed of the Holy Spirit
the need for certainty sure seems to be the attraction for many that end up Catholic… I can understand that desire, I am just not prepared to swallow what it takes.
Am I to understand that you think that the use of the word “IS” means that Paul/Jesus was claiming that the bread had become his body through a change of substance? All that from “IS”? If so, then when Jesus used that exact same word to say that he who does the Father’s will is Jesus’ mother, does that mean a change of substance occurred then too, and the disciple actually became Mary? Or what about when you asked earlier, “How is she not the New Ark?”…does your use of “IS” mean that you think that the substance of Mary was transformed into the substance of the Ark? How is it that when Catholics see: “This is my body…” they think that the “IS” can only be interpreted in one fashion, but then they will use and interpret “IS” so very differently in so many other situations. The phrase “This is my body” in no way requires that any change of substance is involved.
please note that it is real bodily presence….not just real presence….I find that Catholics blur the distinction and then equate the real bodily presence of their present theology with the real presence of the second century. Jesus re-designated the Passover symbols. It is said that the symbols within the Passover meal enabled the participant to be made present in the exodus and participate in it. That does not mean that the substance of the participants’ surroundings were changed into the substance of Egypt…it was a spiritual participation…a spiritual “making present.” Such might be called a Jewish real presence. That is how the first Lord’s Supper worked. However, when it was introduced into Greek culture, they introduced Platonic philosophy and could see that the bread was the body in that the power of the body became present in the bread….it still was bread in substance, but by way of the “greater reality” of the power that it possessed, it became the body. Such might be called a Platonic presence. Neither the Jewish nor the Platonic real presence was a real somatic presence.
so tell me, from the little bit that we have from Ignatius, can you tell me if he held to a Jewish real presence or a Platonic real presence or to something else?
no it doesn’t, b/c I am not the one saying that there is no sound argument against my position…but I will declare that my position has greater soundness than yours.
as I said, the selection/recognition of which works were and weren’t scripture was pretty well complete.
I believe I’ll leave it at that…you wanted to know what it was about Catholicism that I didn’t agree with…Mary is but one thing and hopefully you have come to understand that there are solid reasons to reject the Catholic Marian beliefs (even if you don’t accept those reasons). Cheers and may God bless you…PM me if there is anything that you really want me to respond to…or point it out in the post itself. thanks.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Radical and whoever,I find that to be an odd question…tis like asking: how is your wife not your car? Do you feel a need to explain why Stephen is not the new Ark simply b/c I can make a bunch of forced connections? (at post #78)
yes, she was a virgin…and the apostles claimed no more than that…the rest appeared much later and starting with a very dubious source…let’s not forget that and let’s not act as if you can actually trace these Catholic teachings all the way back to the apostles w/o jumping many decades in some instances and many centuries in other instances.
and she was under the law of Moses.
the point is that you find the few similarities that exist in the passages, fudge the wording to enhance the similarities, ignore the many more dissimilarities and then declare that there is a connection….it is hard for me to imagine a more subjective and contrived methodology
it flat out names Jesus as God, flat out names the Father as God, it flat out gives the Holy Spirit divine qualities and it flat out states that God is one….the concept of the Trinity is an effort to reconcile these flat out statements. Your Marian doctrines don’t have any basis in flat out statements.
fudged similarities it seems.
again, David is said to have danced in front of the Lord (I don’t think the Septuagint even mentions jumping/leaping)….yet those trying to make the connection stress both “leaped” as if the same word was used.
you stress form over substance…in substance they have no similarity. Also, there is Araunah’s question in 2 Sam 24:21: Then Araunah said, “Why has my lord the king come to his servant?” Shall we conclude that Mary is also David?
no, not a coincidence at all…just as my demonstration (that Stephen is really the New Ark) has nothing to do with coincidence. It is a designed result achieved by taking two passages of sufficient length to find a number of connections, fudging the wording to make the connections stronger, not being shy about claiming any possible connection no matter how much of a stretch it is and then ignoring all the dissimilarities.
it seems more to be the case that you have great desire to hold these beliefs….I see no reason, let alone a great one
I define the true Church as all those possessed of the Holy Spirit
the need for certainty sure seems to be the attraction for many that end up Catholic… I can understand that desire, I am just not prepared to swallow what it takes.
Am I to understand that you think that the use of the word “IS” means that Paul/Jesus was claiming that the bread had become his body through a change of substance? All that from “IS”? If so, then when Jesus used that exact same word to say that he who does the Father’s will is Jesus’ mother, does that mean a change of substance occurred then too, and the disciple actually became Mary? Or what about when you asked earlier, “How is she not the New Ark?”…does your use of “IS” mean that you think that the substance of Mary was transformed into the substance of the Ark? How is it that when Catholics see: “This is my body…” they think that the “IS” can only be interpreted in one fashion, but then they will use and interpret “IS” so very differently in so many other situations. The phrase “This is my body” in no way requires that any change of substance is involved.
please note that it is real bodily presence….not just real presence….I find that Catholics blur the distinction and then equate the real bodily presence of their present theology with the real presence of the second century. Jesus re-designated the Passover symbols. It is said that the symbols within the Passover meal enabled the participant to be made present in the exodus and participate in it. That does not mean that the substance of the participants’ surroundings were changed into the substance of Egypt…it was a spiritual participation…a spiritual “making present.” Such might be called a Jewish real presence. That is how the first Lord’s Supper worked. However, when it was introduced into Greek culture, they introduced Platonic philosophy and could see that the bread was the body in that the power of the body became present in the bread….it still was bread in substance, but by way of the “greater reality” of the power that it possessed, it became the body. Such might be called a Platonic presence. Neither the Jewish nor the Platonic real presence was a real somatic presence.
so tell me, from the little bit that we have from Ignatius, can you tell me if he held to a Jewish real presence or a Platonic real presence or to something else?
yes, for Justin it was still bread, but not merely common bread.
no it doesn’t, b/c I am not the one saying that there is no sound argument against my position…but I will declare that my position has greater soundness than yours.
as I said, the selection/recognition of which works were and weren’t scripture was pretty well complete.
I believe I’ll leave it at that…you wanted to know what it was about Catholicism that I didn’t agree with…Mary is but one thing and hopefully you have come to understand that there are solid reasons to reject the Catholic Marian beliefs (even if you don’t accept those reasons). Cheers and may God bless you…PM me if there is anything that you really want me to respond to…or point it out in the post itself. thanks.
You will not find a better example of a logical mind than that of Radical. You have to respect that.
I do find that the Church, or mind of the Church, is not one mind but many and has translated thought in time.
I also find Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian, logically argue in favor of what Radical argues against.
So, then we are left with I believe, you don’t believe and the only one that can change a belief is the person that wants to or has reason to change a belief.
That is about it.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Adrift…thanks for making me aware of this passage…have to check back…
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I would be very interested in seeing your source for this claim.
- Status