Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[cazayoux]

My Roman catholic bible say’s in Rom 3:23, for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. I really can’t believe that you are serious. Ralph

Again … you take the verse out of context and limit the learning you can gain from scripture.
As I said before … YOU don’t believe this verse taken out of context either.

You do not believe babies have sinned.
You do not believe adults with mental retardation have sinned.

btw … I don’t really like the terms ‘retarded’ or ‘mental retardation’, but can’t think of another term at the moment. I have a cousin that is ‘special’ in this way and I think these ‘special’ people are beacons for all of us and that they are ‘full of grace’. If anyone has a better term that doesn’t require the context needed for ‘special’, please share. Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

If I said “I am Ralph”, is it any different that saying ,“Ralph is me”. Try again! Ralph

Then you tell us … why the difference in the structure of His speech.
All analogies have Him saying ‘I am this’ or ‘i am that’ … why the change for the last supper when he says ‘this is me’?

It’s not only that he says ‘this is my body’, but that he relates it to the cross … ‘which will be given up for you’. He’s equating the bread he is holding with his body ON THE CROSS.
The bread that he holds in his hands can only be symbolic IF the body ‘which was given up for us’ on the cross was symbolic.
It just doesn’t make sense for the bread to be symbolic.
Your idea is a new fangled take on this 2000 year old scripture.

michel

 

[CentralFLJames]

If anyone has a better term that doesn’t require the context needed for ‘special’, please share. Cheers!

michel

[SIGN]Mentally Impaired or Mentally Handicapped[/SIGN]

James

 

[jmcrae]

If I said “I am Ralph”, is it any different that saying ,“Ralph is me”. Try again! Ralph

That’s because it is* literally* true that you are Ralph.

However, you could not say, “I am hungry,” and at the same time, “hungry is me.” Or, “I am the apple of my father’s eye,” and at the same time, “An apple is me.”

A difference enters in, as soon as we get into the realm of metaphorical language - there is no longer a precise equivalency.

 

[cazayoux]

[SIGN]Mentally Impaired or Mentally Handicapped[/SIGN]

James

Impaired!! … much better … thank you… i know the terms, but was having a brain cramp. please forgive if my limit in terminology offended anyone.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

That’s because it is* literally* true that you are Ralph.

However, you could not say, “I am hungry,” and at the same time, “hungry is me.” Or, “I am the apple of my father’s eye,” and at the same time, “An apple is me.”

A difference enters in, as soon as we get into the realm of metaphorical language - there is no longer a precise equivalency.

GREAT parallel. Thanks … this makes total sense to me. I plan to use this in the future.

michel

 

[CentralFLJames]

If I said “I am Ralph”, is it any different that saying ,“Ralph is me”. Try again! Ralph

But if you say it Ralph then it means nothing since you have no authority nor standing in Christianity.

But in fact if Christ says anything that has the phrase “I AM” in it this is a DIRECT and profund attestation to divinity that would make Jews stand up and take notice - why they called Jesus a blasphemer.

Ref:
Exodus 3:14
God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites:* I AM **sent me to you." *

This is a scriptural euphemism for The Lord.
Mark 14:61-65:

But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 “You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, “Prophesy!” And the officers received Him with slaps in the face.

BTW Note how God reciprocates by rending his garments of the Jews for murdering His Son:

Matthew 27:51
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

James

 

[ralphy]

BTW Ralphy, I am sure that if you poll some of your fellow Protestants, High Church Anglicans and Lutherans for example, you will see that your opinion regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament will differ greatly from theirs.

My question to you at this point would be who within Protestatism has the authority to teach the correct doctrine?

Pleasre answer the question Ralphy!

Eph 4:11-16 will give you the answer to that question. First of all you must belong to the church. In your opinion you think that all Roman catholics belong to the church. The word of God says that the “called out” ones of God make up the body of Christ, these are the ones who make up His church, those who are saved through the blood of Christ. No denomination has control of “who” is the church. There are only two kinds of people in this world, the saved and the unsaved. Be sure that you are saved. Ralph

 

[cazayoux]

Eph 4:11-16 will give you the answer to that question. First of all you must belong to the church. In your opinion you think that all Roman catholics belong to the church. The word of God says that the “called out” ones of God make up the body of Christ, these are the ones who make up His church, those who are saved through the blood of Christ. No denomination has control of “who” is the church. There are only two kinds of people in this world, the saved and the unsaved. Be sure that you are saved. Ralph

Let’s evaluate the scripture you cited.

Eph 4:11-16
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
[12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
[13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
[14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
[15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
[16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

We agree that the ‘Body of Christ’ is His church.
What do you do with ‘the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God’?
Does the Body of Christ, by your definition includes all denominations, show this unity?
Not even close.
Jesus founded ONE church, not two or more that disagree on doctrine (every wind).
There is ONE church that has the fullness of the truth. THIS is the church that Jesus founded which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
This very verse is where I have issue with protestantism. Protestantism is exactly the opposite of what this verse describes.

Please don’t take this to mean that I think our non-Catholic Christian brother/sisters do not have any truth. Quite the opposite. The fact that they are Christian shows they *have *truth in their faiths. However, I believe this church that Jesus founded has the ‘***fulness ***of Christ’ just as is stated in the scripture above.

So again, the scripture you cite does not prove what you want it to.
Read. Learn. Understand.

context. context. context.

michel

 

[ralphy]

But if you say it Ralph then it means nothing since you have no authority nor standing in Christianity.

But in fact if Christ says anything that has the phrase “I AM” in it this is a DIRECT and profund attestation to divinity that would make Jews stand up and take notice - why they called Jesus a blasphemer.

Ref:
Exodus 3:14
God replied, "I am who am." Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites:** I AM **sent me to you.”

This is a scriptural euphemism for The Lord.

James

Do you know what that meant to have the veil torn from the top to the bottom when Christ died on the cross? Ralph

 

[cazayoux]

Do you know what that meant to have the veil torn from the top to the bottom when Christ died on the cross? Ralph

It means heaven (salvation) was opened to us … from heaven above … and is available to everyone. Everyone now has access to the Holy of Holies, where the Word of God and His manna from heaven is kept.

michel

 

[CentralFLJames]

It means heaven (salvation) was opened to us … from heaven above … and is available to everyone. Everyone now has access to the Holy of Holies, where the Word of God and His manna from heaven is kept.

michel

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do you know what that meant to have the veil torn from the top to the bottom when Christ died on the cross? Ralph

Just as has been said - but in addition God has rent (pierced actually) His heart out for us through sacrificing His Son so we might have access to Him. Now He wants us to rend our own hearts and repent and return to Him. It is the climax of the promise given by the angels at the time of the birth of Christ: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”. It is now possible for humanity to be at peace with God and to return into His favor. We have access to the salvific fruit from the Tree of Life by partaking of the manna that came down from heaven as the living word of God - The very sacred Body and Blood of Jesus! We are now able to enter by the narrow gate of the cross, the pascal door who’s lentil has been sprinkled with the ONE sacrifice of the blood of the lamb and escape our bondage from sin into the promised land.

This is why Catholics recall that same ONE ETERNAL sacrifice in the mass to step into the the eternal “now” to step across time to put ourselves on the cross with Jesus and take the salvific fruit from the Tree of Life (Jesus on the Cross). This is the antidote to the poison of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The invitation is now to eat from this manna from heaven and be saved. This invitation to eat of the Tree of Life replaces the old commandment not to eat of the forbidden fruit least we die. Christ has died for us and now all we have to do is lose our pride and accept the gift and eat worthily by bathing our robes in the blood of the lamb.

James

 

[cazayoux]

It means heaven (salvation) was opened to us … from heaven above … and is available to everyone. Everyone now has access to the Holy of Holies, where the Word of God and His manna from heaven is kept.

michel

It is also worth noting that they veil was torn, but the ark is still there holding the Word of God (truth), protecting it.

What is it in the new covenant that holds and protects the Word of God, the truth?
His church!

1 Tim 3:15
[15] … the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

michel

 

[MarkBrown]

If you read 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 you will see who wrote the Holy Bible. These discussions are certainly helping me to brush up on my Bible study. I read those articles you refered to, “Souls from purgatory”, “Rosary corfaternity” and “Chapel of devine mercy”. I find these articles all originated from mans teaching and cannot be found in scripture. As for Christs church; these are the called out ones of God and belong to the body of Christ, saved people, they have no denomination as there are only two kinds of people on earth, saved or unsaved. Ralph

No one, Catholic or Protestant, I know refutes the Holy Spirit as the author or guide
for Holy Men writing scripture.

2 Tim was written @ 64-68 AD. All scripture. Which scripture? OT? There were numerous “scripture” floating around. And some had yet to be written, Gospel St John,
The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Since Paul did not know of them, were they included?

2 Peter (inself not really accepted until I think Nicea) tells us not to have private interpretations of scripture. v20-21. So how do we interpret? Holy Spirit? How do you know it is the Holy Spirit? Arius used private interpretation and gave us Arianism, major cause for the Council of Nicea. The Church had to clean up the mess of private interpretation. Took until the Council of Orange a few centuries later to finally put the Arianism/semi-Arianism to rest.

The Church with the direction of the Holy Spirit has perserved the Scriptures. You have your Bible because of the Church, not inspite of the Church.

As to the objections to the rosary, there are Catholic here much better able than I to discuss that with you.

 

[fbl9]

Do you know what that meant to have the veil torn from the top to the bottom when Christ died on the cross? Ralph

tell us o’wise one tell us before we are doomed.
why the change of pace here ralphy??
is your intellect getting the better of you?or is the HS stirring you to beleive that which you are being told again,again and again…

 

[Tomster]

Eph 4:11-16 will give you the answer to that question. First of all you must belong to the church. In your opinion you think that all Roman catholics belong to the church. The word of God says that the “called out” ones of God make up the body of Christ, these are the ones who make up His church, those who are saved through the blood of Christ. No denomination has control of “who” is the church. There are only two kinds of people in this world, the saved and the unsaved. Be sure that you are saved. Ralph

We can examine how intimate is the union between Jesus Christ and his Church. It is the realization on earth of the kingdom of God; in it the Incarnation of the Word achieves its completion. The Church is the Body of which Christ is the Head (Col. 1:18; 2:19; Eph. 4:15-16); without it he would remain unfulfilled, a Bridegroom severed from his Bride (Rev. 21:2; 22:17). Gradually, as we learn from the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32) and the leaven (Matt. 13:33), the Church would grow to its full stature, become in fact what is was by right, a universal, a Catholic, Church.

How many brides does Christ have Ralphy?

Be sure that you do not fall.

 

[Tomster]

BTW Ralphy, I am sure that if you poll some of your fellow Protestants, High Church Anglicans and Lutherans for example, you will see that your opinion regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament will differ greatly from theirs.

My question to you at this point would be who within Protestatism has the authority to teach the correct doctrine?

Pleasre answer the question Ralphy!

You have still not answered the question Ralphy.

 

[ralphy]

It means heaven (salvation) was opened to us … from heaven above … and is available to everyone. Everyone now has access to the Holy of Holies, where the Word of God and His manna from heaven is kept.

michel

It must have bothered you to say the "word of God’, for the Roman catholics rely so heavily on tradition. Follow the word. Ralph

 

[Tomster]

Try reading John 6 Ralphy. Jesus fulfiiled the promise he gave to his disciples contained in these verses at the Last Supper.

It’s time for you to wake up!

Catholics make a distinction between the first part of John 6:26-51, wherein Christ speaks of himself figuratively as the Bread of Heaven, a spiritual food to be received by faith, and the second part verses 51 to 59, wherein He speaks literally of His Flesh and Blood as real food, and a real drink. In the first part the food is of the present, in the second of the future; there it is given by the Father, here by the Redeemer Himself; there it is simply called “bread,” here the “Flesh of the Son of Man”; there our Lord speaks only of bread, here of His Flesh and Blood; there, it is true, He calls himself “bread,” but he avoids the expression “to eat Me,” where one would expect to meet it; here He speaks both of “eating Me” and of “eating My Flesh and drinking My Blood”.

A careful study of the whole chapter calls for a literal interpretation of the words “to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood” (John 6:54). Christ makes a clear cut distinction between three kinds of bread:

1. the bread or manna of the desert (Exod. 16:15 and John 6:49), given by Moses to the Jews in the past to nourish the body
2. the Bread of Heaven or the Bread of Life (John 6: 32,35), Christ Himself, given by the Father in the present to the Jews as an object of faith
3. the Bread of Life, Christ Himself in the Eucharist, to be given in the future by Christ for the life of the world (John 6:52)

Again a figurative interpretation is impossible, according to the rules of language. If a figure of speech has a definite meaning, we cannot use it in a new sense, merely for the purposes of controversy.

To eat one’s flesh was a figure of among the Jews of old but it always means to do a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. Is it not absurd to imagine that our Lord would promise eternal life and a glorious resurrection to those who calumniated Him?