So, i hear...

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larkin31 said:
Even when I was a Protestant, this was how I felt and was my point.

Prodigal calls me offensive for pointing this out from the quotes that he provides. I honestly don’t see how it is an insult to suggest that the apostles were not literally eating the flesh of Jesus (despite his words stating so) and that I find the literal idea creepy (as I imagine many do, too). That many Protestants–and even catholics–don’t actually believe in literal transubstantiation should be no surprise to anyone, nor any insult.
Click to expand...
🤷 Larkin, I have no idea what Prod meant by calling you offensive. I was called Judas, not by Prod, but I was called that by another Catholic. 🤷 I don’t find you offensive. You are correct many Protestants and Catholics struggle with the concept of literal transubstantiation and to deny they do is not reality.

In any case I want to say I am sorry for any uncharitable things I may have said to anyone.

Peace to you Larkin and to everyone.
 
larkin31 said:
I already commented on this one: the listeners were thick-headed in this one. Jesus rebuked them for being slow-minded (I would too).

By John 6 they get this better. And no wonder.
Click to expand...
He explained the symbolism to His disciples. But in John 6, He let many disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more. There was no explanation.

As for being slow minded, read the rest of John and see how quick they caught on to His suffering that was to come, as He repeatedly foretold them.
 
cmatt25 said:
🤷 Larkin, i have no idea what prod meant by calling you offensive. I was called judas, not by prod, but i was called that by another catholic. 🤷 I don’t find you offensive. You are correct many protestants and catholics struggle with the concept of literal transubstantiation and to deny they do is not reality.

In any case i want to say i am sorry for any uncharitable things i may have said to anyone.

Peace to you larkin and to everyone.
Click to expand...
ditto!
 
spn82756 said:
Now hold on just a minute. I’ve mainly read and done little posting…but this post is unwarranted. You cannot stop someone from posting within the rules of the forum. It is YOUR choice was to whether you will respond. Larkin was never Catholic…so what makes you think he’s going to defend Catholic teaching now? Let’s be sincere about this.
Click to expand...
I never said he was a Catholic. I said it appears he’s anti-Catholic.

I don’t expect an agnostic to defend Catholicism. It’s when an agnostic only finds objections with Catholicism that doesn’t match up with a person claiming to doubt the existence of God.

As for his wording and tones directed at me, I suggested he stop or stop discussing with me all together. I am not using those tactics with him.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Did I not clarify my point?
Click to expand...
After I posted my reply to your rejoinder.
I take objection to your ‘anti-Catholic’ attitude under the guise of an agnostic. The only faith you have objected too is Catholicism. Most recently, you have started taking the attitude towards me directly. Let me recommend you not cross the line, as specified in the rules of the forums, or just stop discussing with me all together, if that’s the best you can do.
Click to expand...
Catholics believe in a ‘hierarchy’ of values, just as we believe in a hierarchy of sins.
Click to expand...
My wording was not clear, because we were discussing the many different interpretations being acceptable or not in scriptures. Can you provide any scriptures showing that different beliefs were acceptable or that there were ‘essentials’ only that had to be adhered too?
Click to expand...
I am not worried about your pique. This thread is in the non-Catholic forum, right where I belong. I don’t reply to all of your requests (I do to some) because half of them do not accurately summarize the point I have made and I don’t feel like taking the time to clarify someone else’s mis-characterization of my points. I HAVE provided the support for my points that I care to provide. If it angers you that I do not provide more, then I suggest you search yourself and find a way to chill out.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I never said he was a Catholic. I said it appears he’s anti-Catholic.

I don’t expect an agnostic to defend Catholicism. It’s when an agnostic only finds objections with Catholicism that doesn’t match up with a person claiming to doubt the existence of God.

As for his wording and tones directed at me, I suggested he stop or stop discussing with me all together. I am not using those tactics with him.
Click to expand...
His basis is his former Protestant beliefs. He’s not said much that is contrary to many Protestant churches. If he never believe in Transubstantiation (which I do believe) he is certainly not going to defend it now.

Honey…not vinegar…when trying to convince otherwise.
 
CMatt25 said:
🤷 Larkin, I have no idea what Prod meant by calling you offensive. I was called Judas, not by Prod, but I was called that by another Catholic. 🤷 I don’t find you offensive. You are correct many Protestants and Catholics struggle with the concept of literal transubstantiation and to deny they do is not reality.

In any case I want to say I am sorry for any uncharitable things I may have said to anyone.

Peace to you Larkin and to everyone.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Matt.

I love Catholics and am married to one. And I have only really been arguing with one Catholic here, but he is the one who makes the most numerous and most un-qualified claims. It’s predictable that he might get the most attention from a doubting former-Protestant.
 
spn82756 said:
His basis is his former Protestant beliefs. He’s not said much that is contrary to many Protestant churches. If he never believe in Transubstantiation (which I do believe) he is certainly not going to defend it now.

Honey…not vinegar…when trying to convince otherwise.
Click to expand...
Steve, I appreciate this reasonable perspective. It quite accurately sums up my point of view.
 
FCEGM said:
Yes, it is; but you touch here on where true ecumenism is at work, especially as our Holy Father is working assiduously to bring reunion about - a reunion based on truth, not a unity in name only based on feelings of “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along?” which is being proposed by some in this thread.
Click to expand...
I’m going out on a limb, ok I don’t have to go out too far 🙂 and will presume you include me in “some on this thread”. A unity in name of Christ is not true? Why can’t we all just try to get along in the name of love He taught? Love is a truth He clearly taught. Another truth is I’m thinking of ordering a meat pizza before Wednesday. However faith is you believe you should abstain on Wednesday.
 
CMatt25 said:
I’m going out on a limb, ok I don’t have to go out too far 🙂 and will presume you include me in “some on this thread”. A unity in name of Christ is not true? Why can’t we all just try to get along in the name of love He taught? Love is a truth He clearly taught. Another truth is I’m thinking of ordering a meat pizza before Wednesday. However faith is you believe you should abstain on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
If you get it with chourico…can I have a piece? 😃
 
FCEGM said:
Prodigal, I’ve been following this thread for a while, and what I find interesting is the use of “faith in Jesus” being used as a reason to disobey Him as He continues to teach us through His Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And isn’t it “funny” how the heterodox always presume that there own positions come from some deeper spiritual insight and anointing, but that the objective teachings of Christ through His Church are just too much “baggage” to hold on to in their desire for a superficial unity?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Well speaking for myself only, I pray I haven’t given the impression that I believe I am infallible. As far as I know none of us humans may understand everything 100% fully until if by the grace of God we are so blessed to enter into His presence in heaven for all of eternity.

United in a belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior is superficial?
 
CMatt25 said:
Hmm. Well speaking for myself only, I pray I haven’t given the impression that I believe I am infallible. As far as I know none of us humans may understand everything 100% fully until if by the grace of God we are so blessed to enter into His presence in heaven for all of eternity.
Click to expand...
Apparently you’ve never eaten chourico pizza!?!?!? Now there’s heaven on earth! 👍
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yea, it’s funny how they say, ‘the Catholic Church is not right and cannot be infallible, because I know and I’m right!’🤷
Click to expand...
You must not be referring to me because I never said I was necessarily right on everything. You do understand the difference in belief and faith and being assuredly “right”, right? 🙂
 
CMatt25 said:
You must not be referring to me because I never said I was necessarily right on everything. You do understand the difference in belief and faith and being assuredly “right”, right? 🙂
Click to expand...
You’re not going to like this, but it was NOT directed at you at all. I was referring to the Protestants who tell Catholics we are wrong on our interpertation, because they are right. These same people will argue against the Church being infallible, yet to say we’re wrong and they are right is assuming they have the correct interpretation which makes their interpretation infallible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top