Some questions about Catholic teaching

[guanophore]

Hello all,

I recently have discovered my faith and have begun reading the Bible. As I went, I have noticed some things that seem contradictory to Catholic teaching, and was wondering if someone could explain.

Your thread seems to be revealing more and more misrepresentations of the truth as it progresses. I do not think you are seeking answers at all.

One of the problems faced by those who weave a deception is that one must maintain consistency. You lost that in the original post. You said you have just discovered your faith. Yet it has become clear that you have discovered an anti-Catholic faith.

You also said you started reading your Bible at Genesis, but none of the “questions/problems” in the OP come from Genesis.

Ok.  My question was more along the lines of: "In what way does the Church interpret these passages that seem to oppose Church teachings?"

You have been given answers to this “question” yet reject them in favor of your anti-Catholic bias.

I also have my doubts about Christ establishing the Catholic Church, rather than the church as the invisible body of believers in Christ.  This is based on Christ's teaching to the pharisees ("And in vain to they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men." - Mark 7:7) and the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:14 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." tells Christ's followers to hold to the traditions taught to them by the Apostles, not modify them and create new ones as the Church does.  I have heard both sides of this debate, however, and am much more interested in hearing how the Church interprets what I originally posted.

This could well have been copied from an anti-Catholic website. It indicates that you have been infused with a perspective that opposes Catholicism. It is clear that you are not in a condition of “just discovering your faith” but suffering exposure to extensive contrary theologies.

I always end up being appalled by the rudeness of some people on this forum.

So, have you previously been posting here under another username?

It is not “rude” for someone to ask you if you have read the Bible. It is clear that you are injecting a great deal of anti-Catholic polemic into your posts.

I think it is more rude to come to a Catholic forum, misrepresenting yourself as “Catholic” and pretending you are “seekng answers” when you are not.

As I stated in my first post, I am currently reading the Bible. It just so happens that I have completed Exodus already, but no, I have not completed it.
Only the Jewish high priest was ever allowed to enter the room which held the Ark, and he certainly would not have bowed down to the cherubims on the Ark or prayed to angels. This is unlike the Catholic practice of bowing to graven images.

I don’t suppose you can explain how all the questions in the OP came out of Genesis and Exodus?

This doesn’t prove that she had no other children. Unless there is scriptural evidence that Mary had no other children I don’t see how you can establish it as doctrine.

This statement reflects an anti-Catholic mindset.

It emanates from embracing the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

 Note: You must not bow down to them **or** worship them.  Catholics don't worship statues, but they do bow down to statues.  A sin according to scripture.

So your affiliation claims you are a Catholic Christian. I suppose it is possible that you could have been baptized Catholic, and yet were so poorly catechized that you do not realize that no Catholic bows down “to” a statue. However, I doubt this is the case. I think it is more likely you have been infused with anti-Catholic teaching.

It needs to because Catholics teach that we must confess to a priest to have our sins forgiven. If it’s not in the Bible, why should it be doctrine?

Another example of an individual contaminated by the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

:eek: The Bible is out of context outside of the Mass?!?!? 2 Timothy 3:16 – “ All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,”

A “Catholic Christian” who has just discovered their faith and has just finished the book of Exodus does not spout this verse. A person who has been taught to replace the Apostolic Authority with the Scripture spouts this verse. Your ruse is beginning to unravel. You really need to practice the role better, so you don’t give yourself away by such verse dropping!

Just because it wasn’t compiled until 405 AD doesn’t mean the texts did not exist…

This is also not a comment made by a newbie. Most baby Christians have no clue about the development of the canon. You have tipped your hand again.

Translation is not creation and the Sacraments are not older than the Bible, excluding baptism and communion.

And this is another example of an anti-Catholic theology.

  Great, but that doesn't mean....

These phrases are found throughout your posts. They indicate that you are not really hear to find out what the CC really teaches, and that you are here to GIVE answers, rather than SEEK answers.

  If..., then don't you think the scriptures would indicate instead....They don't give this indication anywhere.

This formula of thinking reflects a mind steeped in Sola Scriptura.

It also gives away that you are disingenuous when you say you “just discovered” your faith, and that you began reading the Scriptures with Genesis and Exodus. How would such a person KNOW that what the the CC teaches has “no indication anywhere” in scripture they have not studied?

 Some of my questions, however, were not answered, like why the wine does not taste like blood, etc.

This is a common anti-Catholic polemic against transubstantiation. I wonder how you happened to come across that in Genesis and Exodus?

Jesus did not care for the teachings of the Pharisees, yet they had a long history. There are also some very intelligent atheists, but we certainly don’t follow their theological teachings. What you are essentially bringing this to is that the Christian denomination with the greatest intelligence has the correct interpretation.

This is not a statement made by a “Catholic Christian” who has just discovered their faith, either. How would a person who never read the NT or studied their faith learn that the Pharisees " had a long history"?

How does a person who claims to have no previous interest in their faith know anything about “intelligent atheists”? This is not the light reading material of people who are not interested in exploring matters of faith.

No one can know that they are right, just like no one can know that God exists.  If we did, we couldn't have faith, and we would all be deists.

How does a person who is new to matters of faith know what a “deist” is?

You cannot know that you are right, just as I cannot know that I am.

This is another common anti-Catholic polemic. It is taught in communities that reject the gift of infalliblity that Jesus gave to the Church.

Jesus never gave anyone infallible authority over the interpretation of scripture.  In fact, the opposite is true: Matthew 20:25-28.

So, how is it that a person who is just done reading Exodus reached this conclusion from Matt? You clearly are speaking from a position espoused by an anti-Catholic, sola Scriptura ecclesial community.

From CCC 1376: "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. "

The RCC does not teach that the “essence” is turned into the body and blood of Jesus, it teaches that it’s “substance” is literally changed. If the Church does not teach that the Eucharist is literally Jesus’ body and blood, then they must agree with Zwingli.

I admit that I was suspicious from the first line of your first post, but this was the clincher for me. Newbies often do not even know where to find a catechism, much less how to locate sections within it. And I have yet to meet anyone who has “recently discovered” their Christian faith who has EVER heard of Zwingli.

I hope you are having fun running well meaning Catholics around on CAF trying to find resources for you.

I also pray that those who are reading this thread, who truly ARE seeking answers will be able to benefit from the resources that have been posted, since it is clear you will not.

 

[seekerofanswers]

The last two posts on here have nearly brought me to tears.

Your thread seems to be revealing more and more misrepresentations of the truth as it progresses. I do not think you are seeking answers at all.

One of the problems faced by those who weave a deception is that one must maintain consistency. You lost that in the original post. You said you have just discovered your faith. Yet it has become clear that you have discovered an anti-Catholic faith.

You also said you started reading your Bible at Genesis, but none of the “questions/problems” in the OP come from Genesis.

As I have stated multiple times, I am reading the OT and NT side-by-side.

This could well have been copied from an anti-Catholic website. It indicates that you have been infused with a perspective that opposes Catholicism. It is clear that you are not in a condition of “just discovering your faith” but suffering exposure to extensive contrary theologies.

Or maybe they were copied from: the Bible? I am just discovering my faith, and maybe my adolescence has something to do with my difficulty in accepting someone else being able to tell me how to interpret something. Maybe I will outgrow it eventually, who knows?

So, have you previously been posting here under another username?

No, and I’m not sure how you drew this conclusion.

It is not “rude” for someone to ask you if you have read the Bible. It is clear that you are injecting a great deal of anti-Catholic polemic into your posts.

I think it is more rude to come to a Catholic forum, misrepresenting yourself as “Catholic” and pretending you are “seekng answers” when you are not.

I was born and raised Catholic and am truly interested in discovering the roots of my faith in scripture. The fact that I don’t always understand at first or still don’t see how the Catholic position is supported doesn’t mean I’m not Catholic. Doesn’t everyone question their faith at one point?

I don’t suppose you can explain how all the questions in the OP came out of Genesis and Exodus?

See above.

This statement reflects an anti-Catholic mindset.

It emanates from embracing the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

Yes, I struggle with this.

So your affiliation claims you are a Catholic Christian. I suppose it is possible that you could have been baptized Catholic, and yet were so poorly catechized that you do not realize that no Catholic bows down “to” a statue. However, I doubt this is the case. I think it is more likely you have been infused with anti-Catholic teaching.

I’m a bit confused by this. There are images of people bowing to statues.

 

[dmar198]

The last two posts on here have nearly brought me to tears.

As I have stated multiple times, I am reading the OT and NT side-by-side.

Or maybe they were copied from: the Bible? I am just discovering my faith, and maybe my adolescence has something to do with my difficulty in accepting someone else being able to tell me how to interpret something. Maybe I will outgrow it eventually, who knows?

No, and I’m not sure how you drew this conclusion.

I was born and raised Catholic and am truly interested in discovering the roots of my faith in scripture. The fact that I don’t always understand at first or still don’t see how the Catholic position is supported doesn’t mean I’m not Catholic. Doesn’t everyone question their faith at one point?

See above.

Yes, I struggle with this.

I’m a bit confused by this. There are images of people bowing to statues.

There are also images in the Bible of people bowing down in front of statues. Joshua and all Israel bowed down before the Ark, which had statues on it, in Joshua 7:6. David bowed down before the Temple, which had engraved images on it and in it, in Psalm 5:7 and 138:2. In fact in 1 Kings God gave instructions for the Temple and included that the people must pray toward it (throughout 1 Kings 8, it is repeated several times), and every time we see them doing that they bowed toward it (Daniel 6:10, Jonah 2:4). The Temple, by the way, had enormous gold statues, 15 feet tall: 1 Kings 6:23-28. Not to mention that there were engraved images of angels carved throughout its walls (1 Kings 6:29).

What this all implies is that bowing down in front of an image does not mean you are bowing down to that image. You are bowing down in honor of the person it represents. That may also be the message of Naaman the Syrian, who bowed down in a pagan temple but not in honor of its image. He even asked the prophet Elisha if he was sinning in this regard, and Elisha said he would be fine: 2 Kings 5:18-19. To me that means he wasn’t even honoring the non-divinity it was supposed to represent – because worship is in the heart, and God knows who we are honoring. The outward expression which we perform in front of an image is directed to the person who we think of in our heart. And that is why the Bible shows people bowing in front of things that had images on them, and not sinning, but in fact doing proper worship (or honor).

 

[seekerofanswers]

A “Catholic Christian” who has just discovered their faith and has just finished the book of Exodus does not spout this verse. A person who has been taught to replace the Apostolic Authority with the Scripture spouts this verse. Your ruse is beginning to unravel. You really need to practice the role better, so you don’t give yourself away by such verse dropping!

You don’t think that I might have decided to look up scriptural support for papal authority, only to find quotes that support both sides of the debate?

This is also not a comment made by a newbie. Most baby Christians have no clue about the development of the canon. You have tipped your hand again.

Ever since gaining an interest in my faith, I have been reading about the history of the early Church on Wikipedia.

These phrases are found throughout your posts. They indicate that you are not really hear to find out what the CC really teaches, and that you are here to GIVE answers, rather than SEEK answers.

I am here to seek and understand answers. If that means countering something someone else says to gain understanding, then so be it.

It also gives away that you are disingenuous when you say you “just discovered” your faith, and that you began reading the Scriptures with Genesis and Exodus.

Addressed this above. I am reading the NT and OT side by side.

How would such a person KNOW that what the the CC teaches has “no indication anywhere” in scripture they have not studied?

You are correct, I don’t “know”, and I should have said “I don’t think”. I was assuming that whoever I was debating had provided all of the instances in Scripture.

This is a common anti-Catholic polemic against transubstantiation. I wonder how you happened to come across that in Genesis and Exodus?

No, I have wondered this since I was a child. I have always been among the rational/analytical types.

This is not a statement made by a “Catholic Christian” who has just discovered their faith, either. How would a person who never read the NT or studied their faith learn that the Pharisees " had a long history"?

One, I am reading the NT, two, I inferred that they had a long history based on the origins of the Jewish priesthood in Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus. Also, I learned about the Pharisees and some of the bible, but not all, in grade school.

How does a person who claims to have no previous interest in their faith know anything about “intelligent atheists”? This is not the light reading material of people who are not interested in exploring matters of faith.

This is a fact. I am a math/science type person. I know that there are prominent figures in the science community who are atheists.

How does a person who is new to matters of faith know what a “deist” is?

Anyone who has taken European History. I also have a friend who is a deist and have read political works by deists.

This is another common anti-Catholic polemic. It is taught in communities that reject the gift of infalliblity that Jesus gave to the Church.

I’m not sure whether or not you quoted the correct thing here, but either way I don’t understand the connection.

So, how is it that a person who is just done reading Exodus reached this conclusion from Matt? You clearly are speaking from a position espoused by an anti-Catholic, sola Scriptura ecclesial community.

I have competed Matt. Also, they read that passage in Church a bit ago.

I admit that I was suspicious from the first line of your first post, but this was the clincher for me. Newbies often do not even know where to find a catechism, much less how to locate sections within it. And I have yet to meet anyone who has “recently discovered” their Christian faith who has EVER heard of Zwingli.

I searched the online Catechism for “transubstantiation”. I am an adolescent and European History is fresh in my mind.

I hope you are having fun running well meaning Catholics around on CAF trying to find resources for you.

I have already apologized for doing so.

I also pray that those who are reading this thread, who truly ARE seeking answers will be able to benefit from the resources that have been posted, since it is clear you will not.

If I end up staying and helping others who are questioning aspects of their faith come to see the Truth of Church teachings, I will certainly not be assuming and hostile.

 

[Regina_Love]

Do you not know that the Bible cannot differ from Catholic teaching, because THE BIBLE IS CATHOLIC TEACHING! The Catholic Church lived it, taught it, wrote it down, protected it, assembled it into a bible, and then gave it to the world! EVERY time you pick up the Bible you are holding Catholic teaching. Who better to explain what it means then the Church that God ordained, would gift the world with his living word! How arrogant to think you could read it once or twice & know more than the Church which God has been teaching for 2000 years!

How arrogant to assume because Jesus does not taste like blood and raw flesh that he is not gifting himself to you in the Eucharist. Would you measure the distance to the moon with an air gauge? Would you measure how much it rained outside with a temperature gauge? NO! You must use the right tool to measure God’s presence in the Eucharist. The HOLY SPIRIT!

 

[seekerofanswers]

Seeker…I know that this is in response to someone else…but it reminds me of the point I made at least twice earlier in the thread and which has never received a reply. So allow me to ask you directly:
If you were Joseph…being who Joseph was (a righteous man)… knew what Joseph knew (That Mary carried a child conceived directly by God)…had the experiences that Joseph had (angel visits in the night, wise men bringing gifts, kings trying to kill the child)…
Do you believe that you would have sought to have sexual relations with Mary?

Forget about dissecting this or that word in the Bible…Just place yourself in Joseph’s sandals, as it were, and answer that question…Would you, a just and righteous man before God, seek to have sexual relations with one who is obviously consecrated to God through this miracle?

I apologize, I have missed some posts. I do understand your argument and won’t try to counter it any longer, apparently it makes me seem like a protestant. My understanding of it ultimately requires accepting Church authority.

Well consider this. Perhaps the reason we DO have private confession now is BECAUSE the congregation is full of sinners and so…despite their trying to be true believers…they gossip and act uncharitably anyway.

Were the original Christians not sinners too?

Not being “alive in the flesh” has no bearing on the ability of the saints to pray for us.
Moses and Elijah were not “alive in the flesh” yet they are seen conversing with Jesus at the transfiguration. Further, Jesus declares that God is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Good point.

Now - I will ask you to substantiate from the Catechism that this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Not quite sure what you mean by substantiate in this context but I do understand what the Church teaches now. Thanks for being courteous and understanding that some people question their faith at one point or another.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Having been raised Catholic, you should be aware that the Church has never taught “Bible Alone”.

I was not raised very strictly Catholic, and I had actually assumed that all Church teaching was based in Scripture. It was a real blow finding out that this was not true.

At present there appears in your posts and in your style a very strong protestant influence, possibly evangelical in nature. Perhaps a good friend or friends who you have been discussing these matters with??

yes, i do have friends from a variety of religious backgrounds, including protestants, and we do discuss faith.

In any event, I hope you will forgive us for our suspicions but it would not be the first time that someone came on CAF, flying under false colors. It’s hard sometimes not to become jaded and suspicious.

I can assure you that I am not trying to do this, and I’m not sure why someone would. Are you saying that protestants have lied about being Catholic on here? Why would a protestant lie about being a Catholic if they believe it’s a sin? That seems like hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Do you not know that the Bible cannot differ from Catholic teaching, because THE BIBLE IS CATHOLIC TEACHING! The Catholic Church lived it, taught it, wrote it down, protected it, assembled it into a bible, and then gave it to the world! EVERY time you pick up the Bible you are holding Catholic teaching. Who better to explain what it means then the Church that God ordained, would gift the world with his living word! How arrogant to think you could read it once or twice & know more than the Church which God has been teaching for 2000 years!

There is a difference between thinking I know more than the Church, and seeking greater understanding through a civilized debate.

How arrogant to assume because Jesus does not taste like blood and raw flesh that he is not gifting himself to you in the Eucharist.

It’s my nature to analyze, and it is a gift that God gave me. I don’t think God would be opposed to me questioning my faith if it ultimately strengthened my understanding of it.

You must use the right tool to measure God’s presence in the Eucharist. The HOLY SPIRIT!

Are you saying it is simply a spiritual presence? I honestly don’t understand the concept of “substance”. Is it physical, or not?

 

[jmcrae]

Or maybe they were copied from: the Bible?

There is nothing of that sort in the Bible. On the other hand, originating with Boettner, there are many, many, anti-Catholic preachers who repeat exactly this - including Jack Chick. (You’re not copying this stuff out of comic books, are you … ?)

I am just discovering my faith, and maybe my adolescence has something to do with my difficulty in accepting someone else being able to tell me how to interpret something. Maybe I will outgrow it eventually, who knows?

Adolescents don’t phrase their questions in that way, or use those kinds of technical terms.

No, and I’m not sure how you drew this conclusion.

Because you said, “always,” and yet you have (apparently) only been here for two days.

Doesn’t everyone question their faith at one point?

They do. But most of them don’t “just happen to” quote the most famous anti-Catholic preachers word for word in doing so.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying it is simply a spiritual presence? I honestly don’t understand the concept of “substance”. Is it physical, or not?

No, substance is not physical. It is the likeness to the prototype - the “is-ness” of the thing. The example given in the original philosophical definition is that of the chair. In Heaven, there is the perfect prototype of the chair - the “substance of chair-ness” so to speak.

Every chair, regardless of its shape, contains the substance of “chair” which comes to it from the “chair” prototype in Heaven. It is this substance of “chair” that makes every chair, regardless of how many legs it has, or what it is made of, or whether or not it has cushions, to be instantly recognizable as “a chair.”

The substance of the Eucharist comes from Christ in Heaven. It is recognizable to those who have faith as Jesus, because its substance is Jesus - even though its appearance - the taste, the molecular structure, etc. - is that of bread and wine.

 

[seekerofanswers]

There is nothing of that sort in the Bible. On the other hand, originating with Boettner, there are many, many, anti-Catholic preachers who repeat exactly this - including Jack Chick. (You’re not copying this stuff out of comic books, are you … ?)

I’m not sure what was being referred to then. and no, I have not read any religious “comic books”…

Adolescents don’t phrase their questions in that way, or use those kinds of technical terms.

I can assure you that I am under the age of 18. I’d rather not be more specific than that because I was raised not to divulge information online.

Because you said, “always,” and yet you have (apparently) only been here for two days.

Join Date: Sep 30, '12

They do. But most of them don’t “just happen to” quote the most famous anti-Catholic preachers word for word in doing so.

can you point this out specifically? I never quoted anyone. the only thing i ever copied and pasted were Bible quotes.

 

[seekerofanswers]

No, substance is not physical. It is the likeness to the prototype - the “is-ness” of the thing. The example given in the original philosophical definition is that of the chair. In Heaven, there is the perfect prototype of the chair - the “substance of chair-ness” so to speak.

Every chair, regardless of its shape, contains the substance of “chair” which comes to it from the “chair” prototype in Heaven. It is this substance of “chair” that makes every chair, regardless of how many legs it has, or what it is made of, or whether or not it has cushions, to be instantly recognizable as “a chair.”

The substance of the Eucharist comes from Christ in Heaven. It is recognizable to those who have faith as Jesus, because its substance is Jesus - even though its appearance - the taste, the molecular structure, etc. - is that of bread and wine.

I still struggle to grasp this philosophy. Do you believe that Jesus literally changed the bread and wine into his body and blood at the Last Supper? In terms of molecular structure? It seems as though other miracles involving substance changes involved a molecular change.

 

[jmcrae]

I still struggle to grasp this philosophy. Do you believe that Jesus literally changed the bread and wine into his body and blood at the Last Supper? In terms of molecular structure? It seems as though other miracles involving substance changes involved a molecular change.

He truly ate and drank His own glorified Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity at the Last Supper. The “how” of it is a mystery - and no, it’s not a molecular change - rather, it is a change of essential identity - a change of substance. We substantially receive Jesus in the Eucharist; it’s no longer bread and wine.

But it has the taste and even the molecular structure of bread and wine.

Jesus is the God who created all that exists, and when He blessed the bread and wine, He said, "This is my body … " and "this is my blood… " just exactly the same way that He said, “Let there be light” and there was light. When this Creator God says, “it is,” He is not speaking symbolically.

 

[seekerofanswers]

He truly ate and drank His own glorified Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity at the Last Supper. The “how” of it is a mystery - and no, it’s not a molecular change - rather, it is a change of essential identity - a change of substance. We substantially receive Jesus in the Eucharist; it’s no longer bread and wine.

But it has the taste and even the molecular structure of bread and wine.

Jesus is the God who created all that exists, and when He blessed the bread and wine, He said, "This is my body … " and "this is my blood… " just exactly the same way that He said, “Let there be light” and there was light. When this Creator God says, “it is,” He is not speaking symbolically.

Hm, I think I still need to improve my understanding of the Catechism’s definition of substance, that would probably aid in my understanding. Also, does that mean that Jesus is literally bread in John 6:35, since he uses the verb “to be”?

“And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”

Or John 6:33?

For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.

 

[jmcrae]

Hm, I think I still need to improve my understanding of the Catechism’s definition of substance, that would probably aid in my understanding. Also, does that mean that Jesus is literally bread in John 6:35, since he uses the verb “to be”?

Or John 6:33?

These are certainly references to the Eucharist, yes - and He is also very clear that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood can have no life in them - and since the Catholic Church is the only Church in which this is possible, it seems like a logical conclusion that Jesus means for all of us to be Catholic.

 

[JRKH]

I apologize, I have missed some posts. I do understand your argument and won’t try to counter it any longer, apparently it makes me seem like a protestant. My understanding of it ultimately requires accepting Church authority.

Believe me - questioning is fine, but please recognize that as Catholics we accept the fact that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit has already dealt with these matters.
So - while we can sometimes scratch our heads over this or that teaching, ultimately we accept it because we the Church’s Christ granted authority.

Were the original Christians not sinners too?

Certainly - the point I was making is that it may well have been found that - because the original Christians were sinners - Many people preferred to seek out their priest privately…and so private confession may well have simply “developed” and rather than being imposed.

Not quite sure what you mean by substantiate in this context but I do understand what the Church teaches now. Thanks for being courteous and understanding that some people question their faith at one point or another.

YOu are welcome.

I was not raised very strictly Catholic, and I had actually assumed that all Church teaching was based in Scripture. It was a real blow finding out that this was not true.

The thing that you will learn as you continue to study and speak with knowledgeable Catholics is that Teachings and Scripture developed side by side. That the “Bible” as your protestant friends know it (27 book NT) did not exist until around 400 AD and later.
As I think I said earlier in the thread, the concepts of “Sola Scriptura” and “locally independent Churches” and “private interpretation” only came about in the last 500 years with the protestant reformation. They are simply not a part of the historic - and biblical - Church that you have the great privilege of being a member.

yes, i do have friends from a variety of religious backgrounds, including protestants, and we do discuss faith.

Yes this was becoming more and more obvious from your arguments. I’m sure they are the same arguments that they had presented to you…along with the various bible verses that you have presented here. And I do not wish to belittle your friends.
But - consider this as you talk faith with these friends and with others as well.
How many different understandings and beliefs and teachings are there among these various groups who ALL claim the Bible as their Sole authority?
Some protestants believe in the real presence…others do not…some hold with infant baptism…others do not…and some have gone so far as to say that water Baptism is not necessary at all. Some say that once you become a believer (“get saved”) you cannot lose your salvation…others believe you can lose your salvation…and the list goes on.
They all claim the “infallible bible” as their authority, but they cannot agree on what is correct.
And what is truly sad is that they cannot seem to see - in the pages of Scripture no less - that Jesus foresaw this and established an authority and a method for resolving these disagreements…a way for the Holy Spirit to lead us to All Truth.
Christ established an authoritative Church - gave it authority to bind and loose…and she has been doing so from that day to this…

I can assure you that I am not trying to do this, and I’m not sure why someone would. Are you saying that protestants have lied about being Catholic on here? Why would a protestant lie about being a Catholic if they believe it’s a sin? That seems like hypocrisy at its finest.

I agree that it IS hypocrisy. Yet we have seen it happen… Sad isn’t it?

I do not believe that it the case with you…It seems that we have discerned here why your arguments sound so “protestant”. It is the result of your not having a good grounding in the faith combined with some rather compelling arguments from your protestant friends.
So I will ask again that you forgive us for our suspicions…and hope that you will continue to come with your questions because this is really a great place to get answers.

Merry Christmas

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

I was not raised very strictly Catholic, and I had actually assumed that all Church teaching was based in Scripture. It was a real blow finding out that this was not true.

Since Church teaching comes from Jesus, through the Apostles, and the Bible did not exist for 400 years (that’s the amount of time from the Pilgrims arriving on Plymouth Rock to the modern era!*), the Church could not have received her teachings from Scripture.

Rather, Scripture affirms and confirms the* kerygma. *

And the teachings of the Church come from Christ through the Apostles, and their successors (our Bishops).

*regarding Pilgrims: imagine Christians not having a Bible from the time the Pilgrims arrived to today! That’s quite a long time to not have a source for teachings! Kind of puts it into perspective, no?

 

[PRmerger]

On a more logical level, shouldn’t the bread and wine taste like flesh and blood if it is transformed into flesh and blood? I have had a bloody lip before, and I can tell you that the wine does not taste like blood.

I think a similar question is presented by Jews (in Jesus’ time) and atheists (in modern times).

That is: how can someone who looks like a man, walking around in a robe and sandals, actually be Divine? He looks like every single other ordinary human being I’ve ever met!

How would you respond to someone who poses this to you, seeker?

 

[guanophore]

I'm a bit confused by this.  There are images of people bowing to statues.

Catholics do not make for themselves any images, but make them only to glorify God, and to bring the great acts of God for us to rememberance.

Catholics don’t bow down “to” statues. We bow to the Lord, and we reverence those persons in whom He has manifested His Glory by sanctifying them. It would be idolatry to “bow to” a statue.

One must be cautious about making assumptions about the motives of others by watching them. For example:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Do you think these non-Catholic Christians are “bowing down” to that rock, or the musicians? Or could it be that they have assumed this posture during the altar call as one of humility before God?