SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Pax]

**I’m sure your Priest won’t like it but I will be glad to give you a history lesson of the church. I am not presumptuous enough however to say when Christ “left” the Catholic Church because I don’t believe He ever left the Catholic
Church. He may have left the Roman Catholic Church when they took over the Catholic Church but who knows the ways of God. For sure, it is not the same Church now.

Christ established His Church and gave explicit instructions in Scripture and through his apostles on how it was to be set up and operated. He gave power to the apostles to do many things as long as they lived but did not allow them to “hand down” these powers, but left them with ordination procedures and policies. The age of the prophets and inspiration died with the last apostle. From that point on, no one had the power to raise from the dead, etc.

Originally the Catholic Church was given all truth. It was as early as the first century, after Christ had gone, that the Gnostics and heretics began to preach their different doctrines, dogmas and practices. Several of the early church fathers combated them fiercely and always with Scripture as there was nothing else to prove them wrong. You won’t find one time that a heretic was confronted with tradition that did not come from Scripture.

These heretics continued and grew in number despite efforts of those like Irenæus and a few others. By the time of the 4th century, so many heretics were teaching false doctrines, etc. that it seemed necessary for as many of the churches as could, get together and establish certain rules of faith, etc. There was no central church at that time. Some claimed authority for the Church at Rome, some claimed authority for the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Philadelphia and Alexandria. The churches had not agree on one leader, no matter what you have been taught. A simply study of Church History will show this but most Roman Catholics don’t want to do this. They had rather believe what they’ve been told.

Well shortly after the beginning of the 4th century, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, decided to call a council and the Council of Nicæa was ordered. This was done by the Roman Emperor who was not even a Christian and later was baptized into the Arian Church. The biggest problem the Church faced was Arianism, Gnostics and Heretics. Constantine invited 1800 Bishops from all over the Roman Empire but only about 320 showed up. The Bishop of Rome was not one of them.

Constantine wanted control over the Church because his paganistic society was giving him a hard time about these “Christians” who they did not like. Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and that is when the Roman Catholic Church was begun. He introduced several pagan rituals and rites into the Christian Church in order to keep the pagans happy. The Pagans already had marvelous temples and expensive buildings, etc. and it only seemed natural to convert those to Christian buildings.

In addition to taking over the Christian Church, Constantine also built a beautiful new city and it became Constantinople, the new seat of the Roman Empire.

There were many Churches that did not agree with what Constantine had done and did not accept it. That is when the RCC locked up the Bibles so that the common man could not own or read one and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It took Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther to finally get the Bible into the hands of the common people again. That’s what brought on the Reformation because now the common person could read the Bible and see all that had been changed throughout the years.

The Bible is the infallible Word of God and nothing any man can say is infallible. The Bible hasn’t changed, it still means what it says and though many have tried to change it, God has promised to keep it accurate for Christians.**

This is nothing more than your own skewed version of history. Now let me recommend a book to you. Try reading Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. This one book will dispel much of the misinformation and baggage that you’ve been burdened with.

 

[Pax]

I agree with you Po.

Additional insight I’d like to share here:
Note that in the days of the Old Testament no one really knew where Melchizedek originated from - he is something of a mystery. It was thought then that he had no earthly parents. In fact he is the only person in the bible that does not inherit a blessing through Abraham and in fact is the single person we know blessed Abraham (and Abraham paid him a tithe). Melchizedek is hugely important to not just prefiguring Christ but in also prefiguring the liturgy of the mass and the entire priestly tradition for Catholics since our priests are of this Melchizedekian order. Note that the Jewish priests from Arron and Levy clans are below Abraham’s branch. Melchizedek is in front of Abraham and therefor of a supremely higher priestly order.

Also I am amazed that no one ever seems to make the Old Testament connection between God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac and seeing this as another prefiguring of God doing the same thing with His only Son (while withholding Abraham’s hand). God wanted an emotional connection with Humanity to let us feel that same sense of loss and sorrow that He would share with a fallen humanity to save us. From the vantage point of the New Testament we can now look back over thousands of years to see how God planned early on to sacrifice His only Son to save the word through Abraham’s obedience to God (the same obedience again mirrored in Mary when she consented to the Incarnation). So the pattern of salvation is amazingly clear and profound - God is intimately bonding Himself with His fallen humanity and making a remnant of us who will respond to His help His very own Children. Emanuel - “God is with us” literally!! God is partnered and committed to humanity by his very own divinity (present in the Eucharist). And that commitment is not without considerable pain and hurt to God. He shares with us through Christ for the cost of our original transgression. Yes we were spanked hard by the consequence of our disobedience. But in that same chastisement we also grievously hurt God. But His Love for us has found a way to get a remnant of repentant humanity back to Him in a way that is consistent with His Justice.

Thank God that God is a loving God since He owes us nothing and still elected to share in the pain and suffering for our disobedience! If God can do this for us can anyone possibly imagine what he will do for those who are obedient and love Him?

James

OT typology rocks:thumbsup:

 

[po18guy]

I’m foreign born, I can’t run for President. I rather be a lay Catholic. Anyways, I believe that Jesus is Truly Present in our Eucharist and present in the Tabernacle.

Amen, and Amen!

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is nothing more than your own skewed version of history. Now let me recommend a book to you. Try reading Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. This one book will dispel much of the misinformation and baggage that you’ve been burdened with.

Old Scholar’s claims has beeen refuted in Karl Keatings Book and many of what he has said are misconceptions. He mixes the truth with lies.

Like the Devil, Old Scholar exchange the Truth for a lie.

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s not really an answer, what you are saying is that when a Priest says something, you can do some research and find out if what he is saying is true. The fact is, that you are not allowed to have any authority in your possession with which to verify what is taught.

No, what you mean is that that isn’t the answer you want to hear

Please show me any authentic and authoritative Catholic document that tells us what you have just alleged? You won’t because you can’t because no such exists.

Well I went to the Catechism and found this about the question of Mary being conceived without sin:

722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the “Daughter of Zion”: “Rejoice.” It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.

This seems to be someone’s opinion and there is nothing here to “back up” the answer. Just because someone wrote this doesn’t make it official. What Scripture does it refer to and on what authority is it claimed?

You obviously didn’t bother to do more than give it a cursory reading because you failed to cite the rest of that section, which is not just someone’s opinion, but is supported from the Word of God. The section you quoted goes on to say,

723 In Mary, the Holy Spirit *fulfills *the plan of the Father’s loving goodness. Through the Holy Spirit, the Virgin conceives and gives birth to the Son of God. By the Holy Spirit’s power and her faith, her virginity became uniquely fruitful.105
724 In Mary, the Holy Spirit *manifests *the Son of the Father, now become the Son of the Virgin. She is the burning bush of the definitive theophany. Filled with the Holy Spirit she makes the Word visible in the humility of his flesh. It is to the poor and the first representatives of the gentiles that she makes him known.106
725 Finally, through Mary, the Holy Spirit begins to bring men, the objects of God’s merciful love,107 into communion with Christ. And the humble are always the first to accept him: shepherds, magi, Simeon and Anna, the bride and groom at Cana, and the first disciples.
726 At the end of this mission of the Spirit, Mary became the Woman, the new Eve (“mother of the living”), the mother of the "whole Christ."108 As such, she was present with the Twelve, who "with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,"109 at the dawn of the “end time” which the Spirit was to inaugurate on the morning of Pentecost with the manifestation of the Church.
Christ Jesus

What you seem to have completely missed is all the scripture references in the numbered footnotes. Here they are:

102 Col 2:9.
103 Cf. Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14.
104 Cf. Lk 1:46-55.
105 Cf. Lk 1:26-38; Rom 4:18-21; Gal 4:26-28.
106 Cf. Lk 1:15-19; Mt 2:11.
107 Cf. Lk 2:14.
108 Cf. Jn 19:25-27.
109 Acts 1:14.

Maybe you should show some better scholarship.

It is merely speculation since the Scriptures tell us nothing about Mary until she is approaced by the angel. A very good example of what I have been saying all along. Someone writes it down and you believe it with no authority of confirmation.

Where is it written in the Word of God that we have to rely on the Bible for all Christian history? I’ve read the word of God through several times and I never saw such a passage. Aren’t you now going beyond what is written? Especially after making such a big deal about the Bible being your only authority? Isn’t your teaching now a teaching of men and not the Bible in this matter?

 

[Church_Militant]

So what Jesus is saying in these passages that support transubstantion is to be taken literally but the rest of the verse is not to be?

Hi SC!

Have you read this by any chance?
The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Ignatius]

Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

The questions that you contend “Catholics Will Not Answer” in your original post have all been answered multiple times. I’m sorry, but continuing to state this is completely dishonest! And that, I believe, is the reason that you remain so misinformed.

I will pray that the Holy Spirit descend upon you and lead you to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Your Servant in Christ.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, what you mean is that that isn’t the answer you want to hear

Please show me any authentic and authoritative Catholic document that tells us what you have just alleged? You won’t because you can’t because no such exists. You obviously didn’t bother to do more than give it a cursory reading because you failed to cite the rest of that section, which is not just someone’s opinion, but is supported from the Word of God. The section you quoted goes on to say, What you seem to have completely missed is all the scripture references in the numbered footnotes. Here they are:Maybe you should show some better scholarship.

Where is it written in the Word of God that we have to rely on the Bible for all Christian history? I’ve read the word of God through several times and I never saw such a passage. Aren’t you now going beyond what is written? Especially after making such a big deal about the Bible being your only authority? Isn’t your teaching now a teaching of men and not the Bible in this matter?

For once I hope they actually try to understand our faith but then again. I think their lack of faith is disturbing and many Protestants will always ignore our answers.

 

[Schabel]

**I’m sure your Priest won’t like it but I will be glad to give you a history lesson of the church. **

Yes, but will it be an accurate, true history lesson? Looking ahead, I think I know the answer.

**I am not presumptuous enough however to say when Christ “left” the Catholic Church because I don’t believe He ever left the Catholic **
Church.

**Neither do I! Because Christ KEEPS His promises! **

**

He may have left the Roman Catholic Church when they took over the Catholic Church

**
**When do you propose this momentious event took place, the breaking of a promise by Jesus? **

**

but who knows the ways of God. For sure, it is not the same Church now.

**
**It may not be the same, but it is organically the same. Just like YOU aren’t the same person you were when you were two. Just as a mustard tree isn’t the same as a mustard seed (see Matt 13:31-32, also Mark 4, and Luke 13). **

**

Christ established His Church

**
Not Churches? Hmmm …

**

and gave explicit instructions in Scripture and through his apostles

**
**YES! Scripture AND Apostolic Tradition. Thank you. **

**He gave power to the apostles to do many things as long as they lived but did not allow them to “hand down” these powers, but left them with ordination procedures and policies. The age of the prophets and inspiration died with the last apostle. **

**What? **
**Paul was wrong? **

Eph 4:11 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,

**How long will these gifts remain? **
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;

**Are you suggesting that we HAVE attained the stature of the fulness of Christ? **

Originally the Catholic Church was given all truth.

**YES! And the promise that it would remain so. **

**

It was as early as the first century, after Christ had gone, that the Gnostics and heretics began to preach their different doctrines, dogmas and practices.

**
**Even earlier than that. Read about Simon the Magician in Acts 8. But, how did the Church react to that? **

**

Several of the early church fathers combated them fiercely and always with Scripture as there was nothing else to prove them wrong.

**
**Really? Can you prove that? Can you prove that … from scripture? **

**

You won’t find one time that a heretic was confronted with tradition that did not come from Scripture.

**
**Yes, and no. I can show you where heretics were confronted with scriptural truth that directly contradicts YOUR interpretation of scripture. **

How about THIS one:
“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” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

**Certainly this is a confrontation of heresy, and while I would argue that this position is completely, 100% scriptural, I suspect that you would not. **

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m sure your Priest won’t like it but I will be glad to give you a history lesson of the church. I am not presumptuous enough however to say when Christ “left” the Catholic Church because I don’t believe He ever left the Catholic
Church. He may have left the Roman Catholic Church when they took over the Catholic Church but who knows the ways of God. For sure, it is not the same Church now.

Please show me any historical evidence that supports this. I want to know just exactly what source you got that from. If you can’t do so then I have to think that you made it up out of your biased wishful thing.

Christ established His Church and gave explicit instructions in Scripture and through his apostles on how it was to be set up and operated. He gave power to the apostles to do many things as long as they lived but did not allow them to “hand down” these powers, but left them with ordination procedures and policies. The age of the prophets and inspiration died with the last apostle. From that point on, no one had the power to raise from the dead, etc.

Nice…again…this is rhetoric without the least substantive citation. Please show me this in the Word of God. I don’t think you can because I happen to know for a fact that it’s nowhere found in the Bible.

Originally the Catholic Church was given all truth. It was as early as the first century, after Christ had gone, that the Gnostics and heretics began to preach their different doctrines, dogmas and practices. Several of the early church fathers combated them fiercely and always with Scripture as there was nothing else to prove them wrong. You won’t find one time that a heretic was confronted with tradition that did not come from Scripture.

Right… so guys like Ignatius of Antioch who said that those who don’t believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, (which is precisely what we Catholics have continually taught for 2,000 years) was some kind of Gnostic heretic? I don’t buy that.

This is just more fiction asserted as history and again, what is your source for it? It sure isn’t the Bible. It weird that you would assert something like that that is not in scripture, when you just finished dogging us Catholics out saying that we can’t do that.

These heretics continued and grew in number despite efforts of those like Irenæus and a few others. By the time of the 4th century, so many heretics were teaching false doctrines, etc. that it seemed necessary for as many of the churches as could, get together and establish certain rules of faith, etc. There was no central church at that time. Some claimed authority for the Church at Rome, some claimed authority for the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Philadelphia and Alexandria. The churches had not agree on one leader, no matter what you have been taught. A simply study of Church History will show this but most Roman Catholics don’t want to do this. They had rather believe what they’ve been told.

More fiction asserted as history.

Where did you say you got all this from again. (Note to all: I begin to suspect that this guy is either Independent Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist because they both are prone to this kind of rewrite of history to suit their a-C agenda)

Well shortly after the beginning of the 4th century, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, decided to call a council and the Council of Nicæa was ordered. This was done by the Roman Emperor who was not even a Christian and later was baptized into the Arian Church. The biggest problem the Church faced was Arianism, Gnostics and Heretics. Constantine invited 1800 Bishops from all over the Roman Empire but only about 320 showed up. The Bishop of Rome was not one of them.

Constantine wanted control over the Church because his paganistic society was giving him a hard time about these “Christians” who they did not like. Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and that is when the Roman Catholic Church was begun.

Man… I do love good fiction. Except when it’s made up to mislead people like this.

He introduced several pagan rituals and rites into the Christian Church in order to keep the pagans happy. The Pagans already had marvelous temples and expensive buildings, etc. and it only seemed natural to convert those to Christian buildings.

Right…and just what were these supposed pagan rituals you speak of?

BTW, are you married and do you and your wife wear wedding rings? Please answer that because it’s important to this discussion.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

There were many Churches that did not agree with what Constantine had done and did not accept it. That is when the RCC locked up the Bibles so that the common man could not own or read one and it stayed that way for hundreds of years.

This is totally inaccurate bunk being passed off as historical fact.

Lessee, there were so many printing presses in operation at that time, so there were Bibles all over the place, right? That and the fact that just every single soul alive could read? 100% literacy, right?

It took Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther to finally get the Bible into the hands of the common people again. That’s what brought on the Reformation because now the common person could read the Bible and see all that had been changed throughout the years.

This is complete fiction.

Listen and judge for yourself what rubbish is crammed into people’s heads. (ii) Luther’s first Bible (or what pretended to be the Bible, for he had amputated some of its members) came out in 1520. Now, will you believe it, there were exactly 104 editions of the Bible in Latin before that date; there were 9 before the birth of Luther in the German language, and there were 27 in German before ever his own saw the light of day. Many of these were to be seen at the Caxton Exhibition in London, 1877: and seeing is believing. In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the Bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547, the first appearing in 1478. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Pro*testants to believe this). In Hungary by the year 1456, in Bohemia by the year 1478, in Flanders before 1500, and in other lands groaning under the yoke of Rome, we know that editions of the Sacred Scriptures had been given to the people. ‘In all (to quote from “M.C.L’s” useful pamphlet on the subject) 626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the Scriptures was sent forth into the world.’ England was perhaps worse off than any country at the time of the Reformation in the matter of vernacular versions of the Bible: many Catholic kingdoms abroad had far surpassed her in making known the Sacred Word. Yet these lands remained Catholic; England turned Protestant; what, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion of ‘Evangelical’ Christians that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? The simple truth of course is just this, that if knowledge of the Scriptures should of itself make people Protestants, then the Italian and French and Spanish and Hungarian and Belgian and Portuguese nations should all have embraced Protestantism, which up to the moment of writing they have declined to do. I am afraid there is something wrong with the theory, for it is in woeful contradiction to plain facts, which may be learned by all who care to take the trouble to read and study for themselves.

CHAPTER XI. Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff (Link to source)

The Bible is the infallible Word of God and nothing any man can say is infallible. The Bible hasn’t changed, it still means what it says and though many have tried to change it, God has promised to keep it accurate for Christians.

More rhetoric.

Don’t you think that if all this could be proved that someone would have done so and crashed the Catholic Church long before now?

 

[Church_Militant]

In other word, you can’t answer them either???

I can and did, but I see that you conspicuously prefer to rattle off with others instead of dealing with the host of facts that I’ve supplied so far.

You said we can’t answer… I did and you have gone all out of your way to try to ignore my posts…probably because the truth is that you cannot answer my facts.

You can’t deny it either because I started with post # 2.

 

[justasking4]

Ja4, Is this the only passage of scripture dealing with what it takes to be saved? You know as well as I do that that’s not the case at all and that is one reason that I have asserted that there is a very real possibility that modern post reformation n-Cs are preaching a different and deficient gospel of salvation. I point this out in my blog entry entitled. Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”? Please give that a read and maybe we can get into it a bit either via e-mail or PMs here.

While your verse citation above is certainly a valid one, it is clear that at least two other clear presentations of the Gospel of salvation are overlooked in your presentation. I point this out briefly in my blog entry called How Is A Catholic Saved?
and I hope that you’ll have a look at that as well as it very briefly outlines what all I believe the message of salvation is.

i read your references and it still does not change the bare essential of what it takes to be saved as Paul states in Romans 10. How a person lives and follows Christ are also important but without explicit repentance of sins and believing Christ died for those sins and rose again you are not saved no matter how righteous and good a life a person lives.

 

[justasking4]

You want a summary of the Catholic faith? Here it is.

You must believe everything that Jesus said and done. When he says we obey his commandment, we obey. When he says that we must be baptized, and by God, we shall be baptized, and when he says we have to eat his flesh, we will eat his flesh. Why? Because what we Catholic receives have been handed down to us from the bishops, whom the bishops received from the Apostles, and the Apostles received from Jesus, and from Jesus, from the Father.

You either deny this faith or not. We Catholics take everything to what Jesus said into account. Everything. We do not pick and chose Scripture verses like you Protestants do.

How i wish it were as simple as you make it sound here. If you read church history for example you will find a number of different opinions and a vast number of things that Jesus taught and in many cases don’t agree.

 

[davidv]

How i wish it were as simple as you make it sound here. If you read church history for example you will find a number of different opinions and a vast number of things that Jesus taught and in many cases don’t agree.

Simple does not mean easy. Simple also does not mean that it cannot be distorted beyond all recognition. It also doen’t mean that it can be exercised perfectly at every instance of everyone’s lives.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3230755]But those 500 witnesses are dead now - we don’t even know their names - and so is St. Paul. We are now living nearly 2,000 years after the event, and all we have are the stories that they left behind.

Even though the witnesses are all dead it still does not change the facts and the support of those facts. This is how we must approach historical questions. For example the assination of Lincoln is still a fact even though all people who lived during the period are all dead. It was true then and it will be true a billion years from now that Lincoln was assinated in 1863.

The stories come down to us through time from when her body went missing. Her Assumption is mentioned in Revelation 12:1.

You are assuming that the woman of Revelations 12:1 is Mary which a number of catholic scholars don’t share your belief.

The theological significance of these stories was not recognized for a long time, but once it was (325 AD) then all of a sudden we see them being written down and discussed. The fact that it took that long for their importance to be recognized does not mean that they didn’t exist yet, though. John alludes to the story in the Book of Revelation. I think it’s also referred to in the Protoevangelium of James, which was also written quite early on.

Let me ask you. Her assumption is mentioned over 300 years after the event with no evidence to back this claim up. Does the mere fact this was mentioned over 300 years after the event with no documentation trouble you?

Would you believe if someone made a claim to today that a pope that lived and died 300 years ago was assumed into heaven because they found no evidence for his body?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3230783]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does a catholic have to have faith more than just Christ to be saved?
jmcrae
What is “just Christ”? Doesn’t Christ consist of all of His actions and commandments, including the Church that He founded, and the precepts of that Church?

That’s what i’m asking catholics. Must a catholic believe for example that Mary was assumed into heaven to be saved?

Can it be said that someone who rejects some (any) part of Christ actually believes in Christ, or does he believe in something of his own invention?

i think there are core teachings of the gospel that must be believed or that person is not saved. To reject I Cor 15:1-4 is a case in point.

 

[davidv]

Would you believe if someone made a claim to today that a pope that lived and died 300 years ago was assumed into heaven because they found no evidence for his body?

If was just “someone” no. And since there are no existing stories of any such thing, I am extremely confident that the Church will not ask me to believe it.

 

[davidv]

That’s what i’m asking catholics. Must a catholic believe for example that Mary was assumed into heaven to be saved?

A Catholic must assent to this belief. If they do not believe they are disobedient. To the extent this disobedience separates them from God, the risk their entry into heaven.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3230701]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i didn’t take you answer as an answer to my question about a catholic needing to take the eucharist to be saved. I countered by asking the above. I know that the last supper accounts never mention anything about taking the eucharist itself saves a person.
guanophore
I know this is hard for you to understand, ja4, but I write this as much for the lurkers on the thread as for you. Catholics interpret scripture as a whole. We consider that they are all part of one whole Divine Revelation. The accounts of the last supper are understood along with John 6. We don’t separate parts out and isolate them like you do.

If the individual passages used to support a doctrine are not interpreted correctly within the contexts in which they appear you won’t have the truth. Claiming to “Catholics interpret scripture as a whole. We consider that they are all part of one whole Divine Revelation.” is not enough to say you have the truth. The parts must also support the conclusions and that is where John 6 as doesn’t help you.

This topic is being discussed on the Transustatiation thread, so I am not going to repost the answer here. This thread is full enough!

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
John 6 is not about the eucharist. He never mentions it. If you read John 6 carefully you will not find Jesus teaching about the eucharist here. Has the catholic infallibly interpreted John 6?
guanophore
It is about eucharist because it was written by a Catholic who was present at the Last Supper, and knew EXACTLY what Jesus meant. But this is a matter for another thread.

You are correct the John was present at both events but we don’t see him tying the 2 together as the catholic church tries to. In fact i can’t think of anyone else in the letters that use John 6 in support of the eucharist either. Can you?