SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Mannyfit75]

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.

There were different opinions and some of those opinions became heretical and the Church had to setup Councils to combat these heresy. Through Church history, it was the Church Council who settled the problem. The Church Fathers were not Sola Scripturist like you Protestants are.

and yes, I have read Church history and Christian history. What I do see is an Church with authority. The Church was not based on Scripture Alone. That is alien and foreign.

I would also like to add that in Jesus time, no one was not sure who Jesus was. Some say, he was John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets. Only one voice rang out saying, You are the Christ, Son of the Living God.

That voice is the voice of Simon Peter. This voice is the first infallible statement made by our first Pope, and Jesus acknowledge it so much that he gave Peter the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose.

So you are wrong. Your Protestant kind are always wrong. All you do is deceive us with your blatant lies and distortion of the truth, exchanging the truth for a lie. Protestantism is a vommit that comes from the deceiver…None of it comes from God.

 

[justasking4]

No question about it. I am most certainly fallible. I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that charism for myself. But it is true that while Protestant pastors, preachers, evangelists, et. al., will never use the term infallible for themselves, they will expect you to agree with their own fallible interpretations or ask you to move on to another sect or start your own new one.

Please ANSWER this. What is the purpose of a pastor, preacher, evangelist within Protestantism, if you are free to agree or disagree with their own interpretations.

Paul is clear about their function in Ephesians 4:10-15 where he writes:
10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of 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 a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

 

[justasking4]

There were different opinions and some of those opinions became heretical and the Church had to setup Councils to combat these heresy. Through Church history, it was the Church Council who settled the problem. The Church Fathers were not Sola Scripturist like you Protestants are.

I would also like to add that in Jesus time, no one was not sure who Jesus was. Some say, he was John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets. Only one voice rang out saying, You are the Christ, Son of the Living God.

That voice is the voice of Simon Peter. This voice is the first infallible statement made by our first Pope, and Jesus acknowledge it so much that he gave Peter the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose.

So you are wrong. Your Protestant kind are always wrong. All you do is deceive us with your blatant lies and distortion of the truth, exchanging the truth for a lie. Protestantism is a vommit that comes from the deceiver…None of it comes from God.

i get the impression you don’t like me. I wonder why???

Anyway, what blatant lies are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples?

 

[Mannyfit75]

i get the impression you don’t like me. I wonder why???

Anyway, what blatant lies are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples?

You are right. I don’t like Protestants with the same zeal as you do. You come here to convert us Catholics. I don’t like Protestants at all. I grow tired of their unwillingness to understand our faith. So yes. I dislike Protestants. I hate their zeal and their hatred of Catholicism.

In the statement you made, you wrote:
*
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.*

You left out the fact the when there was disagreements the Church always settle the issue through Church councils. That one statement is a distortion of the Truth. You can’t pick and choose history.

It would be like saying that slavery was not present during the Civil War.

 

[justasking4]

And in Acts we read:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38).

Jesus, like Saint Paul, believed in the necessarily of Baptism in regards to Salvation (it is way to forgive our sins, as well as making us Sons of God, and reborn into His Church):

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16).

According to the Bible, Baptism and the Eucharist is necessary for Salvation. However, Catholics, like most Protestants [who believe in faith alone, since they believe infants go to heaven no matter what], believed that that are exceptions to this rule (i…e, infants, etc).

Would you happen to have the passage where is states that you must recieve the Eucharist to be saved?

 

[davidv]

i get the impression you don’t like me. I wonder why???

Anyway, what blatant lies are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples?

How about this one. In a prior post you said:

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?

In the post linked below you when given ample evidence that existed before 300 years had passed:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2859105&postcount=305

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? The historical evidence for the resurrection is one of if not the best attested event in acient world. To have over 500 people who witnessed the risen Christ would hold up quite well in a court of law.

guanophore
Perhaps, but they are not here now. Who were they? where are their writings? You can say they existed,a nd would give testimony, but that is only speculation, since they don’t exist, and have left no testimony.

In I Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul does name names. To say that this account in I Corinthians 15 would not be adequate either in a court of law or is not adequate as an historical account means you would have to reject all of ancient and modern historical accounts based on eyewitness accounts since historians rely on the same principle as this. Most events in history don’t have this kind of support and yet historians accept historical accounts as being true on far less evidence.
To reject this means you would know nothing about history. Would you be willing to do this?

 

[justasking4]

In What Extrabiblical source is it attested to-I’d like to know? What source-? it is a matter of faith- not History!

There are quite a number of extra biblical references to Christ.
For example:

• Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3,

• Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals

• Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.

 

[justasking4]

How about this one. In a prior post you said:

In the post linked below you when given ample evidence that existed before 300 years had passed:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2859105&postcount=305

Did you look at the date of this post? Its awhile back. Do you remember everything you have written and said?

Secondly the post you gave is on Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I’m referring to assumption of Mary

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3239426]
Originally Posted by justasking4
i get the impression you don’t like me. I wonder why???

Anyway, what blatant lies are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples?

Mannyfit75
You are right. I don’t like Protestants with the same zeal as you do. You come here to convert us Catholics. I don’t like Protestants at all. I grow tired of their unwillingness to understand our faith. So yes. I dislike Protestants. I hate their zeal and their hatred of Catholicism.

I don’t know how many times i have thought to myself that i’m so grateful that i don’t live next door to so many catholics on this forum. I don’t think i would be alive today if i did.

Actually some of my best friends are catholics. I actually like catholics like you and others who are passionate and believe they are right and try to argue for it. That’s not that common in my world.

In the statement you made, you wrote:
*
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.*

You left out the fact the when there was disagreements the Church always settle the issue through Church councils. That one statement is a distortion of the Truth. You can’t pick and choose history.
It would be like saying that slavery was not present during the Civil War.

These forums are limited in the way things are communicated and its quite easy to be misunderstood given that we can’t ask questions for clarifications as we do in verbal communication. I find its better to give the benefit of doubt and be charitable with people rather than assume the worst or evil intentions. That i believe is the way of Christ.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I just asked a question about John 6:54 in regards to your quote. Is Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically in the context of John 6?

Literally.

This is what the word means:strictly adhering to basic meaning: in a way based on the explicit meaning of a word or text
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003

Would you agree with this definition?

If it is then there is only one conclusion that can be drawn when Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t know how many times i have thought to myself that i’m so grateful that i don’t live next door to so many catholics on this forum. I don’t think i would be alive today if i did.

I may hate your bad theology as a Protestant but I won’t kill you. My faith doesn’t permit that.

Actually some of my best friends are catholics. I actually like catholics like you and others who are passionate and believe they are right and try to argue for it. That’s not that common in my world.

Catholics who believe and practice their faith are always right.

These forums are limited in the way things are communicated and its quite easy to be misunderstood given that we can’t ask questions for clarifications as we do in verbal communication. I find its better to give the benefit of doubt and be charitable with people rather than assume the worst or evil intentions. That i believe is the way of Christ.

My frustrations has lost its patience and charity. It’s a war out there especially if someone try to distort our faith. I make no apologize for deceivers.

 

[jmcrae]

This is what the word means:strictly adhering to basic meaning: in a way based on the explicit meaning of a word or text
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003

Would you agree with this definition?

If it is then there is only one conclusion that can be drawn when Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

I have tried to answer you on this three times, and you have ignored me all three times.

What is your purpose here? Are you trying to learn what the Church teaches, or do you just want to pick people apart who aren’t very exact in their use of language? (What do you gain by doing that? The Church doesn’t become “wrong” just because a lay person can’t explain a particular concept very well.)

For the fourth time:

Jesus was using neither literalistic nor metaphorical language in this passage. Rather, He was speaking of the actual spiritual reception of His Body and Blood by means of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This becomes clear when we look at the text of the institution of the Eucharist - “This is my body,” referring to the Host, and “This is my blood,” referring to the contents of the chalice. This is not symbolic language; He is not saying “This is like my body,” nor is He saying “This represents my body” - rather, by the words of the Consecration, they become actually His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in a spiritual (not symbolic) manner that is real and actual.

 

[guanophore]

The writers of the New Testament who were with Christ during His ministry were: Peter, John, James, Matthew and Mark.

Luke was a companion of Paul but he says he was not an eyewitness with Christ. Luke has been said to have been one of the 70 disciples however and it is obvious the writers of the gospel were with Christ. Mark was a companion of Peter and Peter at one time called him his son.

I don’t dispute that the NT is authentic, but your claim that “most” of it was written by people that were with Christ for 3 years is spurious. It is authentic because it came from Sacred Tradition. Mark was probably writing Peter’s gospel, but was not present with Jesus. Luke did write a gospel but probably was not with Jesus. The only reason we know Matt. is from Matt. is sacred tradition. We don’t really know the author of Hebrews, and most of the remainder is from Paul, who was definitely not with Jesus for three years.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3232021]

Originally Posted by justasking4
What did Jesus mean by these words? Did He literally mean in John 6 they were to eat His flesh that was before them? He certainly teaches them that right there in John 6 that they could have eternal life if they ate His flesh and drank His blood. Thats why we must understand what He means without any reference to the Eucharist.

Church Militant
No Ja4, you must keep all the passages that deal with the Eucharist together in order to see what the New Testament is teaching.

That’s what I have attempted to do in The Eucharist IS Scriptural which to me is one of the defining reasons to be a Catholic.

I went to your blog and i copied this out of it in which you write:

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

It does not necessarily require that Jesus be actually physically present in the bread and wine for Paul’s exhortation to understood. We both know that that our relationship to Christ is not based on something phyiscal. Jesus also taught that where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name He is there. We also know that in some mysterious way He is in us as Colossians 1:27 teaches. Since Christ dwells in believers does that make them God? Of course not.

The other problem with the catholic view is that it leads to unbilcal ideas and concepts.
1- If Christ is actually in the host that would mean the host God. If this were true then we should expect to see characteristics of God in it like intelligence, power, the ability to communicate etc.

2- If Jesus is in host then this means Jesus now has another nature of bread and wine.

These are just some of the problems associated with this and i don’t know if we should go into them here.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3239642]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is what the word means:strictly adhering to basic meaning: in a way based on the explicit meaning of a word or text
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003

Would you agree with this definition?

If it is then there is only one conclusion that can be drawn when Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

jmcrae
I have tried to answer you on this three times, and you have ignored me all three times.

What is your purpose here? Are you trying to learn what the Church teaches, or do you just want to pick people apart who aren’t very exact in their use of language? (What do you gain by doing that? The Church doesn’t become “wrong” just because a lay person can’t explain a particular concept very well.)

I don’t remember seeing your answers. Sorry i missed it since there is so much going on in these forums. Since i have already been blackballed etc it really won’t do well to say why i’m here. Just accept that i am here…

For the fourth time:

Jesus was using neither literalistic nor metaphorical language in this passage. Rather, He was speaking of the actual spiritual reception of His Body and Blood by means of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This becomes clear when we look at the text of the institution of the Eucharist - “This is my body,” referring to the Host, and “This is my blood,” referring to the contents of the chalice. This is not symbolic language; He is not saying “This is like my body,” nor is He saying “This represents my body” - rather, by the words of the Consecration, they become actually His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in a spiritual (not symbolic) manner that is real and actual.

We probably should go for round 2 on the eurcharist. As far as i’m concerned there are a lot of unresolved issue with it but it was closed down.

 

[guanophore]

Throughout the world, the DAILY services held religiously follow the same Church calendar - and the same readings during every Mass are SURPRISE!!! from the Bible.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available to everyone, not just the guy with the big hat, and not just Catholics…

Happy reading, OS -

& God bless you.

He did specifically say “for someone who can’t read”. The Mass readings are in the vernacular, and there are readings and sermons at every mass, but how would a lay Catholic, who could not read, check the things they were being told?

I think it is a disingenuous question because in America, in our day and age, there are so few who cannot read,and every illiterate is surrounded by people who can. Perhas a third world country?

 

[Pier]

But why bother with the Bible if you don’t believe it?

I never said this, about myself or anyone else here…

Is this what you’ve been taught regarding the beliefs of Christ’s Church? It’s really too bad if that’s the case, because you are truly missing out.

 

[jmcrae]

1- If Christ is actually in the host that would mean the host God. If this were true then we should expect to see characteristics of God in it like intelligence, power, the ability to communicate etc.

Yes. Catholics do in fact worship the Host.

2- If Jesus is in host then this means Jesus now has another nature of bread and wine.

No, since the bread and wine are no longer present - they are taken by the angels to Heaven, while being perfectly displaced in every respect by Christ Himself.

One (rather imperfect) analogy to this is the way that skin and bone are perfectly displaced by stone, to create a fossil - a fossil has the outward appearances of skin and bone, but it is actually stone.

Now, Jesus’ displacement of the bread and wine is much more perfect and thorough than that; right down to the very molecules. We believe it not because we can see it (although there are plenty of Eucharistic miracles) but because it’s the only thing that answers to what Christ promised us in the Bread of Life discourse and in the institution of the Last Supper.

 

[geraldffff]

I have tried to answer you on this three times, and you have ignored me all three times.

What is your purpose here? Are you trying to learn what the Church teaches, or do you just want to pick people apart who aren’t very exact in their use of language? (What do you gain by doing that? The Church doesn’t become “wrong” just because a lay person can’t explain a particular concept very well.)

For the fourth time:

Jesus was using neither literalistic nor metaphorical language in this passage. Rather, He was speaking of the actual spiritual reception of His Body and Blood by means of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This becomes clear when we look at the text of the institution of the Eucharist - “This is my body,” referring to the Host, and “This is my blood,” referring to the contents of the chalice. This is not symbolic language; He is not saying “This is like my body,” nor is He saying “This represents my body” - rather, by the words of the Consecration, they become actually His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in a spiritual (not symbolic) manner that is real and actual.

This one is so difficult for Protestants it seems they would also have a lot of trouble with the Holy Trinity which many cults do. Hmmm