**Bartholomew F. Brewer – He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D.C. He eventually served as a diocesan priest in San Diego, California and entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic chaplain.
**
**Upon questioning Rome’s Beliefs, "At first I did not understand, but gradually I observed a wonderful change in mother.
Her influence helped me realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe. ** So the church helped push him away.
We all know how well sola scriptura has worked out – thousands of competing churches, all using the bible as their sole authority. If the C.C. taught the doctrine of sola scriptura, I wouldn’t be a Christian today. Also if the bible said that the bible was the **pillar and foundation of truth **and that Jesus was the savior of His bible, there wouldn’t be thousands of competing churches in a constant state of disarray. The doctrine of S.S. WOULD HAVE WORKED BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOD ORDAINED; It would have succeeded, as opposed to the colossal mess we see in the protestant world today, just as His Church has succeeded, because that really is where the pillar and foundation of truth can be found, according to the bible.
**We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal infallibility, the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. In time I realized that not only are these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture." (pp. 21-22)
**
I could touch on each of these doctrines, instead I will invalidate what he said, simply by saying: If you think these doctrines are implausible because they are not in your bible, you certainly don’t supplant them with another doctrine, that also isn’t taught in your bible, and is decisively man-made,1500 years removed from the Church established by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD.
****Relying on works. He left the Roman Catholic Church, got married and through conversations with his wife and other Christians, "I finally understood that I had been relying on my own righteousness and religious efforts and not upon the completed and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
**
First of all, it sounds like he might of had an ulterior motive (his future wife) --second of all, no other church devotes more attention to “the completed and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ.” His Sacrifice is the center piece of the entire Mass; everything revolves around IT. No one can hold a candle to the C.C. when it comes to remembering Jesus’ Atoning Sacrifice for ALL. (with the exception of the E.O.C.)
Not one protestant church believes what their own bible teaches, what Martin Luther actually embraced --the True Presence of Christ:
"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me, after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come."
1 Cor. 11:24-26 (KJV)
Jesus said, I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
The Jews were familiar with “eating and drinking” being used figuratively in the Old Testament. – Which is why Christ went out of His way to make it absolutely clear that He was not speaking figuratively, by saying that His flesh was real food and that His blood was real drink.
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing
“the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment.
I suppose the loaves and fishes were just figurative loaves and fishes then? The crowd was not literally fed?
Furthermore, the word for eat is phagein - to chew or gnaw. It is a very graphic word. Sarx, a translation of this could mean physical flesh, but is also used in the context throughout the Bible as mere human nature. (figurative) With this in mind, the passage would make no sense - since “flesh” is only used figuratively to refer to the sin-prone aspect of human nature and Jesus is not sin-prone.
Christ’s sarx, is not general, it is the sarx of a very specific incarnated individual. (not human nature) An individual whose sarx is not sin-prone! Christ is not telling the faithful to figuratively nourish themselves on sin-prone human nature. He is telling them to nourish themselves on his own life-giving flesh.
IF ANY NON-CATHOLIC CAN SUCCESSFULLY PROVE TO ME THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY, I WILL RENOUNCE CATHOLICISM IMMEDIATELY!!!
To be continued…**
and it is only God that causes the growth.
uch: then
:clapping: --congrats --there is nothing like being a part of Jesus’ One Mystical Body, the Church, the One House of the Living God and the Pillar and Foundation of the only Truth that matters in the grand scheme of things.
