The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[DavidY]

Christians are NOT ONE. They are absolutely divided and only a spiritually blind person would not be able to admit that. The Protestant Rebellion splintered the Church into so many factions**, the Apostles would be spinning in their graves.**

Christ is not splintered and neither can his Church be. Tell me something – if the denominations are not splintered, why is it that you all have so many** different**** views on essential beliefs? Since most of you believe that the Scriptures are the final authority and that you are all led by the Holy Spirit to interpret them – HOW is it that you can all have different beliefs and STILL claim to be right?**
**Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in the ****total depravity ****of man, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in the Holy Trinity, *while others do not.
**Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
*****Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, *while others do not.
*Some believe that only those who were predestined ****will make it to heaven, *while others do not.
*****Some believe that some were predestined for hell, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, *while others do not.
*****Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, *while others do not.
*****Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

---

Don’t sit there with a straight face and try to tell me that the Body of Christ has not been splintered by the rebellion and pride of men who estranged themselves from the Body.

Which of these was preached by the early apostles? Upon which of these were churches founded?

Granted, many are important issues to discuss and figure out, and we should try to resolve them. I think the problem is that we won’t have the debate. That’s pride also…

And it takes two to tango, with regard to pride. It is the always the most prideful who is disturbed by the pride of others.

But let’s say we can resolve differences…how many of these other churches could change their tune if convinced otherwise? Which one absolutely cannot?

 

[elvisman]

Which of these was preached by the early apostles? Upon which of these were churches founded?

Granted, many are important issues to discuss and figure out, and we should try to resolve them. I think the problem is that we won’t have the debate. That’s pride also…

And it takes two to tango, with regard to pride. It is the always the most prideful who is disturbed by the pride of others.

But let’s say we can resolve differences…how many of these other churches could change their tune if convinced otherwise? Which one absolutely cannot?

WHAT**??**
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. We WON’T have the debate?? The debate has been going on since prideful men claimed to know better than the Body of Christ, which was led by the Holy Spirit. The Church is not plagued by spiritual pride. It has the guarantee by Jesus of being led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15). Not one, single Protestant sect has that guarantee.

It wasn’t the Church who broke away from Protestantism to invent new doctrines and precepts of men. Do your homework, friend – it was the other way around.

As for the differences that I listed – you haven’t addressed the point: HOW could you ALL be led by the Holy Spirit to interpret the “truth” when you ALL have different “truths”?

 

[DavidY]

The Scriptures are** filled**** with polyvalent symbolisms in prophecy, types and fulfillments. Pity you** don’t know that. For example – Protestant scholars say that the Woman in Rev. 12:1** represents both** Israel AND the Church. Catholics see the fuller** polyvalent symbolism and also see Mary, but that is a debate for another day. The point is that just because you may be ignorant of polyvalent symbolisms doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.**

It’s amazing how something can be explained to you in great detail, yet you respond as though you have no idea about what was explained to you. As I already** explained to you – JESUS is the vine. Read the Last Supper narrative in John’s Gospel. Maybe it’ll stick this time . . .**

Brother, I appreciate the explanation, but I can do without the supercilious attitude with regard to Biblical exegesis. I’ve been studying Scriptures for 25 years, so you don’t need to tell me the Scriptures include friggin’ symbolism.

The point was your application of this rule, it is used however you see fit to back whatever doctrines you choose, it seems. When Jesus calls something ‘wine,’ it’s symbolic. When He calls bread His body, it’s certainly literal.

Jesus calls wine the fruit of the vine, and then says He will not drink of it again until He is in His kingdom. To you this obviously means that He will drink His own blood in heaven.

I mean, I’m trying to understand, but when someone calls it the ‘fruit of the vine,’ to me that means wine. We don’t call things by their ‘accidents.’ I don’t call a brown chair ‘brown,’ because it IS a chair.

That’s my hang-up…

Although I appreciate your passion, and I have it myself, I hope you are not angry at someone who is really just questioning doctrines that I would like to understand, but don’t. Debate is how I figure things out.

 

[DavidY]

WHAT**??**
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. We WON’T have the debate?? The debate has been going on since prideful men claimed to know better than the Body of Christ, which was led by the Holy Spirit. The Church is not plagued by spiritual pride. It has the guarantee by Jesus of being led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15). Not one, single Protestant sect has that guarantee.

It wasn’t the Church who broke away from Protestantism to invent new doctrines and precepts of men. Do your homework, friend – it was the other way around.

As for the differences that I listed – you haven’t addressed the point: HOW could you ALL be led by the Holy Spirit to interpret the “truth” when you ALL have different “truths”?

Right, and one side of the debate can simply excommunicate you rather than have it.

And I can argue that the CC broke away from the true church when they refused to change their views on the treasury of merit, penance, and justification by works. These are not in the writings of the word of God, and Luther knew this.

But let’s look at your question: How can we all have different truths? Pride and differing interpretations. I am not a Protestant lover either, you know. I want reconciliation.

However, the passage says that the Spirit will guide us to all truth. Not force us. How do we determine truth? You would say ‘the church,’ but then how do we know that the church is true? ‘The church.’ Oi.

 

[elvisman]

1. So, because he is told to strengthen his brothers, he is chief apostle. Jesus also calls Peter ‘Satan,’ but I guess we don’t take that as any kind of divine imperative. And because Jesus re-establishes Peter after he denies even knowing him he is the head of the church?

Luke 22:31-32**:**
***"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat, ***
but I have prayed that your own faith (singular) may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers."

---

YUP – I’d say that is pretty much cut and dried proof of Peter’s station of primacy over the others.

---

Don’t get me wrong, Peter was instrumental, a highly important disciple. But I could also make similar arguments for Paul.

Acts 22
14“Then he said: ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.
15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.

Do you see what you and I are doing? Exactly what Paul asked that we not do:

1 Cor 3

3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?
4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.
7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.

And

21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours,
22whether Paul or Apollos or **Cephas **or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God

Wow…pretty telling. That’s pretty much an arrow through the heart of this notion of ‘we are of the TRUE church of Peter.’ Unless I misunderstand, which is quite possible.

It’s not only “quite possible” that you misunderstand – you ABSOLUTELY do.

Catholics don’t claim to be OF Peter. These were factions that Paul was talking about. Catholics rightly claim to be of the Church Jesus built upon Peter (Matt. 16:16-19).

---

**It is the various ****Protestant **sects that claim to be of others (Calvinists, Arminianists, Lutherans. etc). NONE of these ecclesial communities were built by Christ – not ONE.

---

As for Paul – as great an Apostle as he was – ne was NEVER given the keys to the Kingdom (Matt. 16:18-10), nor was he singles out by Jesus to strengthen and straighten out the other Apostles – at ANY time.

1. Regarding John and salvation by works. Eh? The first part of that passage is about abiding in the vine. If one is in the vine then one will produce fruit. If you love me you will keep my commandments. Sounds a lot more like sola fide.

Sure – for somebody who can’t – or won’t understand because of spiritual pride.
The parable of the Vine and the Branches talks about remaining in faith and ENDURING to the end. Interesting how you fail to see the correlation with other verses in Scripture about works and cooperating with God’s grace (Romans 8:28, 1 Cor. 6:1) - as opposed to resisting it (Acts 7:51).**

 

[wisdomseeker]

Right, and one side of the debate can simply excommunicate you rather than have it.

And I can argue that the CC broke away from the true church when they refused to change their views on the treasury of merit, penance, and justification by works. These are not in the writings of the word of God, and Luther knew this.

But let’s look at your question: How can we all have different truths? Pride and differing interpretations. I am not a Protestant lover either, you know. I want reconciliation.

However, the passage says that the Spirit will guide us to all truth. Not force us. How do we determine truth? You would say ‘the church,’ but then how do we know that the church is true? ‘The church.’ Oi.

You could go here and figure out for yourself.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkc.html

 

[elvisman]

Right, and one side of the debate can simply excommunicate you rather than have it.

And I can argue that the CC broke away from the true church when they refused to change their views on the treasury of merit, penance, and justification by works. These are not in the writings of the word of God, and Luther knew this.

But let’s look at your question: How can we all have different truths? Pride and differing interpretations. I am not a Protestant lover either, you know. I want reconciliation.

However, the passage says that the Spirit will guide us to all truth. Not force us. How do we determine truth? You would say ‘the church,’ but then how do we know that the church is true? ‘The church.’ Oi.

Excommunication is a DISCIPLINARY measure. In the case of the “Reformers” it was exercised because of heresies and open rebellion against Christ and his Church – who are inseparable (Acts 9:4-5).

---

As in ALL cases of excommunication, it is the fervent hope of the Church that the excommunicant return to the truth instead of steadfastly remaining in a state of spiritual pride and open rebellion against Christ. This discipline is gleaned directly from Scripture (1 Tim. 1:20).**

 

[elvisman]

Brother, I appreciate the explanation, but I can do without the supercilious attitude with regard to Biblical exegesis. I’ve been studying Scriptures for 25 years, so you don’t need to tell me the Scriptures include friggin’ symbolism.
First of all – maybe you should calm down and stop using words that will get you suspended or thrown off this forum like “friggin”. I would hate to see you thrown off for something like this.

---

Secondly – the length of time that you have spent studying the Scriptures has no bearing on the truth. You can study Scripture for FIFTY years and still be wrong.

DavidY:
The point was your application of this rule, it is used however you see fit to back whatever doctrines you choose, it seems. When Jesus calls something ‘wine,’ it’s symbolic. When He calls bread His body, it’s certainly literal.

Jesus calls wine the fruit of the vine, and then says He will not drink of it again until He is in His kingdom. To you this obviously means that He will drink His own blood in heaven.

I mean, I’m trying to understand, but when someone calls it the ‘fruit of the vine,’ to me that means wine. We don’t call things by their ‘accidents.’ I don’t call a brown chair ‘brown,’ because it IS a chair.

That’s my hang-up…
For SOME reason, you keep insisting that Jesus only referred to wine at the Last Supper and not to his own blood. As I indicated before – he even went so far as to call it the blood of the New Covenant that will be shed for many. I don’t know about you, but it sounds pretty literal to me . . .

DavidY:
Although I appreciate your passion, and I have it myself, I hope you are not angry at someone who is really just questioning doctrines that I would like to understand, but don’t. Debate is how I figure things out.
I am not angry with you. I simply don’t want you to have misconceptions or false understandings of Catholic beliefs. I also want you to understand the reality of the Real Presence.
Angry? No.
Concerned? Yes.

 

[rinnie]

Hi DavidY, Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Its been such a busy week. I will try to answer some of your questions now, the rest later.

To begin with you are right it is not the Eucharist ONLY that we need for Eternal life. It is also many other things.

We must receive the Eucharist.
We must be Baptised.
We must confess our sins.
We must obey Gods commandments.
We must love one another.
There are many things! But the Eucharist is one of them.

When John 6 talks about the bread of life he discloses the full meaning. It begins with the hunger of the people who listens to Jesus and he does not send away without food.

What this points out to us is the necessity of bread, we require it to live.

But Jesus does not stop there to mans needs of material necessity, he shows of the miracle of manna in the desert but at the same time poiints beyond that, Food is the reason for the eternal word.

The eternal reason does not concretely become bread for man until he has taken flesh and speaks to us in human words.

Do you see what Jesus was telling them. He is saying the incarnate Lord gives HIMSELF in the Sacrament in a way the eternal word for the first time becomes TRULY MANNA, the gift of the future given to us already today.

It is prayed in the Our Father. Give us this day our daily bread…

It is saying we who are priviliged to receive the Eucharist,

as our bread must always pray none of us to be permanently cut off and severed from the body of Christ.

Go back to the Our Father, our daily bread, CHRIST. We pray that it is to given to us every day, that we who remain and live in Christ may not depart from his healing power and from his body.

It is not simply a symbol because a symbol would mean no healing power whatsoever.

Does a wedding ring symbol that a person is married? Yes its a symbol. But does a wedding ring carry any power? No. It is a mere symbol.

But if the Eucharist was a mere symbol where is the daily bread from heaven we are promised?

Manna did not give you ETERNAL life in Christ, Because it was not the eternal word made flesh. Christ was. he became the eternal word made flesh to give us eternal life in him.

If manna were the actual bread and body of Christ why did Jesus tell you your ancestors ate the manna and DIED! I am the living bread that came down from heaven, and I will give my FLESH for the life of the world?

Which is exactly what he did. You cannot compare the two. The Eucharist Jesus Christ himself. the word that became flesh.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Excommunication is a DISCIPLINARY measure. In the case of the “Reformers” it was exercised because of heresies and open rebellion against Christ and his Church – who are inseparable (Acts 9:4-5).

---

**As in ALL cases of excommunication, it is the fervent hope of the Church that the excommunicant return to the truth instead of steadfastly remaining in a state of spiritual pride and open rebellion against Christ. This discipline is gleaned directly from Scripture (1 Tim. 1:20).

Correct. Jesus Himself said,“if he doesnt listen to the Church, treat him as a tax collector, an anathema.” The Church does what Jesus commanded. Only the CC can do that.

 

[fred_conty]

Do I need to remember you if you’re standing here?

David, the reason Jesus said do this in my memory is because He knew He would ascend to heaven as the man of Gallilee which the apostles were accustom to knowing Him. He would be gone from them and so he left Himself in another way so that He would be with them and his followers always. He loved them and wanted to be joined with them in a most intimate way, as close as possible, so that all would be one in His love. Only He could have thought of such a bond of closeness. How wonderful He is to us.

In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthinans he says,“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” So Paul says it is a participation, a taking and being one with Him.​

“…love everyone,especially the brethern.” Saul the murderer, Paul the convert.

 

[DavidY]

Luke 22:31-32**:**
***"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat, ***
but I have prayed that your own faith (singular) may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers."

---

YUP – I’d say that is pretty much cut and dried proof of Peter’s station of primacy over the others.

This could also mean that Peter was weakest at that moment and our Lord noticed it. He did deny that he knew Jesus three times.

But I am willing to accept that Peter was the chief disciple, this is pretty evident in Acts. I’m just not convinced that this means that anyone Peter nominates is equal to Peter, and so forth. Apostolic succession is more of a sticking point, frankly.

More importantly, does this mean that Peter’s word (and anyone who succeeds Peter) cannot be questioned? Not according to Paul in Galatians 2. Peter was teaching wrong doctrine. How did Paul know? The Spirit had guided him to that truth.

It seems that RC’s are eager to equate ‘truth,’ ‘leadings of the Spirit’ and ‘whatever the church teaches under Peter’ and I just don’t see how that’s reasonable.

---

It’s not only “quite possible” that you misunderstand – you ABSOLUTELY do.

Catholics don’t claim to be OF Peter. These were factions that Paul was talking about. Catholics rightly claim to be of the Church Jesus built upon** Peter (Matt. 16:16-19).**

---

**It is the various ****Protestant **sects that claim to be of others (Calvinists, Arminianists, Lutherans. etc). NONE of these ecclesial communities were built by Christ – not ONE.

---

As for Paul – as great an Apostle as he was – ne was NEVER given the keys to the Kingdom (Matt. 16:18-10), nor was he singles out by Jesus to strengthen and straighten out the other Apostles – at ANY time.

Sure – for somebody who can’t – or won’t understand because of spiritual pride.
The parable of the Vine and the Branches talks about remaining in faith and ENDURING to the end. Interesting how you* fail* to see the correlation with other verses in Scripture about works and cooperating with God’s grace (Romans 8:28, 1 Cor. 6:1) - as opposed to resisting it (Acts 7:51).

And how do you separate yourself from other churches that Jesus Christ (supposedly) built? By claiming Peter, a faction. I really don’t see the difference. I mean, Paul mentions ‘Cephas’ by NAME in that passage. I am not the one who is blind.

Works are a demonstration of faith, not a means to justification. Remaining in faith has nothing to do with justification by faith vs works, it has to do with eternal security, on which I’m not convinced of the Protestant view. I think Catholics have that part right.

In essence, here is my view of justification, and I think the Scriptures back it:

Faith = Justification + Works

Here is the Catholic view:

Faith + Works = Justification

It’s a fine distinction, but an important one.

 

[DavidY]

Correct. Jesus Himself said,“if he doesnt listen to the Church, treat him as a tax collector, an anathema.” The Church does what Jesus commanded. Only the CC can do that.

Oh I agree there’s a scriptural backing for such a thing. Of course, in this scripture we were discussing a brother who sins against you.

Not who misunderstands what bread is.

 

[DavidY]

David, the reason Jesus said do this in my memory is because He knew He would ascend to heaven as the man of Gallilee which the apostles were accustom to knowing Him. He would be gone from them and so he left Himself in another way so that He would be with them and his followers always. He loved them and wanted to be joined with them in a most intimate way, as close as possible, so that all would be one in His love. Only He could have thought of such a bond of closeness. How wonderful He is to us.

In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthinans he says,“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” So Paul says it is a participation, a taking and being one with Him.​

“…love everyone,especially the brethern.” Saul the murderer, Paul the convert.

I agree that He is wonderful in His love. And I believe He is intimate with us in our spirits and hearts.

And I agree with your interpretation of participating in His body, His sacrifice. It’s crossing the line to literal body from symbolic body. First of all, it’s not a huge distinction, I don’t think.

Secondly, all doctrinal and scriptural disagreements aside for moment, I just recoil from the ‘intimacy’ experienced in crushing our Lord’s body between my teeth and then dropping Him into a pit of hydrochloric acid. Sorry for being so vivid, it’s just that I’d rather allow the bread and wine to SYMBOLIZE His sacrifice, His body and blood.

To ‘symbolize’ is to represent something that is not physically present (as determined by the senses).
To be present in a transubstantial manner is to represent something that is not physically present (as determined by the senses).

Is this really a point of division? Read the writings of Catholic theologian Edwards Schillebeeckx, active in Vatican II.

books.google.com/books?id=3eF6fCIWHGoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edward+Schillebeeckx+and+the+eucharist&source=bl&ots=iNLSy_ckmS&sig=lF841EmcY3pTTXhSU1lkzOgityM&hl=en&ei=G0KCTeCsIOmT0QH3_vnCCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=transubstantiation&f=false

Page 53

He addresses the difference between faith in the real presence, and the literal, change in substance, which he thinks was a polemical move against Luther by the Council of Trent.

If only the Church could change it’s mind, but alas, we may have solidified division.

 

[DavidY]

Sorry, brother, no disrespect intended. Sometimes I get carried away in my urge to simplify and unite. And I did not intend to be mocking, only to get down to what we are really discussing here.

Paul flagrantly and openly disputed the authority of Peter. Did he sin?

 

[Radical]

My understanding is that the following verses occur prior bread of life discourse

Mat16: 19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to [his] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

John6:11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

Not so sure you can confidently say that “…no one …could of possibly…” given above.

I am not sure how you think that the earlier events would predispose the audience to understanding that a ritual was being foretold…sharing a meal was a very common thing within the culture. Ritualistic meals were very common within that culture…but then laws and covenants and religious groups were also very common. B/c of that are we to assume that based on a few ambiguous words the audience could grasp that 1) a new (not already existing) ritual was to be initiated 2) a new covenant would be made and 3) a new religious group (the Chruch) would be established. The gospels repeatedly tell of how the disciples (who enjoyed the greatest exposure to Christ’s techings and who benefited from revelations from the Father) didn’t understand and grasp much clearer/simpler teachings…and yet I am to think that some in the audience somehow exceeded the disciples and understood that a future ritual was being discussed?.

I would say the words in John 6:52 illustrate that the Jews (who had the OT types fresh in mind) understood a future “ritual”.

on what basis? They ask “how can?” and not “by what new ritual?” .

 

[rinnie]

Sorry, brother, no disrespect intended. Sometimes I get carried away in my urge to simplify and unite. And I did not intend to be mocking, only to get down to what we are really discussing here.

Paul flagrantly and openly disputed the authority of Peter. Did he sin?

Huh?? Where are you seeing that Paul ever disputed the AUTHORITY of Peter? We must be reading a different gospel or something

According to the scripture that I have Paul is calling Peter on his actions, not his authority. Where does scripture or the Church ever teach that any Pope is going to be perfect in his actions?

Now, back to the point, what Doctrine on you saying that Peter taught wrong? Are you saying that Peter was saying that his actions were Doctrine??

 

[DavidY]

Huh?? Where are you seeing that Paul ever disputed the AUTHORITY of Peter? We must be reading a different gospel or something

According to the scripture that I have Paul is calling Peter on his actions, not his authority. Where does scripture or the Church ever teach that any Pope is going to be perfect in his actions?

Now, back to the point, what Doctrine on you saying that Peter taught wrong? Are you saying that Peter was saying that his actions were Doctrine??

Well, he was leading other astray, ‘even Barnabas,’ the Scriptures say.

Galatians 2
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Sounds like doctine to me…

 

[wisdomseeker]

Oh I agree there’s a scriptural backing for such a thing. Of course, in this scripture we were discussing a brother who sins against you.

Not who misunderstands what bread is.

Of course we dont expect you to understand what is written. You have not learned from the Church. you have learned from men who are misled themselves and think they know what they are talking about. As for me I want to make sure I learn about God from those who were commanded by Christ to teach all men and not someone who claim authority for themselves from reading the Bible when the Bible says that the Church is the One to teach and not some individual with no authority whatsoever. Ponder on this for a while.

 

[elvisman]

This could also mean that Peter was weakest at that moment and our Lord noticed it. He did deny that he knew Jesus three times.

Now THAT is a stretch! Jesus tells him to strengthen the others because he is the WEAKEST** one??
Convoluted logic, my friend . . .**

But I am willing to accept that Peter was the chief disciple, this is pretty evident in Acts. I’m just not convinced that this means that anyone Peter nominates is equal to Peter, and so forth. Apostolic succession is more of a sticking point, frankly.

More importantly, does this mean that Peter’s word (and anyone who succeeds Peter) cannot be questioned? Not according to Paul in Galatians 2. Peter was teaching wrong doctrine. How did Paul know? The Spirit had guided him to that truth.

It seems that RC’s are eager to equate ‘truth,’ ‘leadings of the Spirit’ and ‘whatever the church teaches under Peter’ and I just don’t see how that’s reasonable.

Again – you are operating under a FALSE understanding of the Papacy. Who told you that the Pope can’t be questioned?? Why do you think there are Councils?

---

And how do you separate yourself from other churches that Jesus Christ (supposedly) built? By claiming Peter, a faction. I really don’t see the difference. I mean, Paul mentions ‘Cephas’ by NAME in that passage. I am not the one who is blind.

This is a*** blatant ***falsehood. Show me ONE place in the Bible where Jesus established more than ONE Church.

Works are a demonstration of faith, not a means to justification. Remaining in faith has nothing to do with justification by faith vs works, it has to do with eternal security, on which I’m not convinced of the Protestant view. I think Catholics have that part right.

NOBODY is saying that we are justified by works – and certainly not by faith alone. It is BOTH – not either/or (James 2:24).

---

In essence, here is my view of justification, and I think the Scriptures back it:

Faith = Justification + Works

Here is the Catholic view:

Faith + Works = Justification

It’s a fine distinction, but an important one.

Yup – it IS an important one. The Protestant view flies in the face of the CONTEXT of the Scriptures, whereas, the Catholic position harmonizes ALL of the Scriptures about faith and works.