# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

And are you an expert who i can trust to know me better than myself? Perhaps you are, but before i trust your analysis of my psyche, i should ask for your credentials. Are these the words of a psychoanalyst with a doctor’s degree in psychotherapy and years of counseling experience?

Soc, even if I was an expert, as I said before, it would make no difference! What makes the C.C. unique is her unique place in history. The C.C. is the church built by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa 33 AD, and if I believe what the holy bible (given to me by the C.C.) - tells me, then I must believe that the Holy Spirit is still guiding the C.C. into all truth, until Jesus returns.

Don’t trust me, for I am no one; trust the church built by Jesus which cannot be vanquished, to which Jesus is the head and Savior! Do not trust my analysis of your psyche, for I am not analysing your psyche, nor do I have the credentials to do so; I am simply “obeying the leaders” of Jesus’ one church, as per sacred scripture. The C.C. built by God should be your only teacher when it comes to all that Jesus taught, and she, as the bride of Christ has 2000 years of counseling experience, but that experience would be for naught without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I said before: to trust Jesus’ established church is to trust the Holy Spirit; do you trust the holy spirit?

 

[joe370]

Don’t believe. Just wonder. I think John 6 is actually the strongest evidence for the Eucharist (however, P7 casts doubt on this, saying that the Apostle John did not even write the gospel that bears his name). The reason i found John 6 most compelling is this: When i discussed the meaning of Jesus’ words in the chapter with my Protestant friends, they all said Jesus was speaking figuratively of believing in Christ. But they could not find another example in Sacred Scripture of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood as a symbol of trusting in who someone is and in what someone did.

The only example i could see–one that Pax brought to my attention–was that of devouring the flesh being a metaphor for vanquishing an enemy in the Old Testament. So i wonder if this idiom–commonly known in Jesus’ time where the rabbis were preaching from the Torah of God vanquishing the Roman occupiers–might have been what Jesus meant. I didn’t get far in the conversation you and i had previously, for the hot-button issue quickly became heated. It’s something i still wonder, but its more a remote possibility in my mind than a likely probability.

**I made the decision to believe instead of wondering, long ago. My days of being a doubting Thomas are over! If you think John 6 is the strongest evidence for the Eucharist then you must be fairly close to making a decision? Do you concede that Jesus would not have waited 2000 years to reveal the truth regarding John 6? If so, then perhaps it’s time to decide whether Jesus was speaking figuratively or literally, and based on your own words, this should be quite easy!

Are you still wondering if “the eating flesh idiom–commonly known in Jesus’ time where the rabbis were preaching from the Torah of God vanquishing the Roman occupiers–might have been what Jesus meant?” If so, again, could you please answer these simple questions:

why doesn’t history reflect this fact?

Why would Jesus wait 2000 years to reveal this truth to you or anyone, for that matter?

Certainly this would have been a disservice to Jesus’ established church for better part of 2000 years, and most importantly, the only 2 churches that can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, would, without a doubt, be guilty of Eucharistic idolatry - correct?

If it’s simply a remote possibility in your mind than a likely probability, then you must be close to believing what the C.C. teaches? **

Sorry for asking more than 1 question, however they are concise.

 

[joe370]

Soc, you said:

“No, i’m not trying to put words in your mouth, Ut! Just wondering if you think the word actual is warranted. It certainly makes the meaning of the passage less likely to be misinterpreted as Jesus speaking figuratively; don’t you think?”

Even if one thinks the word actual is warranted, Jesus did not! He said: “this is my body…and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament…”

Soc, logically speaking, what is in the cup? Arguing that Jesus must be speaking in metaphor, based on the fact that He didn’t use the word actual, seems to me, to be nothing more than an evasive tactic, which I often employed as a former Lutheran. If that supposition is correct then Matthew should have said: …and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my wine of the new testament…

Other than the miraculous nature and mystical aspect of these words, I really don’t understand why this is even a bone of contention to non-Catholics. They have no problem believing that Jesus turned water into wine…

 

[joe370]

Socrates4Jesus;5838872]I think it has something to do with Jesus’ unique teaching style. He was, like Socrates, big on using symbolism (parables are just one example).
I think that this extensive use of figures of speech kept the Apostles guessing–so much so that when Jesus told them He was going to be crucified and rise from the dead, they did not understand what He was saying. The only way i can see that they did not understand Him would be if they thought He was using crucifixion as some kind of metaphor

Jesus said, just before his death:

I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth…

And, as you pointed out, Jesus also said:

“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father…”

I am sure that all Christians regardless of denomination, agree that this occurred on Pentecost:

*“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”
*

All was cleared up on that fateful day, including the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the holy spirit has been guiding Jesus’ one church ever since, and this one church built by God, as opposed to man, has steadfastly taught (since Pentecost) - that the bread and wine are in fact Jesus’ flesh and blood, once consecrated by the priest/bishop If it’s just a symbol, please tell me why Jesus said:

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Shouldn’t this fact really end the confusion, if in fact the holy spirit can be trusted? Or, did the holy spirit (spirit of truth) - fail to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth? If I can’t trust the church built by God, why would I trust a church built by mere men, 1600 years removed from Pentecost?

**The fact that the Apostles said this at the end of His mission on earth apparently indicates that up until this moment they were continuously unsure when He was speaking literally and when He was not. **

Even if that was the case, the crux of the matter is: all was cleared up on Pentecost! Whenever Jesus spoke literally or in metaphor, he always made sure his disciples understood the distinction, even if they didn’t fully grasp the meaning - e.g. John 6. Jesus knew all would be cleared up once the holy spirit descended upon His one fledgling church.

**I suppose that if even the Apostles were confused regarding the literal-or-figurative question, one should not blame Protestants for being confused, too.

**
Surely you must concede that any remaining confusion was cleared up on Pentecost, through the providence of the holy spirit, Who remains with Jesus’ established church until the end of time?

Non-Catholics, regardless of church affiliation, are our brothers and sisters in Christ and the only people worthy of blame, logically speaking, are the ministers/pastors of these man-made churches, teaching something that the church built by God, did not, does not support - not to impugn their work, of course! Any non-Catholic church spreading the news that we are saved by the blood of Christ, is an awesome church! However, these man-made churches simply fall short when it comes to the fullness of faith, in my humble opinion. Even in Paul’s day people were already turning to a different gospel, as was the case through almost every century, but the church built by God was/is impervious to such perversion, according to the holy bible.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ…”

 

[pneuma07]

Their teaching–from what i know of sitting at the feet of some of the best of their teachers for many years–is that the words of the Bible, and the example of the early Church in Acts, is all that is necessary to reveal all the truth they need to guide them. I’d still believe as they do, were it not for you, and other helpful Catholics before you, helping me realize that the Bible is not as clear as Evangelicals indicate.

Funny, isn’t it? So many Catholics at odds with Protestants for so many hundreds of years using the same failed strategy: They try to convince Protestants that the Bible says the opposite of what Protestants think it says. Protestants–thinking Catholics undoubtedly deceived–react with debate, denial, or derision! It’s like the Loony Tunes cartoons where Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck shout, “Duck season!” and “No, rabbit season!” over and over while Elmer Fudd the hunter stands by with his shot gun in hand, waiting to see who will lose the argument so he can pull the trigger! It would be laughable (and i suppose it is from a demonic point of view) were eternal consequences not at stake.

But, if Catholics were spiritually savvy enough to point out the ambiguities of Christ’s words and engage in a discussion about how the meaning might not be as clear as Protestants believe it is–well, it seems to me this strategy is more likely to succeed. At least, it’s working for me–not because anyone pointed out the lack of clarity in Jesus’ words, but because i stumbled upon the idea myself. Or possibly it’s because the Holy Spirit helped me see the ambiguity? Seems an odd way to go about things–the One who is in no way the author of confusion using confusion to bring clarity. But i suppose it was a necessary step for me to take. I had to become unsure of the truth of what i believed before i’d be willing to consider any alternative.

Dear Soc,

     there is much to learn from these words IMHO.

You’re confirming my idea that the Church can have in you a great apologist.

 

[pneuma07]

Another reasonable sounding premise. What’s the next?

We at present concur on nothing less than this

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

*What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

IMHO it is reasonable inferring that Timothy and Titus were to succeed the Apostle as bishops.
And these are individual scriptural cases we can compare with Clement’s witness, which is as near to Scriptures as anything we have, on the general issue of the episcopate as succeeding the Apostles by apostolic decision*

Wow !

In other words it looks like the divine design was

• The Incarnated Logos sent by the Father, which we consider the foundational tenet of Christianity
• The Apostles chosen and sent by the Incarnated Logos to fish and shepherd.
• The bishops of the first generation chosen and sent by the Apostles to fish and shepherd, with the explicit task to guard and spread the deposit of the faith, and the authority to select the following generation to perpetuate their duties.

This is purely and simply the root of what Catholicism calls Apostolic Church, Soc.

Clement, Timothy, Titus, Ignatius and their colleagues were IMHO the legitimate leadership of His Church, and the most reliable source to learn Jesus’ message.

This is why, were we to live around 90-100 AD, I would not follow a smart guy called say Leonidas telling us they preach error and build a wrong church organization. Even if this guy were to show us he is inferring this from his own interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Yes, it would be by my individual judgment, as many an insightful protestant brother could observe, that I’d choose the Apostolic Church’s judgment over Leonidas’ individual judgment.
But I would not weigh my individual judgment against his, as per the “I have the Spirit you have the Spirit” approach. I’d need my individual judgment to weigh Leonidas’ claims and credentials against the Apostolic Church.

Bless you
P7

 

[joe370]

Paul, you said:

**By the Grace of God we are led to the truth and then by our own free will, we can either accept it or not. Once you have the truth, you should embrace it with all your strength, all your soul, all your mind and all your heart…
**

You are so right! It took me far too long to accept this grace of God. What it really comes down to is finding the one church built by God, in Jerusalem, almost 2000 years ago, as opposed to man 500 years ago, and believing that God gave His one church, starting on Pentecost, a body of leaders in His stead, who were/are guided by the holy spirit in perpetuity, to which the rest of us our to obey, as per sacred scripture:

*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” * Hebrews 13:17

The question that non-Catholics refuse to answer, at least in my experience, is: If the C.C. is the church built by God circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem on Pentecost, as opposed to the many churches built by man, 500 years ago, in the various places the world over, then why wouldn’t all Christians strive to belong to the C.C., once this fact is a reality?

 

[joe370]

We at present concur on nothing less than this

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

IMHO it is reasonable inferring that Timothy and Titus were to succeed the Apostle as bishops.
And these are individual scriptural cases we can compare with Clement’s witness, which is as near to Scriptures as anything we have, on the general issue of the episcopate as succeeding the Apostles by apostolic decision

Wow !

In other words it looks like the divine design was

• The Incarnated Logos sent by the Father, which we consider the foundational tenet of Christianity
• The Apostles chosen and sent by the Incarnated Logos to fish and shepherd.
• The bishops of the first generation chosen and sent by the Apostles to fish and shepherd, with the explicit task to guard and spread the deposit of the faith, and the authority to select the following generation to perpetuate their duties.

This is purely and simply the root of what Catholicism calls Apostolic Church, Soc.

Clement, Timothy, Titus, Ignatius and their colleagues were IMHO the legitimate leadership of His Church, and the most reliable source to learn Jesus’ message.

This is why, were we to live around 90-100 AD, I would not follow a smart guy called say Leonidas telling us they preach error and build a wrong church organization. Even if this guy were to show us he is inferring this from his own interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Yes, it would be by my individual judgment, as many an insightful protestant brother could observe, that I’d choose the Apostolic Church’s judgment over Leonidas’ individual judgment.
But I would not weigh my individual judgment against his, as per the “I have the Spirit you have the Spirit” approach. I’d need my individual judgment to weigh Leonidas’ claims and credentials against the Apostolic Church.

Pneuma07, excellent summation! If I were in Soc’s shoes (which I was, once upon a time) - you and Paul and all the others, would have definitely convinced me that the C.C. is where I belong! It would have made by swim of the Tiber considerably easier.

 

[joe370]

**Pneuma07, excellent summation! If I were in Soc’s shoes (which I was, once upon a time) - you and Paul and all the others, would have definitely convinced me that the C.C. is where I belong! It would have made by swim of the Tiber considerably easier.

**

We at present concur on nothing less than this

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

IMHO it is reasonable inferring that Timothy and Titus were to succeed the Apostle as bishops.
And these are individual scriptural cases we can compare with Clement’s witness, which is as near to Scriptures as anything we have, on the general issue of the episcopate as succeeding the Apostles by apostolic decision

Wow !

In other words it looks like the divine design was

• The Incarnated Logos sent by the Father, which we consider the foundational tenet of Christianity
• The Apostles chosen and sent by the Incarnated Logos to fish and shepherd.
• The bishops of the first generation chosen and sent by the Apostles to fish and shepherd, with the explicit task to guard and spread the deposit of the faith, and the authority to select the following generation to perpetuate their duties.

This is purely and simply the root of what Catholicism calls Apostolic Church, Soc.

Clement, Timothy, Titus, Ignatius and their colleagues were IMHO the legitimate leadership of His Church, and the most reliable source to learn Jesus’ message.

This is why, were we to live around 90-100 AD, I would not follow a smart guy called say Leonidas telling us they preach error and build a wrong church organization. Even if this guy were to show us he is inferring this from his own interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Yes, it would be by my individual judgment, as many an insightful protestant brother could observe, that I’d choose the Apostolic Church’s judgment over Leonidas’ individual judgment.
But I would not weigh my individual judgment against his, as per the “I have the Spirit you have the Spirit” approach. I’d need my individual judgment to weigh Leonidas’ claims and credentials against the Apostolic Church.

 

[pneuma07]

**Pneuma07, excellent summation! If I were in Soc’s shoes (which I was, once upon a time) - you and Paul and all the others, would have definitely convinced me that the C.C. is where I belong!
It would have made by swim of the Tiber considerably easier.

.**

HI Joe !

Thanks for expressing this appreciation towards my contributions.

I never crossed the Tiber.
Metaphorically, I mean. Literally, I crossed that river
many and many times, but never swimming, always by means of a bridge.

 

[hamilte3]

He is as clear as he can be without taking away our human will. Simplicity sometimes is the most difficult to grasp because we are already complicated. Part of the veil that will lift when we go to heaven I think is this complexity we made for ourselves. Complexity due to the darkening of the mind and any desire or slightest propensity to sin or misplaced desire for anything but God. I think Jesus came to give us information but also move our hearts and invite us. Otherwise the light would destroy us, I think.

Ed

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

He is as clear as he can be without taking away our human will. Simplicity sometimes is the most difficult to grasp because we are already complicated. Part of the veil that will lift when we go to heaven I think is this complexity we made for ourselves. Complexity due to the darkening of the mind and any desire or slightest propensity to sin or misplaced desire for anything but God. I think Jesus came to give us information but also move our hearts and invite us. Otherwise the light would destroy us, I think.

Ed

Interesting. Are you saying, Ham3, that if Jesus was clearer, we’d no longer be free to choose to believe?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

To be fair, I wrote that psychoanalysis of you, not Joe. And no, I am not a registered psychologist so feel free to ignore it. However, I do recommend that you reflect on the courtroom drama thath you devised and think about how it reflects outwardly to us. You might find it very instructive. Sometimes, we don’t see ourselves very clearly at all…

Ooops! Sorry joe!



Yes, Paul, i somehow clicked the button for the wrong post and did not notice.

And perhaps you are correct in thinking there was something subconscious going on with my depiction of the Protestant Prosecutor. Don’t know, for certain. I’ve found hostility and respect on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant battlefield. I suppose the Protestant Prosecutor is a caricature of only some people at their worst. But, like Jesus’ parables, maybe it’s easy to misinterpret my intentions by reading too much in to the fictional drama.

Rather than make incorrect assumptions about my personal life, why not ask me? The worse i could do is tell you to mind your own business.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’ve been reading a history of the church over the last couple of weeks, and I can tell you withouth a doubt that there have been controversies that have wracked the church throughout the centuries over doctrinal issues that seem clear to you.

The words actual does not indicate what that happens to the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. You would still have issues over that. Transubstantiation over consubstantiation would be open, even with the words actual inserted into the text. Symbolic interpretations would be far less likely, however. I’ll agree with that. But you see how the rabit hole continues even with this clarification.

God bless,
Ut

Yes i see what you mean, Ut; and thank you for agreeing not to disagree with me! But i cannot help but wonder if anyone can ever be *too *clear. It seems to me that clarity is to truth what giving is to love: To express the truth, one can never give too much clarity. To express love, one can never give too much charity. Don’t you think?



So, yes, i’m glad you agree that Jesus *could *have been clearer if He *wanted *to be–if not for the sake of the Apostles (who might have understood exactly what He meant) then for the sake of people like me. The big question, then (and i mean BIG question) is why? Why sacrifice truth by being unclear? It seems to me that Jesus must have had a good reason for not being as clear as He could have been. But what in His name could that reason be? That’s really what this discussion thread is about–finding the answer to *that *question. Were i to find that answer before the two thousandth post, i’d be satisfied.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, even if I was an expert, as I said before, it would make no difference! What makes the C.C. unique is her unique place in history. The C.C. is the church built by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa 33 AD, and if I believe what the holy bible (given to me by the C.C.) - tells me, then I must believe that the Holy Spirit is still guiding the C.C. into all truth, until Jesus returns.

Don’t trust me, for I am no one; trust the church built by Jesus which cannot be vanquished, to which Jesus is the head and Savior! Do not trust my analysis of your psyche, for I am not analysing your psyche, nor do I have the credentials to do so; I am simply “obeying the leaders” of Jesus’ one church, as per sacred scripture. The C.C. built by God should be your only teacher when it comes to all that Jesus taught, and she, as the bride of Christ has 2000 years of counseling experience, but that experience would be for naught without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I said before: to trust Jesus’ established church is to trust the Holy Spirit; do you trust the holy spirit?

Ooops! Sorry. That post was meant for my psychoanalytical friend, PC.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… All was cleared up on that fateful day, including the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the holy spirit has been guiding Jesus’ one church ever since, and this one church built by God, as opposed to man, has steadfastly taught (since Pentecost) - that the bread and wine are in fact Jesus’ flesh and blood, once consecrated by the priest/bishop If it’s just a symbol, please tell me why Jesus said:

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

…

A virtual Protestant friend of mine–who said he has several good friends who are Catholic and had a great deal of respect for them–told me that the real food of which Christ spoke was spiritual (not physical) food. The spiritual is a realer reality than the merely physical, he said. How would you answer him, Joe?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

     there is much to learn from these words IMHO.

You’re confirming my idea that the Church can have in you a great apologist.

Great? Not sure about that! Willing? Yes, once i know that She teaches the Truth.

 

[paul_c]

Ooops! Sorry joe!



Yes, Paul, i somehow clicked the button for the wrong post and did not notice.

And perhaps you are correct in thinking there was something subconscious going on with my depiction of the Protestant Prosecutor. Don’t know, for certain. I’ve found hostility and respect on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant battlefield. I suppose the Protestant Prosecutor is a caricature of only some people at their worst. But, like Jesus’ parables, maybe it’s easy to misinterpret my intentions by reading too much in to the fictional drama.

Rather than make incorrect assumptions about my personal life, why not ask me? The worse i could do is tell you to mind your own business.

Fari enough. Do you feel like you are under pressure by your Protestant friends and family because you are considering converting to Catholicism?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

We at present concur on nothing less than this

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

*What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

IMHO it is reasonable inferring that Timothy and Titus were to succeed the Apostle as bishops.
And these are individual scriptural cases we can compare with Clement’s witness, which is as near to Scriptures as anything we have, on the general issue of the episcopate as succeeding the Apostles by apostolic decision*

Wow !

In other words it looks like the divine design was

• The Incarnated Logos sent by the Father, which we consider the foundational tenet of Christianity
• The Apostles chosen and sent by the Incarnated Logos to fish and shepherd.
• The bishops of the first generation chosen and sent by the Apostles to fish and shepherd, with the explicit task to guard and spread the deposit of the faith, and the authority to select the following generation to perpetuate their duties.

This is purely and simply the root of what Catholicism calls Apostolic Church, Soc.

Clement, Timothy, Titus, Ignatius and their colleagues were IMHO the legitimate leadership of His Church, and the most reliable source to learn Jesus’ message.

This is why, were we to live around 90-100 AD, I would not follow a smart guy called say Leonidas telling us they preach error and build a wrong church organization. Even if this guy were to show us he is inferring this from his own interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Yes, it would be by my individual judgment, as many an insightful protestant brother could observe, that I’d choose the Apostolic Church’s judgment over Leonidas’ individual judgment.
But I would not weigh my individual judgment against his, as per the “I have the Spirit you have the Spirit” approach. I’d need my individual judgment to weigh Leonidas’ claims and credentials against the Apostolic Church.

Bless you
P7

Sounds reasonable to me. But there is still the great oak blocking the road to the river: Protestants suggest that the Successors of Peter lost their way, and lost the truth. Having become so deceived, the Holy Spirit had no choice but to preserve the remnant of the Church by way of the Protestant Reformers. I understand you disagree (and perhaps you’ve already told me why, but i’ve forgotten), but please tell me why you disagree with them.

 

[joe370]

A virtual Protestant friend of mine–who said he has several good friends who are Catholic and had a great deal of respect for them–told me that the real food of which Christ spoke was spiritual (not physical) food. The spiritual is a realer reality than the merely physical, he said. How would you answer him, Joe?

What is a "virtual protestant? I would agree with him! Jesus said:

*“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” *

I would then proceed to ask him: How do you go about eating this spiritual food? According to sacred scripture we are to eat it, in the form of bread and wine. I would then ask him to read Matthew 26:

*"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” *

And then I would ask him: what is in the cup? Soc, what is in the cup my friend, as per Jesus Christ???