You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What are the reasons I should (or shouldn't) become Catholic?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
HailMary
Guest
He was speaking Sacramentally, not carnally, as you would charge the Church with. Under the eyes of faith, again, you can see this, but not without.AGAIN, why didn’t they rush HIM for a piece of eternal life??
H
HailMary
Guest
and the Lord Jesus said:I do friend! are you suggesting I am something less than a true follower of my LORD and Savior, Jesus the Christ?
“For my flesh is TRUE food, and my blood is TRUE drink”, seriously, I have asked this before but gotten NO response, even though you deny that Jesus is TRULY present Sacramentally, under the species of Bread and Wine, WHAT WOULD JESUS HAVE TO HAVE SAID TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE OTHER WISE?Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
I honestly think you will come up with something like,
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Please explain…because when you hold it against chapter 9 or 11 of Hebrews it sounds like some serious contradiction…He was speaking Sacramentally, not carnally, as you would charge the Church with. Under the eyes of faith, again, you can see this, but not without.
He was literal about true flesh, but didn’t mean His true flesh but a pc of bread that was actually His true flesh??? So they couldn’t eat His flesh that day and Hebrews says priest trying daily to offer sacrifice acquire nothing (my words, i’ll locate this text shortly) But He did mean his true flesh for a later time…
Sure are getting an awful lot more out of that text than is there.
H
HailMary
Guest
You read the NewAdvent.org link, you should be an expert in this subject.Please explain…because when you hold it against chapter 9 or 11 of Hebrews it sounds like some serious contradiction…
He was literal about true flesh, but didn’t mean His true flesh but a pc of bread that was actually His true flesh??? So they couldn’t eat His flesh that day and Hebrews says priest trying daily to offer sacrifice acquire nothing (my words, i’ll locate this text shortly) But He did mean his true flesh for a later time…
Sure are getting an awful lot more out of that text than is there.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
**Sacrifice offered once **
“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (Heb. 7:26-27).
“So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him” (Heb. 9:28).
“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:10-11).
Sacrifice repetition of no value
“For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near” (Heb. 10:1).
“And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11).
“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (Heb. 7:26-27).
“So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him” (Heb. 9:28).
“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:10-11).
Sacrifice repetition of no value
“For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near” (Heb. 10:1).
“And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11).
T
TOP
Guest
I’m stating that “you” are just words on a screen and have no credibility or authority.I do friend! are you suggesting I am something less than a true follower of my LORD and Savior, Jesus the Christ?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
**You read the NewAdvent.org link, you should be an expert in this subject.
This doesn’t tell us why the crowd doesn’t rush Jesus and get a pc and a sip of eternal life**… IF! He was speaking literal.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
one of the problems i see in the reasons to become a member of the RCC is that all of them can happen in any of the eastern orthodox churches as well. they all trace their lineage back to the apostles (thus to Christ). they all have sacraments. so why the Roman Catholic Church. Peter founded the church in Antioch before he founded the church in Rome. he founded the church in Jerusalem before that. why not one of those? it’s political not spiritual that Rome grew to pre-eminence among the other churches. i will admit that it did grow to pre-eminence for sure, but was that how it was intended to be? no one can say for sure. were we all supposed to agree on absolutely everything? i don’t think so given the biblical examples. i think there needs to be an element of submission to a council made up of all the churches, but even those were never guaranteed infallibility. we are to be in communion with each other, love each other, work with each other, worship God, and love those outside the faith. not get caught up in things that separate us.
M
mercygate
Guest
There is only one reason to become Catholic: Because the Catholic faith is True.I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.
There is only one Cause by which to become Catholic: The Grace of God bidding you come to Him in His Church and on His terms.
If you want Jesus Christ, and *all *of Him, then come to the Catholic Church. If you are content with his left elbow, his big toe, or a kneecap, then embrace one of the thousands of denominations that serve him up in pieces on a platter of their own devising.
God love you.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Do I claim any authority?I’m stating that “you” are just words on a screen and have no credibility or authority.
I’m simply sharing what my LORD has done in my life.
WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL THINGS…PRAISE THE LORD!!!
H
HailMary
Guest
Because He was speaking of the Eucharist. Plus, the only reason you keep insisting on this point is because you have no defense. Jesus would never speak figuratively then say, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”**
This doesn’t tell us why the crowd doesn’t rush Jesus and get a pc and a sip of eternal life**… IF! He was speaking literal.
Try dealing with reality my friend.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Try answering, why if some were turned away cause the were turned off by the statement and some stayed, if those who stayed really believed it literally meaning HIS flesh and blood why wasn’t he attacked…Simple they where His sheep that understood this was figurative…Nothing in this chapter says He was speaking of a future sacrement, where do you get that?Because He was speaking of the Eucharist. Plus, the only reason you keep insisting on this point is because you have no defense. Jesus would never speak figuratively then say, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
Try dealing with reality my friend.
H
HailMary
Guest
Simply put, only a fool would have attacked the Lord.Try answering, why if some were turned away cause the were turned off by the statement and some stayed, if those who stayed really believed it literally meaning HIS flesh and blood why wasn’t he attacked.
You stick to your interpretation, because you are your own church, pope, and bishop and I’ll stick to what the Church has always taught. A teaching that pre-dates the existence of your own founder, Luther, and his followers
One of us is wrong, and one of us is right. You’ve picked your camp (16th century and forward) and I’ve picked mine (1st century and forward).
Let me continue on with your with your little game that you believe Jesus to be speaking figuratively. Note, I already asked you why Jesus said,
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
and no response, since you can’t reason your way out of it (because its so obvious!)
Next, I ask, IF Jesus was TRULY speaking figuratively, why did those guys leave? Was it because they realllly wanted to eat Jesus? And why didn’t Jesus simply correct their misunderstanding? I’ll answer it for you: He didn’t because they understood Him perfectly
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Yes and only a fool would turn their back on Him and only a fool would disobey Him, yet the nature of the fallen man is to do precisely that…Right? Your answer is a cop out.Simply put, only a fool would have attacked the Lord.
I don’t need a “Vicar” my LORD is with me always, and His teaching predates the world!You stick to your interpretation, because you are your own church, pope, and bishop and I’ll stick to what the Church has always taught. A teaching that pre-dates the existence of your own founder, Luther, and his followers
MINE…1 A.D.One of us is wrong, and one of us is right. You’ve picked your camp (16th century and forward) and I’ve picked mine (1st century and forward).
yours…Pope Gregory the great! 6th or 7th century.
Still waiting for you to give me an answer that is not a cop out!Let me continue on with your with your little game that you believe Jesus to be speaking figuratively. Note, I already asked you why Jesus said,
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
and no response, since you can’t reason your way out of it (because its so obvious!)
H
HailMary
Guest
This is testimony of your understanding of history. You think you are right, so be it.yours…Pope Gregory the great! 6th or 7th century.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
That was truly a tongue in cheek, though he was the first to make full claim of primacy if my history memory serves me correctly.This is testimony of your understanding of history. You think you are right, so be it.
And you’ll certainly find no proof before Irenaeus, unlike what Rome claims.
H
HailMary
Guest
There doesn’t need to be a “full claim of primacy” in order for it to be there. Are you also going to say that we didn’t believe in the Assumption of Mary until it was declared a dogma too?That was truly a tongue in cheek, though he was the first to make full claim of primacy if my history memory serves me correctly.
And you’ll certainly find no proof before Irenaeus, unlike what Rome claims.
You want your primacy, go read Matthew 16:18.
try also:
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
But anyways, I find your logic poor and continuing to have this discussion is a waste of time.
PE@CE
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Check out the Eastern Christian Forum for the Answer.I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.
E
Erich
Guest
From scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.