What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[PJM]

=guanophore;13503271]A better shortcut (we all need them!) is Catholicism for Dummies.

READ it thanks,

 

[adrift]

I think it is confusing to a lot of people, especially since so many doctrines were invented during and since the Reformation…

what doctrines were “invented”

 

[PJM]

=Wannano;13504080]Apology accepted PJM.

Regarding me drawing a blank I meant that when I went to his suggested site I saw the title page and then all I had was a blank white page!

I have been full of questions all my life…even have some for Bible characters when I get there!

Thank you, I hope you see my explanation to your question post:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[adrift]

Apology accepted PJM.

Regarding me drawing a blank I meant that when I went to his suggested site I saw the title page and then all I had was a blank white page!

I have been full of questions all my life…even have some for Bible characters when I get there!

Try this link

 

[adrift]

Apology accepted PJM.

Regarding me drawing a blank I meant that when I went to his suggested site I saw the title page and then all I had was a blank white page!

I have been full of questions all my life…even have some for Bible characters when I get there!

Try this link

 

[adrift]

Sorry Patrick, I don’t know where you got the idea that we don’t believe the Bible. What we do*have a problem with is your isolated interpretation
If you want to believe that Peter is the rock rather than Jesus because it serves your agenda, the good for you, but don’t hold it against others.

Actually that Jesus was not speaking of Peter serves your agenda. It strains what Jesus states to say that Jesus changes Simons name to Rock but it really means that Jesus was referring to Himself. There is never any attempt to by those who hold this strange interpretation to explain the name change. When names are changed in Scripture it is momentous. Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel Simon to Peter. Jesus says more Jesus gives Peter the Keys to Heaven.

We also believe there is one church, but that church is the Mystical Body of Christ and not an earthly organization. When St.Paul is speaking of the earthly organizations, he uses “churches” ,plural, as in 1Thes. 2:14, " For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God…", not the one single Church of Rome. (and 19 other verses in Paul’s letters).
When Luke and Mark recall the scene they do not include the verse about the rock and Peter, presumably because it is not of prime importance.

Your presumption is unwarranted. Matthew states it therefore there is the importance. It is like saying that the Miracle at Canna was not important because no other Gospel contains it.

We do not accept that the communion bread becomes a physical body through an on demand instant miracle. The Catholic priest says “may this bread and wine become…” Jesus did not use the word “become”, so it is not the same. Also, i would ask, what benefit would a physical relationship with Christ be? We need to be strengthened in spirit, not in the flesh.

And yes we believe there is only one gospel as St. Paul presented it.

Shalom,

Jerry

Mass is not bare bones, that is only what Jesus said. There are many prayers and the one you are referring to but not quite correct is a prayer

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life.

What you do not acknowledge is that the priest quotes directly scripture…

On the day before he was to suffer he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

So it is the same.

 

[Peter_J]

Regarding me drawing a blank I meant that when I went to his suggested site I saw the title page and then all I had was a blank white page!

It works on my computer, but I don’t know how you can get it to work on yours. I suppose you could try a different browser.

 

[Wannano]

It works on my computer, but I don’t know how you can get it to work on yours. I suppose you could try a different browser.

Will try that tomorrow, thanks.

 

[adrift]

Try this link

It works on my computer, but I don’t know how you can get it to work on yours. I suppose you could try a different browser.

Will try that tomorrow, thanks.

It works on mine to but I find the link that I provided easier to use.

 

[benhur]

Yes of course baptism remits sins, but Jesus was not talking about baptism when he gave them the authority to forgive sins.

hi g,

That is the crux of the matter, what was meant by that commission of loose/remit sins ? For sure it may be another way of looking at the other commission of baptizing,of preaching the gospel, for that remits(shake their dust off your sandals) or looses sins. Now can the same be said that the former commission means holding confessional rites?

 

[benhur]

Oh dear. Though your etymological observations are correct, I would not agree that there is no historical precedence for the intercession of the Saints. Instead of arguing the origins of individual practices and traditions, its much more constructive to establish an authentic and historically honest ecclesiology, to which one may fall on either side of the east/west divide. Therein lies the root of the contention those in the heterodox sects of Protestantism have with the unfamiliar traditions and practices of both the Roman Catholic, as well as the Orthodox Church. If you can solve the issue of which Church makes the most tenable claims regarding continuity and historical connectedness to the Apostolic deposit of Faith, than all these supposed bones of contention disolve into oblivion. In other words, which “Church” is THE Church, and who can prove it realistically, without playing mental gymnastics with revisionistic, out of context proof texting. Ergo why I am no longer a Protestant, (or Roman Catholic for that matter). I write this with a gentle demeanor, and a charitable tone.

Hi s,

Oh for sure there is historical evidence for intercession of the saints. Never implied there wasn’t. What I said was veneration was more solidly founded in the earliest church, than intercession or praying to. In fact not sure there is any evidence of praying to departed saints in biblical accounts,or in first generation of saints (that is “earliest " church). Not sure when we have first evidence of such a thing, by 100 AD ?(don’t think it was 35 or 50 or even 75 AD). Again, I said the practice"evolved”, according to the evidence that I see and understand.

Blessings, and thanks for the gentle and charitable tone

 

[benhur]

I’m not sure I can agree with you. After all, doesn’t your thinking imply that there was no forgiveness at all in the Old Testament?

No, not anymore than the Abrham covenant implied it over the Adamic covenant or the Mosaic over the Abraham or the Davidic over the Mosaic. One needs to obey the latest, current covenant however. There has been forgiveness of sins since day one in the garden, with the first shedding of blood, foreshadowing the promise of the Lamd of God for all ages.

Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

Actually that Jesus was not speaking of Peter serves your agenda. It strains what Jesus states to say that Jesus changes Simons name to Rock but it really means that Jesus was referring to Himself. There is never any attempt to by those who hold this strange interpretation to explain the name change. When names are changed in Scripture it is momentous. Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel Simon to Peter. Jesus says more Jesus gives Peter the Keys to Heaven.

Your presumption is unwarranted. Matthew states it therefore there is the importance. It is like saying that the Miracle at Canna was not important because no other Gospel contains it.

Mass is not bare bones, that is only what Jesus said. There are many prayers and the one you are referring to but not quite correct is a prayer

What you do not acknowledge is that the priest quotes directly scripture…

So it is the same.

Yes, I’m aware that scripture is quoted but the key is the action that results from the interpretation of it. Jesus said to do this to remember Him, not to make His physical body present again. He already promised that He would never leave us or forsake us.(Heb.13:5) Paul said that we are the temple of God.
When Jesus said that the bread is His body He is speaking in the context of a Passover celebration. Traditionally, the elder will take the bread and break it. (Jesus dies) Then he puts it in a little sack and hides it (Jesus is buried) And then it is found again(Jesus resurrected).
Jesus is saying that now He is the Passover and the fulfillment of it. (1Cor.5:7) Our part is to remember Him and to show forth His death until He comes.
I can quote scripture all day long, but you won’t necessarily agree about what it means.

 

[adrift]

Yes, I’m aware that scripture is quoted but the key is the action that results from the interpretation of it. Jesus said to do this to remember Him, not to make His physical body present again. He already promised that He would never leave us or forsake us.(Heb.13:5) Paul said that we are the temple of God.
When Jesus said that the bread is His body He is speaking in the context of a Passover celebration. Traditionally, the elder will take the bread and break it. (Jesus dies) Then he puts it in a little sack and hides it (Jesus is buried) And then it is found again(Jesus resurrected).
Jesus is saying that now He is the Passover and the fulfillment of it. (1Cor.5:7) Our part is to remember Him and to show forth His death until He comes.
I can quote scripture all day long, but you won’t necessarily agree about what it means.

Jesus in John 6 states that

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink

They walked away from Him because it was to hard a saying. They could not understand how. How is revealed at the Last Supper. What did Jesus say at the Last Supper?

“Take and eat; this is my body.” …Drink from it, all of you,

28

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Yes Jesus did say to do as He did make His physical body present again in remembrance of the sacrifice of the cross. It wasn’t just a remembrance of Him but of His sacrifice. What Jesus didn’t say was that it represented His Body and Blood. What He did say was that this IS His Body and Blood.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, I’m aware that scripture is quoted but the key is the action that results from the interpretation of it. Jesus said to do this to remember Him, not to make His physical body present again. He already promised that He would never leave us or forsake us.(Heb.13:5) Paul said that we are the temple of God.
When Jesus said that the bread is His body He is speaking in the context of a Passover celebration.** Traditionally, the elder will take the bread and break it. (Jesus dies) Then he puts it in a little sack and hides it (Jesus is buried) And then it is found again(Jesus resurrected). **
Jesus is saying that now He is the Passover and the fulfillment of it. (1Cor.5:7) Our part is to remember Him and to show forth His death until He comes.
I can quote scripture all day long, but you won’t necessarily agree about what it means.

Hi,
You know me, but I must say, it DOES seem to say in John 6 that it’s literal. Some disciples walked away because the teaching didn’t make sense to them, and Jesus let them go. He didn’t stop them and say, Wait, I meant it in a symbolic way. I just can’t see the protestant view at all on this.

If you have anything to add, I’d appreciate it. I’ve never heard of the above highlighted. Could you expound? Many things He said were symbolic, but this doesn’t seem like one of them tome.

Thanks.
Fran

 

[Peter_J]

It works on mine to but I find the link that I provided easier to use.

I don’t dispute that, but I think wannano is interested in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults as well as the CCC.

 

[adrift]

I don’t dispute that, but I think wannano is interested in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults as well as the CCC.

What is the. Difference?

 

[guanophore]

**By way of apology to POSTERS guanophore & Wannano; who suffered because of my lack of Due diligence in recommending a non-Catholic site:blush:
.
Please accept my sincere apologies.
** God Bless you,
Patrick

I commend your research and diligence in this post, as well as in others. You clearly work very hard on your apologetics and I know many members have found them helpful. Keep up the good work.

 

[eazyduzit]

Hi,
You know me, but I must say, it DOES seem to say in John 6 that it’s literal. Some disciples walked away because the teaching didn’t make sense to them, and Jesus let them go. He didn’t stop them and say, Wait, I meant it in a symbolic way. I just can’t see the protestant view at all on this.

If you have anything to add, I’d appreciate it. I’ve never heard of the above highlighted. Could you expound? Many things He said were symbolic, but this doesn’t seem like one of them tome.

Thanks.
Fran

But He did give the explanation in v.63- “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”

The reason many gave up in v.66 was because of the saying in the previous verse (65) and first stated in v.44.

John 6 is not about the “Last Supper”.

Shalom

Jerry

 

[frangiuliano115]

But He did give the explanation in v.63- “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”

The reason many gave up in v.66 was because of the saying in the previous verse (65) and first stated in v.44.

John 6 is not about the “Last Supper”.

Shalom

Jerry

Thanks Jerry.

Pace in Cristo
Fran