There are a multiple things being discussed here as it is rather a wide field to ask what you find strange about the Catholic Faith.
A wise man said once, ‘anything said before the word ‘but’ is a lie’, as your post demonstrates. And the smiley at the end doesn’t soften the slap.What I find a bit strange is how broken Roman Catholics are in the way they practice their faith. Now,** I do not mean to offend but **I attended the Catholic mass many times in my life and found that every time that I went, people were always trying to put on a big show; the fancy suits, the fancy shoes, and do not get me started on the womens’ perfume!
I think you are very correct, like benhur, when you assimilate eating His Eucharist bread and wine with accepting/receiving His Words and Life. But the Sacrament, which He was foretelling, has the fullness of His Life, Death, and Resurrection bound to it because it’s no longer considered “it” after the Priestly prayers are made over it. Rather it is the Spiritual gift of the person of Jesus, who is the Lamb of God.
But Mary was supposed to be already without sin in preparation for Jesus - how could she say no to God?Whathave you been following the post of frangiuliano115? It is her argument that Mary could not say no which denies her free will. Do you believe that God forced Mary to be Jesus’ mother without the ability to say no my statement is neither inflammatory nor a strawman argument.
Mary never sinned, but she was capable of sin. (Consider Eve who, before the fall, was without sin … but clearly was capable of sin.)
What I believe when it comes to this section of the Bible, is that all denominations of Christianity hold their priests or pastors on a very high pedestal. For example, I have never personally agreed with the obligation to confess ‘Mortal Sins’ to priests, or the infallibility of the Pope. I see confession to priests as a beautiful practice indeed but very unnecessary for salvation. As scripture tells us, we may confess our sins to God the Father in Heaven. As for the Pope, if Peter truly was the first Pope, we see in scripture that he as certainly not infallible when speaking the word of God. Jesus had to show him the way on a several occasions. I see us all as a Communion of Priests, what I mean by this is that we should not be ashamed of our sin or hide it away, we should be open with our friends and families about our struggles and work together to do away with as much evil as we can in this world. I do not think Jesus literally meant we are to confess our sins to a specific human being, we should be proud of our struggles and be honest with our selves and others about our faults.Not where I attend. Everyone dresses as if they are going to the flea market
Where is that exception? I don’t recall scripture like that. What do you call those who have taught you?
Call no Man Father
God Bless to you as well
“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.” John 6
Sorry , my verb for giving thanksgiving or doing the communion rite/sacrament. Eucharist=Thanksgiving literally translated. So we “Eucharist” or give thanksgiving. It is not a noun in my primative sense.I do not know what you mean by “Eucahristing”
Yes, Jesus took note also, as was also prophesied. That on must remain does not negate that the others goats scattered.
You know rc, you have a way with words that is pleasing to me. I hope I can be as understood by you. By now you know that I have experienced Communion in the form of symbolism only. My faith tradition does not involve the use of a priest to mediate, forgive or otherwise come between us and God to obtain God’s favor or presence. The fullness of Christ and the Holy Spirit are constantly dwelling in us as the Bible teaches. The twelve remaining in John 6 knew well what Jesus was teaching re the kingdom dwells within you. I see no instruction from Jesus in John 6 or the Last Supper to have a priest do priestly prayers over the bread and wine to mysteriously change the elements. Yes, rc, I agree with all in your second paragraph and would say that even in a symbolic service of His Remembrance we also experience all those things except for not much mystery and imagination. Yes He said, “This is my body and blood” …He often made statements symbolically in other instances. I mean no disrespect to those who believe Transubstantiation is what Jesus taught. I am 65 years old and only heard of it in the last 20 years so please understand that your way is just as hard for me to comprehend as mine is to yours.
You have a misunderstanding of infallibility. While Jesus was here Peter was not in a teaching position. I disagree when Peter spoke about faith and morals there is nowhere in Scripture that he was wrong. Jesus did chastise him but where did he do so over an incorrect teaching? Please don’t mention when Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from the crucifixion it doesn’t meet the qualifications of infallibility for many reasons but also because Jesus was with them. Don’t cite his disagreement with Paul that too does not meet the standards of infallibility.
Hi Pete,
I share this one with you! It is as if they have nothing to be joyful about, or are attending a funeral. It is one of the things I miss most about attending services with my separated brethren.
Yes this potential always exists. But scripture does say…
This either/or exclusionary thinking can be just as dangerous as drifting from the Scriptures. Jesus is the Truth. He is the fullness of grace. He chose to enter the world through Mary, as the channel of His physical being. Her soul magnifies the Lord. When we look at Christ through her, we see Him larger and more clearly.
I would not actually express it this way. The catechism is clear that the HS works through these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself. I would say that access to Him in such communities is limited to the extent that the members in them are not taught the Truth (such as the Real Presence). So Patrick is right, grace flows through Truth and when Truth is more limited then grace is as well.
I agree that God does give sufficient grace, and those who respond to it get more grace. I think it is more a case of us holding back from Him.
As we have discussed previously, “believing in HIm” means walking with Him in discipleship. Those who have only been given a limited understanding of what it means to be a disciple can only walk within what they have. They stand in the tradition of Apollos, zealous, but uninformed.
Fran just denied it, by contradicting the teaching of the Church in asserting that she “could not have said no”. If she did not have free will, then she was not fully human.
Hi rc,
Maybe, maybe not. One could think he could have tied it in beautifully, or he left it out so that the literal gnawing would not influence, carry over similar view to the Supper. Can go both ways.
Yes, we were made for such intimacy, as with a man and his mate, one of the four unfathomables to the wisdom in Proverbs, and of course, “He sticks closer than a brother”.
Ben, this is not a scholarly approach. Textual criticism requires looking at the writing in it’s historical and cultural context. This is why we look to the the writings and practices of the Early Church so we see how they understood what was written.
Yes, they were Gnostics, and they denied the Real Presence:
Hi g,
That seems not fair, for I relish our history, just as it would be unfair for me to say you are afraid to just read the scripture(s) that we are discussing.
Is it any less hollow that when one asks for evidence not give any but still call it hollow?
Why did they deny the Eucharist to be of the Lord’s flesh and blood ? His writing spells it out, and is part of our history.
And as one forefather wrote on a similar subject, “Let us not suppose that because God could , that He did.” It is just as probable that He spoke figuratively. That is also not impossible for God.
I am not quite sure what you are stating here.
God did speak figuratively but if you are speaking of the Eucharist the circumstance shows that Jesus was not speaking figuratively.
It is not problematic to understand the scriptures as they were penned in their historical and cultural context. Ignatius had these scriptures, and personally knew the Apostles. If he understood Jn. 6 to be referring to the Real Presence in the Eucharist this is important. If he and everyone who received the Apostolic faith believed this, and those who did not were considered heretics, it is an important factor in understanding the text.
No, benhur. No one who relishes history makes a claim that there is “no evidence” that the Apostles believed and taught the Real Presence. One who relishes history may disagree with our conclusions about it, but refusing to consider the history of our lived faith in hermeneutics relishes nothing.
I trust that you, or anyone else on these fora who find me refusing to consider the evidence and to read the relevent passages or documents germaine to the discussion will confront me at once.
No.
Yet, in your mind, this is not “evidence”?
Indeed, and the figurative is also of value. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Please read all of 488. Slowly…
