What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[frangiuliano115]

What I find strange about Catholic is is how much people ( HERE, I don’t encounter this IRL) can argue so much about the faith among themselves.

A little information is a dangerous thing.

OR

The more I learn, the less I know.

But some people stop at The more I learn…

OR

You might prefer this: I knew more then, than I do now.

Something to ponder.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

They are about believing without having proof that convinces the human senses.

Only those visible to the human senses, it appears.

The one under discussion, which is the Real Presence.

**Please show me a baptized infant that demonstrates a “change”??
**

Perhaps we need to define miracle, then. It could be said that the Eucharist is a gift, rather than a miracle.

Guanophore, here’s our exchange:

Originally Posted by frangiuliano115 View Post
Please don’t say the miracle of salvation. It’s VERY visible since a change occurs in the person.

To which you answer:
Please show me a baptized infant that demonstrates a “change”??

Which leads me to ask:

Do all baptized infants die in a state of salvation as adults when their final day comes?
Your answer to me implies that the answer would be “yes”.

Seems to me the change would necessarily have to occur at some point, no?
Please don’t tell me we can’t know. Thanks.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

The Apostles taught there are many spiritual changes that occur in baptism. none of them are “visible” changes, nor are they perceptible to the senses.

Let’s make it clear to Wannano that this is because we baptize babies.

Adult baptisms are quite a different story.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Heb. 11 is not about miracles. It is about trusting God’s word and acting on it as Noah did.

The bible says nothing of a “Real Presence” .This came about hundreds of years later. What it does confirm is that we know Him no longer after the flesh.2Cor.5:16.

The bible itself says to “prove all things” 1Thes.5:21

I also believe that the disciples who met Jesus on the road were enlightened or had their eyes opened “in the breaking of the bread”, not eating of the flesh.

In John 6, it seems utterly incomprehensible that Jesus would now do a complete switch up on His basic message which had been to believe on Him for salvation and eternal life. Is He really saying “Okay, forget what I was saying before, now here’s the new program. You must now eat my actual flesh!” I don’t think so.

Shalom
Jerry

Your post is to PJM and I’ll get out of the way.

Just want to say that a lightbulb went off!

I finally get what protestants mean - the new program.

Okay!

I love understanding.

Fran

 

[TonyBS]

Let’s make it clear to Wannano that this is because we baptize babies.

Adult baptisms are quite a different story.

Fran

What I find strange is such an argument over such a special spiritual occasion.

Water is Knowledge of and Fire is the Love of Christ, which is clear mature knowledge is required.

Unless of course you wish to burn all as well?

Matthew 3:11"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[Peter_J]

A little information is a dangerous thing.

OR

The more I learn, the less I know.

But some people stop at The more I learn…

“But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step … And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly. You don’t even know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it, patented it, and sold it.”

• from Ian Malcolm (he goes on much longer than that, but you get the idea)

 

[benhur]

So it seems that what Jesus was saying was literal but difficult to understand or to accept. So some disciples walked away. What is important to me about this is that Jesus didn’t stop them. He let them go. If they had misunderstood, He would have stopped them.

Hi fran,

And my point here is that today’s literalists are like the disciples who did not believe from the beginning in that, as you say, were also literalists. There is no evidence that the apostles, those that remained, that truly believed and followed properly, and were commended by Jesus (“indeed I have chosen you”) took it literally.

Jesus let the false disciples(vs 64) leave, not because they understood so much about the "gnawing’’ on Him, but the dying, even departing of their hoped for Messianic King. They were false not because they would not "gnaw’ on His flesh for they would not even "gnaw’ on His veiled words about Calvary and succinct words on His ascension. Like , “What, we have sin ? We need a sacrificial Lamb ? We need spiritual healing first, before the kingdom truly come ?”

P.S. Who is verse 64 speaking of??

The disciples (false) who did not believe He had the words of eternal life nor that He was eternal life in His person-hood, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And this from the very beginning, way before Ch 6 and the gnawing discourse, but as found in Ch2. Nothing to do with future Eucharistic views, save the reality of a literal Calvary and the instituted commemoration, and that only as a secondary meaning

Blessings.

 

[rcwitness]

The disciples (false) who did not believe He had the words of eternal life nor that He was eternal life in His person-hood, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And this from the very beginning, way before Ch 6 and the gnawing discourse, but as found in Ch2.

…excellent! The bolder part is why His Eucharist (actual, sacramental body and blood have power!) His “personhood”, or body and spirit, is worthy of life and resurrection from death!

Nothing to do with future Eucharistic views, save the reality of a literal Calvary and the instituted commemoration, and that only as a secondary meaning

What you “save” is not so secondary as "one and the same. Though, from your perspective, secondary is acceptable to a degree. What I mean, is its at least understood that Jesus intended to relate His Eucharist meal to belief in His divine sonship of the eternal father, and also made the sacrifice ial Lamb of God.

 

[PJM]

What you are doing is discounting all the lives and witnesses of those who have been transformed by the miracles of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

You must think they all have a group kind of psychosis, or something.

Great post Patrick. But I don’t think Eazy will even accept the testimonies of the Real Presence miracles, since they have not happened to him personally, I guess they don’t count.

Agreed

I knew that going in; but I let the Holy Spirit sort it all out. We are just conduits working in God’s vineyard.

Thanks,

Patrick;

 

[PJM]

It definitely bears repeating. I myself have told Protestants a number of times that Catholicism on this forum is not representative of Catholicism IRL.

My friend, while NOT disagreeing; what exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Padres1969]

It definitely bears repeating. I myself have told Protestants a number of times that Catholicism on this forum is not representative of Catholicism IRL.

Well yes and no.

I find that CAF Catholics in general tend to be closest to dogmatic Catholics I’ve ever known. In the sense that they follow the Church’s teaching as closely as possible, and are pretty darn informed about RCC teachings.

I’ve found in real life most Catholics I’ve known are far more selective about what Church teachings they emphasize or even follow (some intentionally so, some through lack of proper Catholic catechism).

So while CAF Catholics might not be representative of what the majority of Catholics IRL do or say, it doesn’t mean CAF Catholics aren’t a closer representation of what Catholicism is supposed to be in general.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi fran,

And my point here is that today’s literalists are like the disciples who did not believe from the beginning in that, as you say, were also literalists. There is no evidence that the apostles, those that remained, that truly believed and followed properly, and were commended by Jesus (“indeed I have chosen you”) took it literally.

Jesus let the false disciples(vs 64) leave, not because they understood so much about the "gnawing’’ on Him, but the dying, even departing of their hoped for Messianic King. They were false not because they would not "gnaw’ on His flesh for they would not even "gnaw’ on His veiled words about Calvary and succinct words on His ascension. Like , “What, we have sin ? We need a sacrificial Lamb ? We need spiritual healing first, before the kingdom truly come ?”

The disciples (false) who did not believe He had the words of eternal life nor that He was eternal life in His person-hood, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And this from the very beginning, way before Ch 6 and the gnawing discourse, but as found in Ch2. Nothing to do with future Eucharistic views, save the reality of a literal Calvary and the instituted commemoration, and that only as a secondary meaning

Blessings.

Hi Benhur

Well, I finally understand why you think communion is symbolic. I could see how you could come to this conclusion.

I really do find it strange about Catholicism that we place so much importance on this. The Eucharist and Mary are the two concepts I’ve found to be debated the most on these threads. So I ask myself why. Why such a debate? Why feel like we have to convince each other?

Protestants don’t put as much importance on communion. I know my wording is off, sorry. Catholics place a lot of importance on it. I thought about it after Ez’s post and your post and I think it’s because Protestants place a lot of importance on the salvific act. On the sacrifice, on Jesus as Lamb. I do know the difference between the suffering servant and the conquering King. So communion becomes a means of sharing, a rememberance or memorial since we can’t really remember what we haven’t witnessed.

RCWitness’ signature line says:
They devoted themselves to the Apostle’s teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers
Acts 2:42

At the home of the two disciples of Emmaus Jesus breaks the bread and that’s when they recognize Him. At the breaking of the bread.

Catholics, OTOH, see the Eucharist as containing the salvific work. Jesus said the bread would be His body and blood and it’s this gnaw (greek) word that makes it be so literal to us. Also, I must say that the Eucharist is very important to Catholics (bad wording again - sorry). Many protestants say they changed to Catholicism because of the Eucharist.

I’m afraid to say that some catholics don’t really understand the salvific work of Christ. They’ll know that He died for them, but if you ask them why, they don’t know the answer. It has something to do with love they’ll say. But receiving communion is very important to them even though they may not really know why. All catholics are not as knowledgable as the ones here on CAF.

So yes, this is a great divide. We don’t however, say that ti’s communion that saves. It’s still faith.

Fran

 

[PJM]

The role of the pope.
The role of the laity (or lack thereof) in any hierarchical decisions.
The sheer quantity of magisterial teaching Catholics are expected to hold true.

There’s more, but as far Catholicism goes (as opposed to Catholics), most of it stems from that.

My friend, thank you for sharing your questions:

Space limits prohibit a full reply

The Pope: ** The role of the Pope; like the Church Herself has evolved as She grew. Now some 2,000 years old; with over 1 BILLION Catholics, worldwide, **we continue the line of “Succession” of our Popes from Peter to now Francis.

The position flows directly from Jesus Himself who choose Peter to lead; to be his “Prime minister,” as was common at that time and place for walled in cities such as Jerusalem was and is. Each such walled-in-city normally had a king; but here because of the Roman conquest, had Pilate who was “governor” appointed by Rome, at the time of Christ visitation. The king would normally appoint a Prime minister who had unlimited power of day to day governance; actually did have the key to the cities gates, and who answered ONLY to the king. Thus Peter & Successors answer only to Christ; and also have as is essential everything essential for the growth and mission of the Church is also given directly and exclusively to Peter; the apostles through Peter, and their successors.

Ad yes all of this is Biblical

Mt, 10: 1-8 “And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these:** first, Simon, who is called Peter**, and Andrew his brother; … These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. “

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on [YOU] this rock I will build my church, [singular] and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give YOU**all of] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

**John 21: 15-17 **“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” **He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep”

**Mt. 28: 16-20 **“Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And Jesus came and said to them,

Go YOU therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,** teaching them to observe all that I have commanded YOU;** and lo, I am with YOU always, to the close of the age."

As for Laities role:

**Rom.10: 17 **“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. “

We are to know well our faith

Practice it fully

Teach and share, and when necessary, defend it as the Holy Spirit presents the opportunities.

Live it publicly as witness for all to see

The RCC is a Missionary Church. And each of Her members has the responsibility; if by no other way; by right example; to GO! And be the “light on the hillside for ALL to see.”
As for the volume of Magisterial teachings:
While practices may vary a bit by country; the “Sense of Faith” [the taught understanding] is ONE and uniform throughout the world.

One God

Who can and does have just **One set of Faith beliefs
**
& **One Chosen People Exo. 6:7; Mt 16:18 **which Jesus in the NT choose to call “My Church.” Singular.

**John 17: 18-19 **
“As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth”

The Popes in a literal sense have been granted a portion of GOD’S Own authority and Power. Mt. 10 above and here we find Jesus proclaiming: Cf. As My father sent Me, I NOW send YOU. Then we find Jesus literally giving Himself as the personal warranty of His Church teaching His [singular] set of Faith beliefs.

NOTE: God gave Moses 10 Commandments, which had some 600 additions ADDED to it which God accepted.

Send me a private message if you’d like more details.

 

[PJM]

Heb. 11 is not about miracles. It is about trusting God’s word and acting on it as Noah did.

The bible says nothing of a “Real Presence” .This came about hundreds of years later. What it does confirm is that we know Him no longer after the flesh.2Cor.5:16.

The bible itself says to “prove all things” 1Thes.5:21

I also believe that the disciples who met Jesus on the road were enlightened or had their eyes opened “in the breaking of the bread”, not eating of the flesh.

In John 6, it seems utterly incomprehensible that Jesus would now do a complete switch up on His basic message which had been to believe on Him for salvation and eternal life. Is He really saying “Okay, forget what I was saying before, now here’s the new program. You must now eat my actual flesh!” I don’t think so.

Shalom

Jerry

Thanks Jerry, but where did I say it was about miracles? It simply states that Faith is TAUGHT.

As For Moses trusting God’s Word;

BACK then there was One God

One set of Faith beliefs

& just one chosen people. AMEN

Today there exist besides God;s One true Catholic-Church & Faith; literally THOUSANDS of differing understanding of just what Christ intended to be ONE.

The “Breaking of the Bread” was the original term for today’s Eucharist; Catholic Holy Communion.

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

God Bless you Jerry,
Shalom!

 

[PJM]

Heb. 11 is not about miracles. It is about trusting God’s word and acting on it as Noah did.

The bible says nothing of a “Real Presence” …

In John 6, it seems utterly incomprehensible that Jesus would now do a complete switch up on His basic message which had been to believe on Him for salvation and eternal life. Is He really saying “Okay, forget what I was saying before, now here’s the new program. You must now eat my actual flesh!” I don’t think so.

Shalom
Jerry

Hi again Jerry,

I wanted to take your last point as a separate issue

The “bible” also does not contain the words “bible theologian, Catholic NOR Protestant” and many more I could mention.

As for the bible “NOT speaking of Real Presence”; may I assume that you have not read Paul 1st. Cor, 11:19-30?

.[19] For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

[20] When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’ s supper.

ALL “Christians” at that point in history were Catholics

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.

Paul relates this as having been taught directly by Christ & he is but a conduit for Jesus

[24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me

**He teaches [as do 4 other Bible authors] that Jesus SAYS 'THIS IS MY BODY" [not a mere sign, not a symbol Not a sign; NO! “MY BODY”[/COLOR]

[25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new **testament in my blood: **this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

AGAIN Jesus say’s “IN MY BLOOD” [not Paul; JESUS!]

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, **you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. **

This is saying: Eucharist is a RE=PRESENTATION of the Original One Sacrifice as even Jesus can only die mortally one time. So it is the original Sacrifice that is RE-PRESENTED [presented again & again till time e mortal] NOW in an unbloddy manner through His GLORIFIED Body.

Jerry; you presumption of a CORPORAL body is the identical MORTAL error and LACK of Faith that promoted some of his disciples to abandon Him.Jn 6: 61-65

[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

SHALL BE GUILTY OF DENYING GOD! DENYING THAT GOD CAN DO ANY GOOD THING. AND the Eucharist is the GREATEST possible of any and all good things; BECAUSE it is, It Is Jesus!

**[28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. **

And here is the TEST that Jesus gives each one of us. Christ ask: JERRY; how strong is YOUR faith and YOUR true in ME?

[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Jerry; HOW can this be IF as you choose to believe it is ONLY bread & ONLY wine. Eating and drinking Ordinary bread and wine can’t sent someone to hell. BUT Paul here teaches that UNBELIEF CAN! AMEN!
**
[30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.**

Jerry, “sleep” here in context means SPIRITUAL DEATH

The Catholic Church founded by Jesus still exit TODAY, some 2,0000 years later with the same BELIEF. How and WHY? Because Jesus keeps His promises:
**
Mt. 28:26** [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU** and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.** Amen!

God Bless you Jerry,

Parick**

 

[Peter_J]

Well yes and no.

I find that CAF Catholics in general tend to be closest to dogmatic Catholics I’ve ever known. In the sense that they follow the Church’s teaching as closely as possible, and are pretty darn informed about RCC teachings.

I’ve found in real life most Catholics I’ve known are far more selective about what Church teachings they emphasize or even follow (some intentionally so, some through lack of proper Catholic catechism).

So while CAF Catholics might not be representative of what the majority of Catholics IRL do or say, it doesn’t mean CAF Catholics aren’t a closer representation of what Catholicism is supposed to be in general.

Hi Padres. I am, of course, sorry you’ve had bad experiences with Catholics IRL. No question, the term “Catholic” includes some who are lapsed Catholics, or nominally Catholic, or (shall I say?) “Cafeteria” Catholics. I’m perfectly happy to leave them out of the discussion and focus on, shall I say, *us *faithful Catholics.

But what I find disturbing is your suggestion that the stuff posted here represents us. Not that that’s a new idea to me: I’ve encountered it indirectly countless times, e.g. every time someone says “such-and-such is the Catholic position” and then cites a post on this site as ‘proof’, then I’m like “Ummmm … so being posted on CAF makes it the Catholic position? ”

 

[Peter_J]

But what I find disturbing is your suggestion that the stuff posted here represents us. Not that that’s a new idea to me: I’ve encountered it indirectly countless times, e.g. every time someone says “such-and-such is the Catholic position” and then cites a post on this site as ‘proof’, then I’m like “Ummmm … so being posted on CAF makes it the Catholic position? ”

P.S. Come to think of it, I guess if I were perfectly logical I would actually thank you for having the boldness to state what so many others seem to be implying.

 

[Padres1969]

Hi Padres. I am, of course, sorry you’ve had bad experiences with Catholics IRL. No question, the term “Catholic” includes some who are lapsed Catholics, or nominally Catholic, or (shall I say?) “Cafeteria” Catholics. I’m perfectly happy to leave them out of the discussion and focus on, shall I say, *us *faithful **Catholics.

But what I find disturbing is your suggestion that the stuff posted here represents us. Not that that’s a new idea to me: I’ve encountered it indirectly countless times, e.g. every time someone says “such-and-such is the Catholic position” and then cites a post on this site as ‘proof’, then I’m like "Ummmm … so being posted on CAF makes it the Catholic position? "

Oh I’m not saying CAF is a perfect representation of Catholicism, particularly some aspects of Catholicism and Christianity in general. But CAF does seem to have a vein of what I’ll call, adherence mentality for lack of a better term. By that I mean CAF in general (and obviously there are ample exceptions) seems to have a better knowledge of Catholic dogma and the catechism, than the majority of the real world Catholics I’ve known (with exceptions of course).

And that’s not to say I’d term my real world experiences with Catholics as bad. Or that there aren’t instances where I’ve had bad interactions on CAF either. And that’s not to say that CAF posters don’t fall into that self referencing issue you mention too. I’ve see that plenty of times and always get a little bit of a laugh out of it. But by the same token I also see CAF posters reference Catholic dogma, catechism, etc… directly FAR more often than I do in real life. And as a general rule the knowledge, and more importantly acceptance, of official Catholic positions seems higher among CAF posters than it is among IRL Catholics. Which should shock no one. Polling consistently shows that IRL Catholics aren’t supportive of many of the Church’s positions on some aspects of social/moral teaching while posters who come to CAF are Catholic enough to want to post regularly on a website dedicated to defending and explaining the faith.

But to bring this around to the thread’s topic, that’s one thing I’ve found strange about Catholicism for many years, is the disconnect between the majority of self identifying or professing Catholics, and the a fore mentioned teachings of the Church that more orthodox Catholics as you tend to find on CAF are far more zealous in following. It’s not something you see quite as much in other faith traditions in my experience. I have my suspicions as to why that is, but it is a bit of a fairly unique trait of Catholicism compared to other Christian traditions.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s make it clear to Wannano that this is because we baptize babies.

Adult baptisms are quite a different story.

Fran

The issue, Fran, was whether or not all miracles produce visible results. Especially with regard to the Eucharist.

Eazy claims that all miracles have changes visible to the senses. We do not see any changes externally when a person is bapized (especially an infant) but by faith we believe that these supernatural events have occurred.

I the same way, we do not see a change in the accidents of bread and wine, but by faith we believe what Jesus has said “this is my Body, ,this is my Blood”. Somehow Eazy is separating “believing in Him” from believing in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

** There is no evidence** that the apostles… took it literally.

Wouldn’t it demonstrate better scholarship to say that all the evidence is not pursuasive?

It is like saying that the Hitler’s final solution and the genocide of Jews did not occur. No evidence? :bigyikes:

When do you think the disciples went off the track? Evidently, since you don’t believe what they wrote in the NT means what they taught their disciples, the disciples then wrote about it from the first century to this one. The ones who denied it were referred to as heretics.

Thanks Jerry, but where did I say it was about miracles

The “Breaking of the Bread” was the original term for today’s Eucharist; Catholic Holy Communion.

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

God Bless you Jerry,
Shalom!

You are right, Patrick Eazy is categorizing the change of the bread and wine into Body and Blood as a “miracle”, and claining that no miracles were ever done by Christ that were not perceptible by the senses, therefore, this change does not really happen, since it is not visible to him (there are people who have reported being able to perceive it).

Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe.

 

[benhur]

Wouldn’t it demonstrate better scholarship to say that all the evidence is not pursuasive?

It is like saying that the Hitler’s final solution and the genocide of Jews did not occur. No evidence? :bigyikes:

I am willing to be scholarly and look at any evidence there in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally. We have been discussing that discourse. Please show me also where there is evidence of Jewish genocide in the "ch 6’ Third Reich time frame, say around 1937.

The ones who denied it were referred to as heretics.

The only heresy (it) back then was Gnostic, to deny Christ died in the flesh, not whether you had symbolic/spiritual, consubstantiation or transubstantiation view of communion.

Blessings