What don't you believe is correct in a non Catholic religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why of course it’s hard for you to believe biblically when you try and pick other verses to disprove the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You mean like “cherry picking”? I don’t know if that is what you meant to say, but it sure sounds like it. If that is what you are trying to say, then I would have to respond firstly that there are an abundance of cherries to pick!

As an example, you go on to say that “The Real Presence must be given credence even though it just suddenly appeared out of nowhere, but of course, it was understood from the beginning.” (My Paraphrase) A statement like this defies even the most simplest rules of interpretation and evidence and would be considered hearsay in even a small claims proceeding. And this is the basic principle of exegesis of your entire response. No evidence is presented, and no evidence is allowed “due to my incapacity to understand” (My paraphrase). Sorry, I am not meaning to sound angry, but I am a little bit. Not because you believe in the Eucharist, but because of your expectation for me to just abandon logic. I would have to be pretty gullible to accept such a line of “reasoning”, if you want to call it that.
There are about ten churches on one street I know of, why? Because there are at least ten differences on interpreting the Bible. Each one clings to the “tradition” of their founder.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is some truth to that. However, the majority of Christian Protestants do not disagree on core doctrines. Lutherans still believe in a watered down form of the Eucharist, but beyond that, it quickly loses traction in the rest of Protestantism.

The problem with your statement is that it makes an unproven assumption. That the Catholic Church is the Church of “One Faith, One Baptism”, etc. The fact that it is uniform in its teachings doesn’t mean a thing, if those teachings are off base. It is possible to have perfect logic in an argument, even if the reasoning is based on a false premise. ( I am not saying your logic is perfect, what I am trying to say is that an entire edifice of proper logic can be built upon a false premise, which then makes the entire argument or “edifice” worthless)

What Catholics do is remove themselves from the mix of denominations because they believe they are the one true church. However, if you are a statistician, or an historian just unprejudicially taking a survey of Christianity, then Catholicism would be lumped in the mix with all of protestantism. This is exactly the proper way to start, whether you or I like it or not.

So, the answer to provide protestants - or at least the thinking ones - as to their questions is to provide sound evidence. That is not what you have done.
 
Last edited:
Sursumcorda1 said:
'Why read the bible like an instruction manual? It is clear in I Corinthians 11:27 and the Early Church Father writings that the Christian community was a Eucharistically-centered community.
Click to expand...
Lets not forget the context:

1Cor 11:24 - 26 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

It says “this do in remembrance of me” and by doing it we “shew the Lord’s death till he come”

Its a memorial.

The Bible has clear instructions, if not heeded can be devastating. No, it isnt an instruction manual, but it has a lot of instructions! Anyhow, I don’t follow your reasoning - unless it is to say that you dont want to follow it’s directives in the light of what you believe.
 
Last edited:
I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist based on the bible and every generation afterwards that continued that teaching. I trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the church to interpret the scriptures.
 
I’m sorry you misunderstand what I was trying to say. Your paraphrasing of me is exactly an example of misinterpretation, which is my whole point. I never accused you of cherry picking, we Catholics pick verses as well to explain our faith. I can easily list you verse after verse that we believe explains the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, but you will only see things the way “You” interpret them. No need for you to be angry about me expressing that thought, it’s just that your “Bible Alone” is not how the early Church functioned. I’m also saying if there was a point in time the doctrine of the Real Presence would have been invented there would have been a huge backlash, something that serious does not simply creep into a Church that is already spread to many nations. And yes that is evidence. On the flip side of " the lack of dispute" there is plenty of evidence backing up what we believe. We have writings in every generation, an unbroken chain. That is evidence, just not evidence for someone who rejects that God established a living teaching authority and did not leave the laity on their own.

You see it as there are only small differences in Protestant churches. I’ve been to many when I was away from the Catholic Church, and the differences I saw were not minor at all. The differences I saw between the Methodist, Holiness, Baptist, Pentecostal, and Church of God were humongous. If everything must be in the Bible, where is an example of multiple churches competing with one another like this? This phenom was never mentioned or taught in Scripture. It is the result of “Bible Alone.”

You are all still our brothers and sisters in Christ, but we do not have to accept your interpretations over our own, much less a barrage of different interpretations. If you can show me you are infallible then perhaps it would be different, and you have not provided sound evidence.

God bless you and peace.
 
1.) Non-Catholic Christianity
  • Reject Apostolic succession, more or less; the Eucharist; disregard the communion of saints
2.) Islam, Judaism
  • Deny the Incarnation
3.) Everything else
  • Confusion about monotheism/pantheism/polytheism
  • Incomplete/inaccurate ideas about morality and eternity
  • Contradict the Resurrection with reincarnation
  • Faulty perception of nature and humanity
 
Last edited:
lexscripta said:
Why of course it’s hard for you to believe biblically when you try and pick other verses to disprove [emphasis mine] the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
So, you don’t think that statement is a good example of cherry picking?
 
Last edited:
Not really, you are a good Christian that seeks the Truth. You believe in the Word of God just as I do. We both love God with all our hearts. I can assure you that if we sat down and talked about God it would be a conversation about what He has done for us, His grace, His love, and His Mercy. What do you expect to gain by telling a billion Catholics we are wrong and you are right in your interpretations of Scripture. Is your intention to “save” us all from error? Do you read the Bible and think we are less intellegent or that we lack guidence from the Holy Spirit?

It is a blessing to have you here and to be able to discuss what and why we believe. There are never any hard feelings or anger here, nothing but love in the Holy name of Jesus, even if we disagree.
 
DeSales111 said:
I can easily list you verse after verse that we believe explains the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, but you will only see things the way “You” interpret them.
Click to expand...
I interpret the Bible, in light of what is in the Bible. It is called the historicist method. If there is something there that disagrees with what I interpret, then I must change my interpretation.
DeSales111 said:
it’s just that your “Bible Alone” is not how the early Church functioned
Click to expand...
This is the real problem. Even if were to look at the New Testament as only a historical document of the Church, then Catholic dogma cannot be supported at all. There is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, the petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. There is more, but I think the point is made.

So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
 
Last edited:
I also interpret the Bible in the Light of what is in the Bible, but I also trust in those who authored and complied the Bible. What makes you think that your interpretation is infallible? Do you have special revelation from God, have you been appointed as the sole interpreter? No disrespect but i see Light as well.
 
There is plenty of Scripture for all that you listed. I will however not respond to a barrage of topics. I could give you a list a mile long as well if Protestant errors.
 
Actually, it can as you can find the principles there.

Bible also points to authoritative councils that make BINDING decisions - ACTS 15.

Bible points to tradition - 2 Thess 2:15

Bible points to the Church - 1 Tim 3:15 and Matthew 18.

So I would contend that the New Testament was never intended to be treated as a do it all manual separated from the Church who birthed it. Infant baptism is just an example of what I mean when I say you need the Church to make binding decisions on some matters of faith as it’s not in the bible.

Now, Catholic dogma should not contradict the New testament. That we can agree on and i contend that it does not.
 
Last edited:
Yes Scripture is always correct. But not everyone has the power of Christ that manifest the Scripture.
The “Word of faith” denomination has a saying. I am healed because the Scripture says I am healed. But I’m waiting for the manifestation.
There are lots of prayers waiting for the manifestation.
 
It’s self-evident that Catholicism shares much in common with other Christian groups…

Beginning with Apostolic Orthodox Churches on to many Varying Protestant assemblies…

And of which it behooves us to FIRST get to know and wallow awhile in our Common Ground before engaging in sometimes useless and never-ending theological banter.

And yes, of course their exists some differences of significance of which there exists the potential for ironing out; easier said than done.

_
 
lexscripta said:
Of course, Jesus is God. He can do anything. It just doesn’t make sense to me within the context of the Bible narrative - my opinion of course. I do not see for one thing - how can His blood have any redemptive quality prior to Him shedding it? That is the whole purpose of shedding of Blood and the giving of Himself (His Body). The Bible says. “…without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sin”. (heb 9:22) With the idea of the Eucharist we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made , offering the atonement to his disciples.

And in light of verses such as: Heb 10:10 that says “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Also, Jesus said during the last Supper; "This do in remembrance of me. It sounds like a memorial. Why would he say that if we were supposed to eat His actual body and drink His actual blood every time?

Jesus also said, I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) Everyone knows we don’t take such statements literally. Why should we take the Eucharist literally - Especially since Jesus clarified that it was a memorial at the same time he said “this is my body, …this is my blood”?
Click to expand...
The most basic issue you have here is that
you seem to believe that God and His divine economy are bound by time.

Since God created time and everything else, and since God is objectively God and is not his creation, how can God’s saving grace be bound by time? If God wills to apply Christ’s grace flowing out from the crucifixion to Adam and Eve, surely God can do that.
 
Last edited:
And “anamnesis” is not merely a memorial. It is to make present.
You can write a whole book on that word an how it is used in scripture.
 
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox make up the overwhelming majority of Christendom. And we both reject Sola Scriptura and always have. It’s protestantism that created this man made tradition that has no basis in scripture, itself…and in fact, is just an assumption.
 
My particular church really emphasizes it when consecrating the Eucharist “…he broke the bread and said, ‘Take. Eat. This IS. MY. BODY!’”

I happen to believe He was using metaphor when he originally broke the bread, but during all subsequent Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox liturgies which now celebrate the Eucharist it’s now consubstantiated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top