michaelp
Most Evangelicals like myself do not think thatyou all are wolves, just misled sheep that followed Trent instead of the Catholic Body of Christ.
Ha-ha…okay, I grant ya that clever retort…but I really do think your claim is disgusting–and it’s even more so that you have kept that little gem to yourself for so long…It just solidifies that opinion that you are here to “save” us from our error–No thank you–find someone who wants what your selling and proselytize elsewhere.
So, if someone is here and continually disagrees with you, you do not want to discuss. You could have fooled me. You follow me everywhere I go. I suggest that you go somewhere else if I disgust you so badly. I just enjoy the iron sharpening iron stuff. I think that it makes us all think more deeply. Don’t be threatened by little old me.
So, if someone is here and continually disagrees with you, you do not want to discuss. You could have fooled me. You follow me everywhere I go. I suggest that you go somewhere else if I disgust you so badly. I just enjoy the iron sharpening iron stuff. I think that it makes us all think more deeply. Don’t be threatened by little old me.
Just how exactly do you figure this? I believe what I believe because I have dug deeply into it and am convinced for the reasons that I have stated. Having been and active proponent of Sola Scriptura for many years I am prone to go first to the Bible on most issues, but I have seen nothing substantive in over 34 years of their teaching that would invalidate the Eucharist. In fact…it is the very principles of Sola Scriptura that make me believe in this doctrine…I don’t “need” the Church to tell me to believe it…I can read it right there in my copy of the Douay-Rheims Challoner NT (or any of the other 7 or 8 others lying all over the place here). This is one of those things that comes from just reading the Bible and it has always been one of the passages that I had to avoid reading because it is so clearly one that speaks of the Eucharist and for the life of me (along with 1st Cor. 11:23-31, which just makes the case all the more solid IMO) I cannot find another more valid meaning to John 6.
Good honest post. I really appreciate it Michael.Just how exactly do you figure this? I believe what I believe because I have dug deeply into it and am convinced for the reasons that I have stated. Having been and active proponent of Sola Scriptura for many years I am prone to go first to the Bible on most issues, but I have seen nothing substantive in over 34 years of their teaching that would invalidate the Eucharist. In fact…it is the very principles of Sola Scriptura that make me believe in this doctrine…I don’t “need” the Church to tell me to believe it…I can read it right there in my copy of the Douay-Rheims Challoner NT (or any of the other 7 or 8 others lying all over the place here). This is one of those things that comes from just reading the Bible and it has always been one of the passages that I had to avoid reading because it is so clearly one that speaks of the Eucharist and for the life of me (along with 1st Cor. 11:23-31, which just makes the case all the more solid IMO) I cannot find another more valid meaning to John 6.
As for being “bound”…don’t believe it…I am first of all a seeker of truth and as I’ve said before, I lay that out at all costs…if I found compelling evidence that any part of Catholic teaching was wrong, I would be gone in a flash because all the n-C religions are just so incredibly much more simplistic and easy-going… (don’t hafta go to church every Sunday, don’t hafta take trash talk from n-Cs about the faith; Hey! I could even sit around and bash Catholicism and gain esteem points and maybe even get paid for it…Boy! I’d be good at it too wouldn’t I?)
But I am an honest seeker and I have found truths that have not been indicted, despite every effort of guys like you. I listen…I accept it…but it just doesn’t add up…
Pax vobiscum,
I am currently following 2 threads only…and I started this one…apparently we have similar interests–you make such outrageous claims, I am compelled to respond. I did follow your posting when I first ran into you–until I discovered your subversive condescension–I outed it and then I’d have been happy if you just wandered off.
What I find disgusting is exactly as I have pointed out to you before–you act so warm and polite–you word your posts in such a way that your disdain is there, but only if one cares to see it and no one sees it until they recognize your pattern.
Then why hide the fact you do not believe we are Catholic–Rather Apostate Catholics. We referenced early Church father’s eons ago–you failed to mention that you believed our references did not apply to the current Roman Rite Church. Did you know it was offensive? Apparently.
I know that you would. But some people enjoy good robust discussion. I myself do not like to sit around and confirm prejudice only with those with whom I agree. It does not promote understanding. I understand Roman Catholicism more since I have been here. There are significant amont of people who are Roman Catholic, so I think that it is wise for me to learn from them the way they think rather than reading a Jack Chick tract.
:dancing:
It is my daughter.
I could ask many of my student (230) to engage in this thread if you would like. I don’t think I could get 200 million. I could try though.
Wow! I am sorry you feel this way. But I really already knew that you did.
I have never said that you were not part of the Body of Christ. You are part of that Body to the degree that you have trusted in Christ. I take you at your word that you do. Therefore, I believe that you are a contributing member to the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.
I believe the the institution is apostate, but not necessarily the individuals that belong to that institution.
Don’t understand.
Actually, no one has confronted my statements exegetically, but rather appeals to a supposed “2000 years” of church traditional belief. What I’ve also gotten back has been a lot of flack packaged in large fonts (especially from one guy). But I’m more than willing to have a good discussion; that’s why I threw out out my thoughts on the Biblical text in the first place - which is what I thought we were suppose to be examining.
Believe me, I don’t. Not much here that can be qualified as “flattering.” I was sincere when I asked if you wanted to back off from the discussion. I said at the beginning that I knew the subject matter might effect Catholics far more emotionally than non_Cs. I was not harboring any malice when I asked you that question. When I came to this forum you guys were griping that “Prots” were insensitive to the feelings of Catholics. Now when I ask a sincere question you come back sarcastically. So, are your complaints about “Prots” actually bogus?
NO… detection.
I believe that the body can not live apart from the spirit/soul, but the spirit/soul can live apart from the body. But while I am living on this earth they are insparable. As for the “nature” of the body, it is destine to die the moment of birth (actually conception) because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12). As for the “nature” of the spirit - DEAD (i.e., to the things of God; 1 Cor. 2:14), and the soul which animates the body operates in spiritual darkness until at some point in time it is regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, which Scripture (Jesus) calls being “born again” (Jn. 3:3-8; 1 Cor. 2:12-13, 15); not through ritual (water) baptism, but through personal faith “on” the Person of Jesus Christ and “in” His work on the cross on man’s behalf. Now of course there’s the age old argument of “dichotomy” vs. trichotomy" but that argument doesn’t apply here. The principle is the same.
Thought you might find this interesting, in reference to your claim that “he that comes to me” means “to eat”, and “he that believes on me” means “to drink”. Now Ani had already demonstrated how this assertion was in error. Perhaps you might like to hear what your buddy St. Augustine has to say about it (From Tractate 25):
That looks pretty famaliar doesn’t it? It’s the same correction Ani made to your faulty use of parallelism. Funny that Augustine agrees with her, and not your position (since you believes he hold to your “symbolic” only interpretation of John 6).
Thought you might find this interesting, in reference to your claim that “he that comes to me” means “to eat”, and “he that believes on me” means “to drink”. Now Ani had already demonstrated how this assertion was in error. Perhaps you might like to hear what your buddy St. Augustine has to say about it (From Tractate 25):
That looks pretty familiar doesn’t it? It’s the same correction Ani made to your faulty use of parallelism. Funny that Augustine agrees with her, and not your position (since you believes he hold to your “symbolic” only interpretation of John 6).
I really feel sorry for your students. The immediate and general context of John 6 is literal eating. Immediate context = the feeding of the 5000. Jesus literally fed them, and they literally ate bread (unless you are claiming that the miracle was that they only “believed Jesus”). The general context = Passover. The Jews literally ate a meal of bread and wine, then immolated the lamb and literally ate that as well. Are you suggesting that the Jews just believed in the Passover lamb, but didn’t eat it? Obviously, you couldn’t be more wrong about the context of John 6. It doesn’t take a scholar to see that.
I’m glad you have some sort of special revelation to know the interior motives of St. John in writing his gospel. You and I both know that an argument from silence is not persuasive, yet you assume your position without demonstrating it. Furthermore, you have not (can not?) dealt with the fact that in his entire Gospel, the word *eucharisteo *(the same word of institution in the Last Supper narratives) only appears twice in John’s Gospel…both times in John 6. In other words, your claim that he didn’t make the connection between the two events is completely unfounded, and demonstrated to be false from Scripture alone. Your position, my friend, doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Michael, St. John could rise from the dead and appear to you tomorrow and tell you that our Lord meant we had to literally eat and drink his flesh and blood and like the rich man in Luke 16, you would still not believe. You would probably say that his testimony was insufficient. Furthermore, as CM has pointed out, you have no choice but to believe your own interpretation either. I choose to believe the Church because it was instituted by Christ on the rock of St. Peter, and is the pillar and foundation of Truth. You stick to your interpretation because you think you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong (which make you your own infallible super-pope).
Yes it is, and you have been shown to be incorrect yet again.
More of that “attitude”…It’s not worth arguing about it…people can see it for what it is…You think you know these “Catholics” and nothing will ifluence your considerable bias…
CCC
st_felicity said:
and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the good Prince Stone, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? Because Prince Stone is not really present in that symbol is he?
Thank-you for the straight answer, I do appreciate that. (I probably could have done without the rest–but, hey–schmooze away…
)Church Militant said:Definition:"exegesis"
exegesis
n : an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)
I’m gonna use smaller fonts for the sake of his royal highness Prince Stone since he uses that as an excuse to ignore valid Biblical discussion and we’re running low on crying towels around here.
First, I think your idea about wanting to talk about the Bible all the time is a very true statement. I have found that n-Cs will blessed well discuss/argue about anything and do indeed get off on it. Most of it I have come to consider a drastic waste of time, since most are just debate freaks and are really not interested in truth, (except their own version of it). The thing that you don’t seem to understand is that Catholics (by and large), would rather live it than debate it. We find other stuff to argue about, a great deal of it social justice issues that our faith informs our actions about. Hence our activism on issues like abortion and the ongoing efforts to murder Terri Shiavo.
It’s not at all that we are uncomfotable with the Bible, or discussing it. (You’d just love our RCIA class where I am) We simply come at it by virtue of the context of all the passages that tie into a given Biblical topic. (Like this one: Though it starts with the question of why Jesus let the disciples walk out on him with this discourse [and you’ve seen my reasons on this previous posts] it really has to be considered in light of all the other Eucharistic passages to get a contextual understanding of what the Eucharist is.)
That is why I say that St. Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 11:23-31 is even more relevent and conclusive along with all the last supper passages. You probably know them all anyway, but you can find them all listed and displayed here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172
One of the most simple and logical points of all this discussion is my point that one cannot become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol of them. That can only occur if that person is really present for me to abuse. I’ll demonstrate my analogy again for you here and maybe make you laugh and think ("C’mon Holy Spirit! Please!)
Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if that body and blood are not really there? Now if I make a symbol of Prince Stone like this symbol here:
So is my logic flawed? Is my conclusion wrong? (I’m not asking if you agree because as Pastor Patton says you have to conform to what you’ve been taught)
Pax vobiscum,
Terri:nope: