P
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
100% of Catholic prayers are directed to God!
Any prayers to Mary or the saints are the same as asking you to pray for me. Thus, if you wish to claim that praying to Mary or the saints are taking time away from prayer to God, then **you must also claim **that [SIGN1]any time you are talking to another Christian you’re taking time away from prayer to God. [/SIGN1]
I
izoid
Guest
Pot calling the kettle black, don’t ya think?
T
tweetymom
Guest
Probably I admit. God Bless you as you go with God.Pot calling the kettle black, don’t ya think?
I
izoid
Guest
Thanks Tweety, may God bless you also.
J
Joshua27
Guest
I mean no disrespect, but often times many rely on interpretation when they fail to comprehend what they’re reading (specifically because people don’t read enough to have effectively leaned Reading Comprehension), because (truly) there is a difference between reading comprehension and interpretation.
To read what God (and more often "the Angel/Glory of the Lord) has said about cannibalism is clear; there’s no interpretation necessary: It is an abomination (he actually used the word “Abomination”). And if we believe that God does NOT change and is the same always, He also considered it an abomination even during the lifetime of Messiah.
To read that Messiah often spoke in parable and gave messages that flew right over the heads of his disciples is clear: “I will destroy the Temple (body) and in 3 day I will raise it up again” was a profound message but Religious Authority didn’t understand his meaning (figuring He meant the actually temple) and scoffed at Him as a result. Do we need to interpret this? “No”, because it’s backed up by His continued messages to his disciples to say “this body will be broken for you”…We successfully comprehend it. No interpretation.
When Messiah spoke of Lazaraus sleeping (to his disciples), his followers did not comprehend what exactly he was saying, so they answered to Him, saying “well, just wake him up!” Messiah replies back, corrects and clarifies that, “Lazarus is dead.” Again, no interpretation is necessary to know that Messiah says that “death is sleep”. His words made the connection.
In order to comprehend what Messiah is saying you must read what He has said, and not look to another for interpretation…but most won’t do this because they’ve been trained not to.
So please don’t take my word for anything. Read ALL his words to comprehend.
Because He was standing/sitting there right in front of them. They could obviously see that His body wasn’t broken, nor was he cutting off a piece of his flesh to pass around…and neither did he cut himself and squeeze his blood into his cup.
He was there, right in front of them - with his whole body intact - holding a piece of bread (and then wine) saying this is my body (and blood). They saw the bread and wine was obviously not Him, but He was standing there saying it was…but he was standing right there! One can’t get any more symbolic than that!
Ask yourself: How can transubstantiation (as it is defined) by law occur if he was literally already there?
Again, comprehend the moment through the written words spoken and written action taken.
Now think on this…
You have a baby girl born to you into this world…
You carry her around, full of pride, telling all who will listen that “she is my heart”.
Is she your actual heart? Of course not…but everyone will know exactly what you mean when they hear your statement, there is no interpretation necessary.
Again, it is symbolic of something MUCH more important. and to partake in the moment is to (for yourself) make a statement. Your statement MUST be a statement of truth…because the most important piece of this memorial feast is you. God and His Son don’t need this feast (not at all), as they need nothing from us.
The Passover Meal is a spiritual moment not a physical moment. Messiah first came to assure our spiritual salvation, **not a physical salvation **(which is why many Jew - to this day - reject Him, because they expected a physical savior).
If you do not examine yourself internally for faults within (spiritually), your action in partaking in this moment is nothing more than a lie DIRECTLY to God.
G
graceandglory
Guest
A smaller, purer Church.
"Catholicism expert R. Scott Appleby says the new Pope will likely keep enforcing orthodoxy, leading to possible “winnowing” in the U.S. church
businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/b3931074_mz054.htm
doublex.com/section/news-politics/why-catholic-church-firing-women?page=1
T
Teneas
Guest
Priests that do not “call out” their congregation are just enabling. I can’t stand those priests that will not say exactly how it is. While there is a role for everyone, and those priests fill a certain role, they are just not to my taste. I prefer the Fr. Corapi’s. That is just me. While being held accountable is something none of us truly like, it is necessary.
I agree with the quoted text.
G
graceandglory
Guest
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.Priests that do not “call out” their congregation are just enabling. I can’t stand those priests that will not say exactly how it is. While there is a role for everyone, and those priests fill a certain role, they are just not to my taste. I prefer the Fr. Corapi’s. That is just me. While being held accountable is something none of us truly like, it is necessary.
I agree with the quoted text.
Matthew 12:30
T
tweetymom
Guest
Colossians 3: 23 And what soever ye do, do it heartly, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
24Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Jesus Christ.
T
Teneas
Guest
Christ did not say “This is a symbol of my body and blood” He just didn’t say that, I am sorry. So, while he was right there, it was hard for his disciples to understand what he was saying when he said “Take and eat; this is my body” “Drink from it; all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins”
Matt 26. 26-28.
Can’t get much more plain than that my friend.
J
Joshua27
Guest
That’s ok. The truth will be revealed in the end, but for other’s sake, look what you just plainly typed…
[Matthew26:28] “Drink from it; all of you, for this is…” What is this they drink? “…this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins”
The wine is not = His blood (an item)
The wine is = His blood which will be shead on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins (an event)
The event hadn’t happened yet, so how can something be, which was not yet, unless it was a symbol of what was to happen?
Also…I wonder how many people caught this…
Has anyone ever read what Messiah actually said following this iconic moment? It puts alot into perspective. Please read Matthew 26:29, just following the sharing of the cup:
"But I say to you, I [This is the Messiah speaking] will not [the underline is mine] drink of this fruit of the vine [Yes, the very same cup of wine he just passed around to disciples]…
For how long did he say he would not also drink? “…from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Question: Why would he need to drink his own blood if it is already WITHIN Him?
…So Messiah said that he would not also drink from the cup, not until the day - in the future Kingdom of God - when he can drink it together with everyone.
So which sounds more realistic…?
A) Messiah (the living God, with blood in his veins) will drink his own blood with us in the furture Kingdom, or B) Messiah will partake in this memorial feast with us in the future kingdom?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
No I will not renounce my Lord and Savior.
Just because I don’t believe the way a Catholic believes I’m not Christian?
I believe Christ is the church. He came here for all men who will follow him, and I do.
I don’t see where Jesus said you have to be Catholic to be Christian.
He said, Believe in me and you shall have eternal life. Not believe in the Catholic faith and you shall have eternal life.
I don’t care what your dogma’s say, they were written by men, who claim they were inspired by God. Can you prove they actually were? Or do you go by their word?
But once again I will not renounce my Lord and Savior.
Just because I don’t believe the way a Catholic believes I’m not Christian?
I believe Christ is the church. He came here for all men who will follow him, and I do.
I don’t see where Jesus said you have to be Catholic to be Christian.
He said, Believe in me and you shall have eternal life. Not believe in the Catholic faith and you shall have eternal life.
I don’t care what your dogma’s say, they were written by men, who claim they were inspired by God. Can you prove they actually were? Or do you go by their word?
But once again I will not renounce my Lord and Savior.
S
schaick
Guest
Interesting thread. Too bad you can’t go back in tme and recall the full conversations some of you had with these people that you say dislike Mary.
I know of no protestant, fundementalist, etc, Christians that dislikes Mary. We all believe that she is the best example of a woman, obediant to GOD, loving mother, follower of Christ. She was blessed, but simply human. A saint and sinner like all of us who was is and forever the **very best choice ** for GOD to have carry HIS SON.
The issue is calling Mary the Mother of GOD. I myself dislike the phrase- as if Mary was the mother of the GODHEAD- Father, Son and Holy Spirit… I am sure my face must screw up all catywonkas when a Catholic uses it. I love Mary, but it is possible someone seeing that reaction might think otherwise.
Too bad the term isn’t -Mary the mother of Jesus, GOD’s WORD incarnate or Mary, Mother of Incarnate Logos. Praise Mary Mother of Incarnate Logos!!
Simple as it is- Mother of GOD is exactly such a term that really confuses non-christians. I can’t tell you how many times I have defended Catholics to muslms on many forums.
I know of no protestant, fundementalist, etc, Christians that dislikes Mary. We all believe that she is the best example of a woman, obediant to GOD, loving mother, follower of Christ. She was blessed, but simply human. A saint and sinner like all of us who was is and forever the **very best choice ** for GOD to have carry HIS SON.
The issue is calling Mary the Mother of GOD. I myself dislike the phrase- as if Mary was the mother of the GODHEAD- Father, Son and Holy Spirit… I am sure my face must screw up all catywonkas when a Catholic uses it. I love Mary, but it is possible someone seeing that reaction might think otherwise.
Too bad the term isn’t -Mary the mother of Jesus, GOD’s WORD incarnate or Mary, Mother of Incarnate Logos. Praise Mary Mother of Incarnate Logos!!
Simple as it is- Mother of GOD is exactly such a term that really confuses non-christians. I can’t tell you how many times I have defended Catholics to muslms on many forums.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Mary is known as “The New Eve.” As Adam and Eve were conceived without sin, so did God choose the Theotokos (God-bearer) to be conceived without sin.
See other biblical typologies for understanding Mary.
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/documents/docs6-1.html
T
Teneas
Guest
That is your interpretation of the scriptures? Or who’s?
It’s silly to not think that God can make bread into flesh, or wine into blood as well. Sure, I can plainly see where you are coming from, and I have no doubt that you believe it. But, is it just your interpretation, or who stands with you on this belief united as Christ would want for such a teaching? I personally believe you fall into the disciples that walked away due to this teaching. I am not saying you are not a Christian by any means, but it is a teaching that is to hard for you to go along with apparently. I mean -no- disrespect of course my friend, just talking about it. I know my mind will never change on this topic, or any others with the Catholic church, and I am merely representing what united Catholics across the world believe. United Catholics, that is the oldest standing Christian church, began by Christ himself.
T
Teneas
Guest
Was Christ God? This is a good question to ask oneself if encountering a problem with the term Mother of God.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Do you not believe that Jesus Christ was 100% GOD in the flesh?
Your argument is with ALL of Christianity. All orthodox Christians believe she is the Mother of God.
To understand what other non-Catholic Christians are supposed to believe, read this:
S
schaick
Guest
Indeed, but I spent most of yesterday rebuilding my pc and tidying it up so I hadn’t seen it till now. I await with bated breath to hear what a ‘little C’ Catholic is or believes. I suspect it means a ‘Catholic’ who can believe what they ‘feel’ is best.
When I was a little whippersnapper I asked my mom why we said this:
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
when we weren’t catholic well- check out definitions of catholic:
Catholic \Cath"o*lic\ (k[a^]th"-o]**k), a. [L. catholicus, Gr. kaqoliko
Note: This epithet, which is applicable to the whole Christian church, or its faith, is claimed by Roman Catholics to belong especially to their church, and in popular usage is so limited. [1913 Webster]
2.** Not narrow-minded, partial, or bigoted; libera**l; as, catholic tastes. [1913 Webster]
When I was a little whippersnapper I asked my mom why we said this:
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
when we weren’t catholic well- check out definitions of catholic:
Catholic \Cath"o*lic\ (k[a^]th"-o]**k), a. [L. catholicus, Gr. kaqoliko
s, universal, general; kata down, wholly + "o`los whole, probably akin to E. solid: cf. F. catholique.]- Universal or general; as, the catholic faith. [1913 Webster]
Note: This epithet, which is applicable to the whole Christian church, or its faith, is claimed by Roman Catholics to belong especially to their church, and in popular usage is so limited. [1913 Webster]
2.** Not narrow-minded, partial, or bigoted; libera**l; as, catholic tastes. [1913 Webster]
- Of or pertaining to, or affecting the Roman Catholics; as, the Catholic emancipation act. [1913 Webster]
P
PRmerger
Guest
I believe that you agree that the Canon of Scripture is correct. You do not believe that the Gospel of the Nazoreans is inspired. You do believe that the Gospel of Matthew is.
Since you believe that, it’s because the CC has told you this, infallibly.
Therefore, [SIGN]you agree that fallible men can make infallible pronouncements.[/SIGN]
The point being made here, kevin, that I *know *you see is:
either you agree that there have been cases of infalliblity in the history of Christianity
OR
you have to agree that you are unsure whether the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Leviticus, Acts, Revelations, etc etc etc are inspired. They were declared inspired by fallible men, and if you claim they’re NEVER infallible in their pronouncements, then you can’t be sure the Bible you read is inspired.
- Status