Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[jake23]

The power of prayer is great so let us pray for the protestants that they amy open there hearts and minds and educate there minds so they may use the right tools to read the bible and find the truth! With deep prayer and education, I who was a past protestand found my way home to the catholic church and with our prayers I believe those with sincerity will also. God bless!

 

[ncgolf]

It’s actually the early Church that they’re missing because much of Sacred Tradition comes from there. They reject all of that, even though it originally comes from the Apostles. It’s their choice and they definitely have a choice. They can accept or continue to reject, but they cannot change the facts.

The Early Church preserved the teachings of Christ even before things were written down. When you confine yourself to only those things in writing i.e. the Bible, even the abbreviated Protestant version) and only those writings that haven’t been discarded, you miss out. Protestants miss out not only on the books of the Bible that they rejected but also on all the teachings of the Apostles from the earliest times.

It was meant to continue … from what I understand Christ died around 33 … Paul’s conversion …36ish. Paul’s first letters written around 49.

This is why Catholics believe Apostolic Tradition and the Bible contain the full deposit of faith … not just the Bible.

So the Apostles taught and did as Matthew 28:19-20 commanded without a New Testament … are not what happened during this time periond not part of God’s saving word … the time from 33 to even 49 or longer till Canon was closed?

 

[ncgolf]

6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Psalm 40
7 sacrifice and offering you do not want; but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts and sin-offerings you do not require;

The Hebrew passages reflect an already held notion by the Jews (as shown in Psalm 40) … they knew the offerings were insufficient but God had commanded them to do these … and they did them as God commanded.

You make it seem as if the Jews are being told something they did not already know … and that is false.

The Jews worshipped as God wanted them … sacrifice, burnt offerings but these were insufficient to pay the price.

Tell me then … why would God command the Jews to a practice insufficient in itself? What could have been God’s motive?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

TITUS

56-2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

I’m sorry you didn’t read it all. It wasn’t that long. The phrase “once for all” can be taken the way you take it or the way it was intended. The sacrifices being offered by the Jewish people were multiple sacrifices yearly. "Once for all meant exactly what it says… Christ sacrifice was offered once for all the other sacrifices… no other sacrifices are necessary.

How else can we as members of his body take part in this sacrifice? For the passover feast as it was also called the sacrifice was consumed at passover. We are invited to the feast - each mass. It is an eternal sacrifice- what does eternal mean? Even we 2000 years later can take part in the passover!

read the whole thing!
In Christ

So you are saying that Jesus sacrifice was merely to take the place of the old testament Levitical sacrifices and those sacrifices pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus. That sounds like circular reasoning. Which makes your argument invalid.

What the phrase “once for all” means is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross of Calvary was done once for all people past present and future and we share in that sacrifice through faith. John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Mary we share in Christ’s sacrifice by faith in what He did for us Isaiah 53: 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. What we could not do for ourselves. That is why this so called sacrifice of the eucharist diminishes what He did and turns it into something we do.

In Christ Richard

 

[ncgolf]

So you are saying that Jesus sacrifice was merely to take the place of the old testament Levitical sacrifices and those sacrifices pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus. That sounds like circular reasoning. Which makes your argument invalid.

The practice of sacrifice for those 2000 years allowed the Jews to see the “true” sacrifice in the context of salvation history. This allowed the Apostles to teach the early Jewish Christians how Jesus is the Messiah using OT Scripture practice and prophesy and that the promise was fufilled in the person of Christ.

What the phrase “once for all” means is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross of Calvary was done once for all people past present and future and we share in that sacrifice through faith.

That is the way you read Scripture but not the way Catholics see this. Once for all makes the application of this sacrifice for all past, present and future precisely because it is the eternal, ever present sacrifice before God.

Read Revelation 5:6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb 4 that seemed to have been slain.

John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Mary we share in Christ’s sacrifice by faith in what He did for us Isaiah 53: 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. What we could not do for ourselves.

Catholics not only share in the sacrifice but we partake of it in the Eucharist … by faith.

That is why this so called sacrifice of the eucharist diminishes what He did and turns it into something we do.

Show us how we do it … what do we do to diminish the sacrifice? The breaking of bread and the blessing is Scriptual and was practiced ant taught by the Apostles.

 

[MelanieAnne]

What the phrase “once for all” means is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross of Calvary was done once for all people past present and future and we share in that sacrifice through faith. John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Mary we share in Christ’s sacrifice by faith in what He did for us Isaiah 53: 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. What we could not do for ourselves. That is why this so called sacrifice of the eucharist diminishes what He did and turns it into something we do.

In Christ Richard

Jesus did indeed sacrifice for all of us once and for all. The actual sacrifice is single event.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we remember the sacrifice and re-present it. It is NOT something “we do”. It is something commanded by Jesus Himself, and it is Jesus who blesses the sacramental elements at every Mass, through His priests. We are under no illusions that we can accomplish anything by ourselves in this regard. We are also very well aware that we are obligated to follow the commandments of God.

You misunderstand the Mass and therefore proceed to inaccurate conclusions. I submit it is inappropriate to preach to others about things you yourself do not understand.

 

[maryrev12]

So you are saying that Jesus sacrifice was merely to take the place of the old testament Levitical sacrifices and those sacrifices pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus. That sounds like circular reasoning. Which makes your argument invalid.

What the phrase “once for all” means is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross of Calvary was done once for all people past present and future and we share in that sacrifice through faith. John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Mary we share in Christ’s sacrifice by faith in what He did for us Isaiah 53: 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. What we could not do for ourselves. That is why this so called sacrifice of the eucharist diminishes what He did and turns it into something we do.

In Christ Richard

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg…hn/m4/ech.html

If you are not afraid - afraid to face yourself if you are wrong- afraid to relinquish your pride- read the whole thing. The Lord himself established this Church and prayed that we be of one mind one spirit one baptism. This much you know in your own heart- it is why you crave to say " I am Christian" instead of methodist or baptist or one of the many other separated brethren. It is your pride that derails you. It was my pride that derailed me and kept me away fro this Church for so long. I used your arguments…I was sure I was true. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and he will lift you up. What you do not understand~ seek too. You are unfamiliar with some of these teaching of His Church because they Are new to you… you haven’t sought to understand it with an open mind- only one bent on showing how wrong it is- because you know so much. READ the whole thing. Show me how it is wrong. Brother it is my challenge to you. But read the whole thing! I know you love Him- I love Him too. I will pray for your understanding pray for your pride… if you are sincere I’ll even come to your confirmation!

God reveal to you by His Holy Spirit the fullness of His gospel
In Him
mary

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hello MelanieAnne
In a previous post after SyCarl gently corrected you by the use of scripture You accused him of ripping and tearing at you and then you posted this:
"Reasoned, civil discourse is interesting and can be enjoyable. Sometimes it appears that certain posters are here not to have reasoned, civil discourse, but instead are here to fight, just for the sake of fighting, some are here to attempt to convert others to their way of thinking/believing. Some posters can be extremely uncivil and unreasonable in the process. I have no interest whatsoever in continuing to engage such persons.

I only have so much time, so I choose to ignore such individuals ~ I often will use the “ignore” feature to do so ~ and devote myself to more productive and uplifting pursuits."

I’m so glad you don’t find me uncivil or unreasonable and that you feel that a dialogue with me would be “productive and uplifting pursuits.”

On another post you wrote this:

“it may help you to understand the views of someone like Kastner when you understand that such persons find the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist to be blasphemous. I’m not making this up, because he’s stated as much, and has used words like “blasphemous” to describe the Eucharist, on this forum. His is a Protestant and his understanding of the Eucharist virulently anti-“Real Presence” or anti “Transubstantiation” (which are distinguishable concepts).”

I do not have a problem with this statement, altho I did apologize for using the word blasphemous. A fact you leave out of your post. What I do have a problem with is what you say next:

“Luckily for Protestants we only find their views lacking in the Fullness of Truth. We don’t find the need to behave the same way”

As tho my “veiws” are some sort of reprehensible behavior. Now, who is ripping and tearing.
It is my desire that we can put aside all personal commentary and stick to the topic at hand. It is then and only then that we can have a dialogue that is truly “productive and uplifting”.

Jesus did indeed sacrifice for all of us once and for all. The actual sacrifice is single event.

So the mass is not the actual sacrifice. It is an imitation or counterfiet

[Qoute]The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we remember the sacrifice and re-present it. It is NOT something “we do”.

These statements are contradictory. First you say the mass is something that you remember and re-present and then you say that you don’t do it.

It is something commanded by Jesus Himself, and it is Jesus who blesses the sacramental elements at every Mass, through His priests. We are under no illusions that we can accomplish anything by ourselves in this regard. We are also very well aware that we are obligated to follow the commandments of God.

Here is where we have a real problem. Jesus would never command us to do something that is against one of His commandments
Exodus 20: 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Also you say that it is not something you do, but Christ working through the priest. Consider this from the Council of Trent a council that set much of Catholic doctrine.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

What this is saying is that without the intention of the priest there is no sacrament. So if the priest for what ever reason does not have the intention to forgive sins in confession. They are not forgiven and the penitant is still in his/her sins. If the priest does not have the intention to marry a couple they are not married and are living in sin and on and on. The same holds true for the mass. If the priest does not have the intention to change the elements they are not changed. Apparently it is not Christ who changes the elements, but the priest through his intention. This by CanonXI of the seventh Council of Trent MDXLVII.

You misunderstand the Mass and therefore proceed to inaccurate conclusions. I submit it is inappropriate to preach to others about things you yourself do not understand.

I admit there is much I do not understand about the mass. Isn’t that what this fourm is all about so that we can inform one another so that we will not draw inaccurate conclusions? As for the preaching part. I don’t tink that I am preaching, but trying to open eyes to the TRUTH. Ok, mabe I am preaching.

In Christ Richard

 

[Richard_Kastner]

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg…hn/m4/ech.html

If you are not afraid - afraid to face yourself if you are wrong- afraid to relinquish your pride- read the whole thing. The Lord himself established this Church and prayed that we be of one mind one spirit one baptism. This much you know in your own heart- it is why you crave to say " I am Christian" instead of methodist or baptist or one of the many other separated brethren. It is your pride that derails you. It was my pride that derailed me and kept me away fro this Church for so long. I used your arguments…I was sure I was true. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and he will lift you up. What you do not understand~ seek too. You are unfamiliar with some of these teaching of His Church because they Are new to you… you haven’t sought to understand it with an open mind- only one bent on showing how wrong it is- because you know so much. READ the whole thing. Show me how it is wrong. Brother it is my challenge to you. But read the whole thing! I know you love Him- I love Him too. I will pray for your understanding pray for your pride… if you are sincere I’ll even come to your confirmation!

God reveal to you by His Holy Spirit the fullness of His gospel
In Him
mary

You see that’s just it, I don’t beleive that your church was established by the Lord. In fact I beleive that it is your church and many other so called Protestant churches that Christ was talking about when He spoke through His prophet John in Rev18:4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. God did reveal this to me Through His Holy Spirit. So Idon’t have to read your article. I have THE WORD OF GOD.
In Christ Richard

 

[MelanieAnne]

Richard,

As long as you are determined to find fault I submit it is you yourself that is blocking your ability to understand. There is much mis-information/mis-characterization in your post but there is little point in discussing any of those things if you are determined to find fault/mis-characterize, etc.

Having said that, this business of the Mass to remain as you have (mis-) characterized it cannot stand. In previous posts you have characterized the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as something that somehow diminishes the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, that it is simply something humans “do”. In my post when I stated it was not something “we do”, I was simply making reference to your post on the subject. I then proceeded to state the facts which is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an observance commanded by Jesus Himself. It is not contradictory. We “do this” because Jesus commanded it. Is this some sort of nit-picking over the words? What?

You are also incorrect in your characterization of the sacraments you have discussed. When a priest celebrates Mass or hears a confession he is doing so representing Jesus. Jesus is the High Priest, it is Jesus that actually blesses the sacramental elements, it is Jesus that absolves sin, the priest is merely the human instrument. Further, the worthiness of the celebrant is irrelevant. The sacraments operate under their own power, power that flows from Jesus.

 

[maryrev12]

You see that’s just it, I don’t beleive that your church was established by the Lord. In fact I beleive that it is your church and many other so called Protestant churches that Christ was talking about when He spoke through His prophet John in Rev18:4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. God did reveal this to me Through His Holy Spirit. So Idon’t have to read your article. I have THE WORD OF GOD.
In Christ Richard

wow- thats a typical protestant stretch in interpretation. You take care, God Bless!

 

[jake23]

LOL! Rich you sure give me a humerouse chuckle! Do me a favor read a swedish novel that was translated into english than tell a swedish person what the book was about and I assure that the swede will have to correct you because you will have missed what the auther was trying to say. Maybe that will help click in your head that the english translation is an effort to come as close as possible to what the original texts mean and are not exact! Hey stay cool! now do I mean stay cool in charector or am I saying stay cool in temperature? Doesnt matter I guess you will assume you know what I meant, since it seems to be what you do with biblical text! This forum is to answer questions yet you seem to disregard the answers, so I am curiouse why you are on here. This is to give knowledge to those with questions and you seem to not be here for that reason so… why are you here?

 

[RevDrNorth]

Why do non-Catholics take almost the whole Bible literally, but when it comes to John chapter 6, they insist it is figurative, when it does not say that it is?

They would say that they take the bible as the infallible word of God but read it in the context it is intended. So, no educated Protestant (even fundamentalist) takes every word of the Bible literally in the sense you mean it because it is not intended to be so. For instance, passages that speak about God’s wings (etc) do not literally mean that God has wings. Or when God is spoken of as a rock that he is literally a rock. The bible has metaphor and poetry, sayings that meant something in their day but mean something differently today. For example, you can say “I am between a rock and a hard place”. That does not mean that you are literally so or that I should be complained about for not assuming that it was literal.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,
As long as you are determined to find fault I submit it is you yourself that is blocking your ability to understand. There is much mis-information/mis-characterization in your post but there is little point in discussing any of those things if you are determined to find fault/mis-characterize, etc.

You will note that in my post I use quotation marks or quote boxes followed by what I consider appropriate comments. So any “mis-information-mis-characterization” is done by you. My intention was to hold you to the same candle to which you hold myself and others and to afford you the opportunity to admit that mabe you had been a bit severe in your appraisal of myself and others. Instead you go on the offensive and throw out unsubstantiated allegations. Your allegation that I somehow have intentionally misstated the facts amounts to an accusation of lying. Something Jesus taught against and something that I as a new creation in Christ do not engage in and I must say that I resent it. Your reluctance to discuss them would indicate that there is no “mis-information-mis-characterization” and that you are incapable of admitting that everything on my post is absolutely true.

Having said that, this business of the Mass to remain as you have (mis-) characterized it cannot stand. In previous posts you have characterized the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as something that somehow diminishes the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, that it is simply something humans “do”. In my post when I stated it was not something “we do”, I was simply making reference to your post on the subject. I then proceeded to state the facts which is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an observance commanded by Jesus Himself. It is not contradictory. We “do this” because Jesus commanded it. Is this some sort of nit-picking over the words? What?

“The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we remember the sacrifice and re-present it. It is NOT something “we do”.”

Here is your statement exactly as you posted it, while you do use quotation marks to indicate that I originally said it. You use it in your statement also. So you are saying that you re-present the sacrifice, but it’s not something that “we do”. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

You are also incorrect in your characterization of the sacraments you have discussed. When a priest celebrates Mass or hears a confession he is doing so representing Jesus. Jesus is the High Priest, it is Jesus that actually blesses the sacramental elements, it is Jesus that absolves sin, the priest is merely the human instrument. Further, the worthiness of the celebrant is irrelevant. The sacraments operate under their own power, power that flows from Jesus.

Well, I don’t know if you didn’t read the whole post or what. It was the seventh Council of Trent Canon XI If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema. What this is saying in effect in order for a sacrament to be valid the intention of the priest must be present. So if for some reason the intention of the priest is not present at a sacrament the will of an all powerful all knowing all loving God is stiffled. I know sounds riiculous to me too and I don’t even beleive in the sacraments the way you do.

In Christ Richard

 

[jake23]

They would say that they take the bible as the infallible word of God but read it in the context it is intended. So, no educated Protestant (even fundamentalist) takes every word of the Bible literally in the sense you mean it because it is not intended to be so. For instance, passages that speak about God’s wings (etc) do not literally mean that God has wings. Or when God is spoken of as a rock that he is literally a rock. The bible has metaphor and poetry, sayings that meant something in their day but mean something differently today. For example, you can say “I am between a rock and a hard place”. That does not mean that you are literally so or that I should be complained about for not assuming that it was literal.

Mr. North I assume by your claim as reverand you have actually received a college education! If so then why do you disregard the symbolic gestures used in the times of the new testament? Why do you disregard how off the translations of the english bible? Why do you disregard the studies that show revelations are about neros time? Why do you disregard that the catholic church is the first church? Why do you teach that one is not saved by works but by grace of faith when true faith causes us to do works? Many will go to heaven but those with mental capability who was educated in the scripture and still chose persoanl opinion over heritage of the fathers and lead protestant churches will face greatjudgement. I will pray for you! And please answer my questions!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

LOL! Rich you sure give me a humerouse chuckle! Do me a favor read a swedish novel that was translated into english than tell a swedish person what the book was about and I assure that the swede will have to correct you because you will have missed what the auther was trying to say. Maybe that will help click in your head that the english translation is an effort to come as close as possible to what the original texts mean and are not exact! Hey stay cool! now do I mean stay cool in charector or am I saying stay cool in temperature? Doesnt matter I guess you will assume you know what I meant, since it seems to be what you do with biblical text!

So are you saying that no one can know what the bible is saying or are you saying that it is only you that knows what it is saying and I should be asking you about it’s interpretation?

This forum is to answer questions yet you seem to disregard the answers, so I am curiouse why you are on here. This is to give knowledge to those with questions and you seem to not be here for that reason so… why are you here?

Well, it’s pretty obvious why I’m here: because I haven’t gotten the right answer yet. Can you give it to me Jake?

In Christ Richard

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by impalass
Why are you so upset? Because someone doesn’t agree with you. As I have stated before, like MOST catholics I was indoctrinated into the faith by my parents at 3 months old… I was baptized to be what THEY wanted me to be just like them. That is not how someone should become a member of a faith whatever the faith but thats how the church does it. So I am not a catholic because you say so? Thats kind of arrogant.

Actually. please take it as factualy, you are a “professed Catholic.” What you are (notYET ) is an informed practicing Catholic.

Indeed, when one one reaches the age of reason, or at least old is enough to disobey ones parents, one must accept accountability for ones own salvation.That my friend in Christ, is why we are here to assit, if you want us to:shrug:

The church today is devided into non practicing, liberal and conservative catholics. There are a small minority of conservative catholics like yourself. The rest of us have no problem criticizing the church when its called for. [/QUEST}

Be honest now (at least with yourself), which of the above groups stand the best chance of getting to Heaven? Whay is that?

If the bible is suppose to be inspirational it also has to be accurate and make common sense. A lot of inaccuracies and tall stories in the bible. You think I am the only catholic who bashes the church? You better get out in the world and see whats going on.

Does this imply my friend that you have actually read the bible? Good for you!

The bible, specifically the Catholic and the only orginal bible) is and has to be TRUE! What is is NOT, nor does it have to be, is FACTUAL!

2 Tim. 3: 16 - 17 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

John 21:25 "25* But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

You talk like the church is squeeky clean?

Nope! Only “squeekly Holy!”

Villanova University published January 5, 2007. Survey by researchers found that 85% again 85% of roman catholic dioceses that responded to a survey had discovered embelzzlement of church money in the last 5 years with 11% reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen.

I suspect this satement (which I do not take as fatual) mrans my above statement is wrong. NOPE, I said 'holy" not perfect.

The RCC is, has to be, and shall always be 'Holy" because Christ died to make Her so, and the merits of His death assurres that such shall always be the case." There are, always were (Judas) and always will be those, who are far from perfect, heck far from good. But that does not change the basic Nature of God’s only Founded Church!

…and your worried about whether I am a catholic or not. You better get busy and start questioning your own church of the less holier then thou that run the parishes…and keep a tight grip on your money. UNBELIEVABLE!

Oh, and I’m to believe that every other denomination in the world is perfect, and Catholics are the only ones who are not? That too is
“UNBELIEVABLE!.” Let’s add a bit of objectivity and perspective, shall we.

My dear friend in our Blessed Lord Jesus,

Your barking up the wrong tree; instead of looking for reasons “not to” believe, you’ll far more likely to spend eternity, in the airconditioned comfort of heaven, by expending some of this misplaced energy, in discovering WHY…

Why the Catholic Church

Why the RCC has been in continuing existence for 2000 years

Why the RCC is still the largest Chrsitian denomination in the entire World!

Why the Bible Is, is, a Catholic book

And why, listen carefully here "all salvation is somehow connected mysteriously through the RCC! I ma NOT saying, one must be Catholic. Please feel free to ask me what I am saying.:clapping: :tiphat:

 

[jake23]

So are you saying that no one can know what the bible is saying or are you saying that it is only you that knows what it is saying and I should be asking you about it’s interpretation?

Well, it’s pretty obvious why I’m here: because I haven’t gotten the right answer yet. Can you give it to me Jake?

In Christ Richard

Yes rich I do know how to interpret the bible and if you practice the catholic faith you will too! Again rich your being dishonest! You have been given the rights answers, you just choose not to listen! And I can see by your reply that you disregarded the points and examples I made. Why are you trying so hard to avoid the truth? I wonder if christ himself came down and told you plainly that the catholic church is correct if you would accept it?

 

[MelanieAnne]

You will note that in my post I use quotation marks or quote boxes followed by what I consider appropriate comments. So any “mis-information-mis-characterization” is done by you. My intention was to hold you to the same candle to which you hold myself and others and to afford you the opportunity to admit that mabe you had been a bit severe in your appraisal of myself and others. Instead you go on the offensive and throw out unsubstantiated allegations. Your allegation that I somehow have intentionally misstated the facts amounts to an accusation of lying. Something Jesus taught against and something that I as a new creation in Christ do not engage in and I must say that I resent it. Your reluctance to discuss them would indicate that there is no “mis-information-mis-characterization” and that you are incapable of admitting that everything on my post is absolutely true.

Here is your statement exactly as you posted it, while you do use quotation marks to indicate that I originally said it. You use it in your statement also. So you are saying that you re-present the sacrifice, but it’s not something that “we do”. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Well, I don’t know if you didn’t read the whole post or what. It was the seventh Council of Trent Canon XI If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema. What this is saying in effect in order for a sacrament to be valid the intention of the priest must be present. So if for some reason the intention of the priest is not present at a sacrament the will of an all powerful all knowing all loving God is stiffled. I know sounds riiculous to me too and I don’t even beleive in the sacraments the way you do.

In Christ Richard

Richard, there are people on this forum who appear to be here not to learn, not to contribute in any positive way, but strictly to fight/argue for apparently no reason other than to engage in the fight/argument itself. Another poster has described it as a place for some to “sharpen their swords” and perhaps the description is apt in certain cases.

When I discern the signs of that sort of behavior, I do not engage, or I limit the engagement to only the most important issues. By declining to answer you on some of your items, or declining to itemize for you those items that you have mischaracterized, I am not “admitting” everything is your post is true, I am declining to play the game as I consider it unproductive. I am not reluctant to discuss anything, but it is pointless to engage in dialog when one of the parties isn’t truly interested in meaningful dialog.

Having said that, I will correct one item. When someone misunderstands something, at gets it wrong, it is not, as you have stated, evidence that they are “lying”. To say that they got it wrong is not the same as saying they are “lying”. When I stated that you misunderstand and thus mischaracterized certain things, that is in no way a challenge to integrity.

Your characterization of the Catholic Mass, as you have written so far, is that it is basically a ritual invented by humans that diminishes the actual sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. You are wrong about this. Rather than further nit-picking over the words, I will simply state that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrament commanded by Jesus and it is done in the form and manner in which He commanded.

I have not been part of earlier discussions regarding the “intention” of the priest and its effect, if any, on the operation of the sacrament so I’ll leave that alone.

And now we are finished Richard. Goodbye and have a nice life. CLICK.

 

[warden316]

Other religions thank the bible is the true word of God, and think thay will be doing a injustice to God if thay dont take it literally John 1:1 through 16 is a perfect example how the word was with God and then became flesh. That why thay take it so literally and thay take what thay want to believe out of it, like Luke when Gabriel told Mary about her being chosen to be the mother of God or the messiah thay think Mary should not be recognized like the catholics see her, because thay believe that she became a wife after the birth of christ,thay miss the point blessed virgin Mary not blessed mother Mary. God bless you all. warden