Why I Am Not A Roman Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter East_Anglican
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They have turned the covenant meal into a circus. Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” but they now do it in worship rather than remembrance. This is because of the medieval superstition called Transubstantiation. As the lamb didn’t change within the Old Covenant meal the bread and wine do not change within the new covenant meal. There was no transubstantiation during Seda and there isn’t any during The Eucharist. The gospels do not say that Christ said “This is my blood shed for you” followed by the ringing of bells and the disciples throwing incense towards it. This is because it did not happen. The disciples did not worship Christ as bread and wine. Also The Roman Catholic Church teaches that just the bread is a full sacrament to the laity but half a sacrament to the presbyters. As Jesus said “Take this all of you.” They disagree with Jesus.
misunderstandings, lies, and scriptural errors. Christ tells us that His Flesh and Blood MUST be consumed if we wish to enter into eternal life. Ergo, transubstantiation is VERY real. Your argument is correct… the sacraficial lambs didn’t transubstantiate… they didn’t HAVE to, they were already the flesh and blood of the sacrifice. Ergo, the bread and wine from the last supper MUST transubstantiate in order to meet your own specification. Thank you for arguing the point for me.

Further, the Catholic Church (not ROMAN Catholic church, there is not really such a thing… this is a misnomer) teaches that BOTH species are contained in either the Body or the Blood… not that “half is acceptable to the laity but not the presbyters”. Ergo, do not teach lies about what you do not understand.
It is not surprising that the Roman Catholic Church has changed the covenant meal because they have also changed the sign of the covenant. Roman Catholics are not only baptised into Christ but also baptised into The Roman Catholic Church. Also The Roman Catholic Church teaches that having the sign of the covenant is not enough for one to partake of the covenant meal. One also has to be confirmed. (I am not saying confirmation is wrong. I believe it is a powerful service) There is no reference to confirmation in The Bible.
The bible describes the church as the Body of Christ. Ergo, to be baptised into Christ and into the Church are synonymous. Further, Christ Himself said that unless a man be born again of the water (baptism) and the spirit (confirmation) he cannot have salvation. Looks like you need to read more of your bible.
Another matter concerning the covenant concerns a facet of Christ’s present day ministry. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant and as the mediator of the new covenant he is the one mediator between God and man. The Roman Catholic Church disagrees in more ways than one.

First of all, The Roman Catholic Church teaches that dead saints can mediate between God and man. Through this the covenant relationship with Christ is replaced by cosmic telepathy with dead saints. If I wanted to talk to the dead I’d go to a séance. But a séance is a Satanic deception as is praying to dead saints. It keeps the people away from Jesus.
The bible states that Christ is the sole mediator of SALVATION… not that no intercession is possible. IF as you argue, NO ONE else can mediate (intercede) then God’s word that we should pray for one another is self-contradictory and sinful. Since God CANNOT be self contradictory and sinful, your argument is obviously false.

Second, Christ “talked to the dead” (although I think you’ve misunderstood… those in heaven with God are more alive than you are). Are you saying that Christ engaged in a satanic deception? Again, I think you need to read more of your bible.
Another layer to this is statues being mediators between God and man. This is in fact idolatry. They say it is not but if it has feathers and floats and looks like a duck it’s probably a duck. As the second commandment says “you shall not bow to them.” and statues are bowed down to, Roman Catholics break the second commandment.
why not be honest about what the scriptures say? The commandment is “you shall not bow down to them AND worship them”. We do not worship statues. In fact, we do not even pray to statues.
Secondly, The Roman Catholic Church teaches that ‘priests’ are mediators between God and man as well. Instead of confessing their sins to God through Christ they confess their sins to a ‘priest’ This is another trick to keep people away from Christ.

They have invented a whole system of priesthood based on Pharaseeism and the governance of imperial Rome. Jesus clearly said “Do not lord over each other.”
Priests do not lord over people. In fact, to be a priest is to be a servant. Further, priests do not serve as mediators in ANY sacrament. The grace which flows from sacramental acts comes directly from the action of Christ.
Another matter concerning the covenant is the matter of our redemption. The Bible calls Jesus The Redeemer and Jesus is the only redeemer. The Roman Catholic Church believes that his mother Mary is the co-redemptrix. Jesus is the only redeemer because of his blood which is the blood of the new covenant. His mother doesn’t come into it.
redemptrix and co-redemptrix are terms which have been barred by the catholic church. Do not teach lies about things you obviously do not know.
 
Another area where the covenant relationship with Christ is replaced is the area where they worship Mary. When many of them say “Hail Mary” they mean it as the highest form of praise. They spend more time praying to Mary than with Christ. (Though in fact they pray and worship the goddess Diana under another name) It is yet another trick to keep people away from Jesus.
No catholic worships Mary. Such an act would be anathema to the church and all its members.

By the way, “hail” anything is not a form of worship at all. I suggest you crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of the word “hail.” I think you’ll find that it’s a common form of greeting, similar to the word “hello”

Third, it is incorrect to state that catholics spend more time praying to Mary than to Christ, both because it is untrue and because you couldn’t possibly have a source which describes the prayer patterns of all 1.2 billion catholics. Although, by the comment about “dianna”, it’s obvious you’re a fan of the terrible liar and hateful jack chick… a man who’s tracts are so despicable that even most protestant book stores won’t carry them.
The Roman Catholic Church has also invented the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception, claiming she was sinless. If the logic of the doctrine is taken to its full course then there would have had to have been a whole line of immaculate conceptions until prior to the fall. It is a nonsensical doctrine.
wrong on both counts. Mary is tabernacle, ergo, she must have been pure in order to meet the REQUIREMENTS specified by scriptures. This is another case where it’s apparent you aren’t very well read in the scriptures.

Further, the requirement was not that pure flesh had to come from pure flesh, but rather that DIVINE flesh had to be housed in pure substance. Ergo, Mary had no requirement to have had an immaculately conceived mother. In a strange form of irony, your assertion that this is non-sensical doctrine based on unending progression of requirement is, in fact, nonsensical in itself.
Also because of the covenant we are justified by faith in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church believe we can also be justified by penance, indulgency and good works too. So as under the covenant we are brought by Jesus blood and are saved. Within Roman Catholicism you can buy your salvation off The Church.
Patent lies. The catholic church has never taught justification by works, penance, indulgence, or anything other than GRACE. We are all sinners. We are all bound for hell but by the grace of God. No penance, indulgence, or works can save us from hell.

As to the very first sentence in that paragraph… that is unscriptural heresy. The scripture states that we are saved “BY GRACE through faith” not that we are saved by our faith. In other words, this is another place where you 1) obviously need to read more scripture and 2) need to stop lying about things you obviously do not understand.
Also, because of the covenant Christ took our punishment on The Cross. The Roman catholic Church disagrees. They believe that when we die we must enter a place of temporal punishment called Purgatory. (Unless you buy or someone on your behalf buys an indulgency) The belief in purgatory means that Calvary wasn’t enough and the ultimate objective of Calvary was not achieved. It is a rather nasty doctrine .
Incorrect and lies. First, Christ eliminated the punishment of sin, which was DEATH (funny, then, that you think the saints are dead… apparently you don’t believe that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to defeat death). This does not alleviate the other things that were taken from us (pain, suffering, impurity and the like).

Further, purgatory is not a PLACE at all. It is a process of purification. Since the book of revelations states that nothing unclean can enter heaven, you MUST recognize that there is some process by which we are purified as we enter heaven. In other words, you believe in purgatory (aka, purgation) too, you just don’t know it. Purgation is, in fact, a declaration of the supreme success of the sacrifice on calvary.
The belief in purgatory is yet another medieval superstition. The Superstition is based on an earlier Pagan belief from Plato which went like this. - When you die your soul goes to a place of burning to be purged. After the purging has taken place your soul then leaves that place and is regenerated. After this your soul is put in somebody else.

This belief was adapted to make it fit into Christian thought. The regeneration part had to go because it messed up the belief in Baptismal regeneration and the reincarnation bit also had to go so that you go to Heaven instead. But the rest remained. The origins of the belief in purgatory are purely pagan and do not fit in Jewish or Christian theology.
So what you’re saying is that they’re the same… except that everything about them is different… BRILLIANCE, doctor watson.
 
This is because of the medieval superstition called Transubstantiation.
Take a look at John 6:31-66. Jesus says “if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever” and later many of the people ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” And at the very end, in verses 60-66, many of the disciples choose not to follow him anymore.
  • Why did they ask if he literally meant eating his flesh, unless something he said suggested it?
  • If they were mistaken about literally eating flesh, why didn’t Jesus correct their misunderstanding? Instead he says says they won’t have life within them if they don’t listen.
  • Why do many people leave Jesus afterward? If he was speaking symbolically that they must follow him (which he already said in John 5:18-24 without anyone leaving), then why such a dramatic departure? He must have said something crazy, right? Like eating himself? :eek:
 
In the OP the poster mentions that he has a problem with transubstantiation and that the lamb of the old covenant didn’t come to life during the sacrifice.

Well, he answered his own dilemma with that issue.

A dead lamb had no real connection with God. Anyone can kill any animal, let its blood and offer it to any god.

When we receive the Eucharist we are taking the living body and blood of Christ into our living, breathing bodies. It is the essence of the New Covenant. If you refute that basic sacrament, then you refute God’s covenant with us. It was commanded by Christ and is unique to the Holy Trinity.

You simply cannot have a covenant with a dead animal.

Does that not make perfect Biblical and logical sense? I mean that one is a no-brainer.
 
Paul said that The dead in christ shall rise first. I as paul meant physically dead. Let’s not get messed up on semantics.
I agree Paul meant physically dead.
Let’s not oversimplify. There is a distinction here.

The old testament passage was about ‘talking’ to the dead, not ‘talking’ to dead bodies.

For those that are physically dead, are any of them in heaven (alive in Christ)?

michel
 
Take a look at John 6:31-66. Jesus says “if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever” and later many of the people ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” And at the very end, in verses 60-66, many of the disciples choose not to follow him anymore.
  • Why did they ask if he literally meant eating his flesh, unless something he said suggested it?
  • If they were mistaken about literally eating flesh, why didn’t Jesus correct their misunderstanding? Instead he says says they won’t have life within them if they don’t listen.
  • Why do many people leave Jesus afterward? If he was speaking symbolically that they must follow him (which he already said in John 5:18-24 without anyone leaving), then why such a dramatic departure? He must have said something crazy, right? Like eating himself? :eek:
He does say these words are spirit. So real or a spiritual consept like “when three or more are gathered in my name I am also there with them”?
 
He does say these words are spirit. So real or a spiritual consept like “when three or more are gathered in my name I am also there with them”?
Do you believe that Jesus died in the flesh on the cross? I’m sure you do.

The physical world is an important part of God’s plan. God always used physical signs when dealing with his people, including the Ark of the Covenant, manna, blood sacrifices, plagues, etc.

The bible explicitly says that we must eat the flesh of Jesus.

Jesus explicitly says that the bread IS his body.

Paul explicitly says that if we partake of communion without recognizing the body that we are risking condemnation.
 
He does say these words are spirit. So real or a spiritual consept like “when three or more are gathered in my name I am also there with them”?
YES!! These words are SPIRIT.
Do not confuse ‘spiritual’ with ‘symbolic’.
Spirit is REAL. In fact, I would say our spirit is more real than our flesh. Those that are in heaven have more of an experience with reality than we can even understand.

We don’t say the trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Symbolic.

Please do not equate ‘spirit’ with ‘symbolic’. It just isn’t so.

Cheers!

michel
 
The bible explicitly says that we must eat the flesh of Jesus.

Jesus explicitly says that the bread IS his body.

Paul explicitly says that if we partake of communion without recognizing the body that we are risking condemnation.
The original language of the New Testament, Greek, also supports the eating flesh view. In almost every passage of the Bible where the word “eat” is used, the Greek word “phago” is used.

But in the passages of John where Jesus says to “eat of his body,” a different word for eat, “trogo” is used. And trogo puts emphasis on the actual chewing/gnawing, so it’s much less likely to be symbolic. In fact, trogo is only used 6 times in the Bible. Five are in John, when mentioning eating the body. And the only other time is Matthew 24:38, which is used literally.
 
The original language of the New Testament, Greek, also supports the eating flesh view. In almost every passage of the Bible where the word “eat” is used, the Greek word “phago” is used.

But in the passages of John where Jesus says to “eat of his body,” a different word for eat, “trogo” is used. And trogo puts emphasis on the actual chewing/gnawing, so it’s much less likely to be symbolic. In fact, trogo is only used 6 times in the Bible. Five are in John, when mentioning eating the body. And the only other time is Matthew 24:38, which is used literally.
A point that is either missed or ignored by a lot of people. 👍
 
:mad: :eek: :mad: :eek: :mad: :eek: :mad: :eek: This is an uncharitable post in which lies are being spouted out as truth!!! I am sorry that you believe your own lies
This person is NOT a new member-he/she has 450+posts so I’m quite sure that he/she has seen Catholic apologetics on each subject that he/she is ranting about.In my opinion this person has no interest in discerning the truth or listening to Catholic explanations of the Faith but is only interested in telling us what we REALLY believe in.And it’s aaaaallllllll wrong.The original shotgun-style rant is something I would expect(and understand) from someone absolutely new to this website and who had no exposure to Catholic Answers-this person simply will not listen.
 
Originally Posted by chris molter

“Seriously, though, that this… well… viewpoint… is within the boundaries of ‘orthodox’ Anglicanism is one of the primary reasons I’m no longer Anglican.”

“You probably wasn’t Anglican in the first place.”
See what I mean?Now he/she is telling former Anglicans that they really were not Anglican in the first place.How conveeeeenient!This person is telling us what we believe in and telling a former co-religionist that while he may have thought he was Anglican he really wasn’t because he/she says so.Pure egomania.What nerve.:rolleyes:
 
Hello
As an American convert to catholicism (swam the tiber) from high church anglicanism I can appreciate the tenets of both.

As to transubstantiation
To my anglican friend when you type “eucharistic miracle” AND “lanciano” into google I am curious as to what you find?

The other answers to his “throw everything on the wall to see what sticks” have excellent rebuttals

I also hope all catholics would know about the “anglican use” mass and would attend the Mass at least once in their lifetime.
Of course if catholics (especially U.S. Catholics) knew about Guy Fawkes and the Treaty of Tordesilla that would always be a help in understanding the Catholic-Anglican political dispute - apart from the theological one.

As former PM Tonly Blair heads to the US to teach a class on religious diversity let me say welcome to the club of catholic converts from Anglicanism
 
He does say these words are spirit. So real or a spiritual consept like “when three or more are gathered in my name I am also there with them”?
Someone else already answered your post, but what about the actual questions you responded to? You ignored all of them.

Why did the people think he meant actual flesh?
Why didn’t Jesus correct their “misunderstanding”? Why’d he ignore their question, if they had it wrong?
Why did so many people leave him afterwards?
 
You probably wasn’t Anglican in the first place.
Actually, I was an acolyte for over 10 years, a layreader, subdeacon, and an Aspirant to the Priesthood before I left.

Unlike some *other *Anglicans, I can use proper grammar. 😉
 
Dear East Anglican - So, you’re a little confused about what we believe in the Church. You need to go to Confession before you can receive the Eucharist,** IF** your Confessor gives you permission. Then perhaps you won’t be so confused about things… Imagine this…ALL THOSE WORDS MADE FLESH (and then some) in a miracle we call the Eucharist. Ready for that? Good! Then there is another Sacrament called Confirmation. When you’re ready to say “amen” to what we believe and teach in the Church, you’re ready for that Sacrament too! Good luck and God bless. (And Mary keep you till then.)

Peace,

Gail
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top