P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, they are symbols.
Just not ONLY symbols.
Just like I said the Eucharist is spiritual food.
It’s just not ONLY spiritual food.
Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?
- Status
Just not ONLY symbols.
Just like I said the Eucharist is spiritual food.
It’s just not ONLY spiritual food.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It is not offering Christ anew. It is our participation in the SAME SACRIFICE on Calvary that happened 2000 years ago.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Parallelism is rampant throughout the Mass. The elements (by the fashion they are consecrated) are both symbolic and actual. You’ll find that Catholic theology isn’t, “no, you’re wrong”. It’s “yes, you’re right, but here’s what you’re missing”. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is both a memorial service, and a divine liturgy in which the veil of heaven is ripped open, and the sanctuary becomes substantially present with heaven. There’s nothing symbolic about the communion of saints and all the choirs of angels being substantially present wherever the Eucharist is.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, make up your mind.
If the Bible is true, or “infallible”, then the men who wrote it were infallible. And the men who discerned what books belonged in the bible were infallible, too.
You can’t have it both ways, Luv.
Either such a thing as men being infallible exists,
OR
you cannot believe that the Bible is true.
And that means you cannot believe that Christ is infallible
because
you got that from the Bible.
(Or from the Catholic Church).
But either way, saying Christ is infallible only affirms that you believe that some other MEN were infallible.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
** bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross**
also since we only take the host or you may take the wine also, then were only getting the body and not the blood of Christ. I do believe the blood was the most important thing shed for us, so everywhere I read something from the RCC or other articles there is so much confusion and contradiction.
also since we only take the host or you may take the wine also, then were only getting the body and not the blood of Christ. I do believe the blood was the most important thing shed for us, so everywhere I read something from the RCC or other articles there is so much confusion and contradiction.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
You might need to take a Socratic approach here. The liberty of assuming what you mean is starting to become tedious, such that the leash is a bit too long.
Surely you’ve heard:
Socrates was a man
All men are mortal
Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
It might relieve you from some :banghead: and a few grey hairs…
A
Anthony_V
Guest
As far as metaphysics are concerned, Christ is completely and totally present as body, blood, soul, and divinity under the signs of both the bread and wine. While the bread is still symbolic of the body, the substance of the bread still becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the risen Christ. Likewise for the wine.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
So the wine is also the body and blood?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, the consecrated wine, which we now call the Precious Blood, is Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
He is wholly present under both species: bread and wine.
T
tqualey
Guest
]Hi, Luvtosew,
I won’t use any symbols - but, you are still evading previously asked questions. And this lack of response has become quite obvious.
You may be interested in knowing that this is an open thread. Any member is free to be “budding in” (sic) thesaurus.com/browse/butt+in I would not want to think that you are, “…some kind of ignorant person”. The purpose of an open thread is so that any member is free to participate. Your dismissive remark is quite inappropriate… and, I think you owe Newsy an apology.
So, how about trying the apology first, and then answer the questions
God bless
I won’t use any symbols - but, you are still evading previously asked questions. And this lack of response has become quite obvious.
You may be interested in knowing that this is an open thread. Any member is free to be “budding in” (sic) thesaurus.com/browse/butt+in I would not want to think that you are, “…some kind of ignorant person”. The purpose of an open thread is so that any member is free to participate. Your dismissive remark is quite inappropriate… and, I think you owe Newsy an apology.
So, how about trying the apology first, and then answer the questions
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Luvtosew,
It appears that you really do not know what infallibility is. Here is a link to help you out:newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Now, I really would be interested in knowing just how you think your response actually answers PRmerger’s question on the Evangelists.
Apparently, ‘bad popes’ are not beside your point - and really, rather than get involved with that tangent, why not return to the thread?
God bless
It appears that you really do not know what infallibility is. Here is a link to help you out:newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Now, I really would be interested in knowing just how you think your response actually answers PRmerger’s question on the Evangelists.
Apparently, ‘bad popes’ are not beside your point - and really, rather than get involved with that tangent, why not return to the thread?
God bless
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I know what infallibility means. I have answered PR’s questions.
I
Inkwell
Guest
The Bible, to me, is about a discovery of oneself for and through God. He has inspired these words for a reason, and the way you look at him may perhaps tell you how you view your relationship with God. Which books really speak to you? Are you perhaps more of a gentle soul inside, and you resonate with Micah? Maybe you find hope in hopeless times, and are a source of light in times of hardship, like St. John through Revelations? It’s impossible to have a single understanding of the Bible because the Bible is the word of God, and, like God, is impossible to truly understand.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
You know what,
I’d like to apologise to everyone on this whole message forum board for being such a stupid lifelong Catholic of over 50 years and asking questions that just seem to irritate many people, so yes sorry for my ignarance and asking too many questions. Next time I sit in Church I do wonder who is sitting next to me and if I’m doing all the moves right, if I take the host right, if I kneel right, I’m surprised no one has come and corrected me at Mass for something I may have done wrong. I never knew Catholics were taught to be so self righteous, and condeming, I have learned an awful lot since coming here and most of it is not good, although I must say there have been some wonderful kind people here, but not the majority I’m afraid. I have seem other posters beaten into the ground as well, and its very sad, and one wonders why Protestants don’t want to be Catholic, is it the Church itself or is it because of some of the members.
so here is my apology to anyone I may have offended. Please pray and forgive me, as I will pray for yous.
And Newsy a special apology for causing you to bang your head, I do hope it is not still hurting.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Luvtosew,
If you do know, why do you use the term incorrectly? Notice - no symbols.
God bless
If you do know, why do you use the term incorrectly? Notice - no symbols.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Inkwell,
My understanding of this thread was not the development or search for, “…a single understanding…” but addressing the multiple contradictory understandings. Sola Scruptura where everyone can provide their own interpretation of the Bible is the single biggest reason why there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations.
For example, take the Catholic belief in the Trinity. There is a scriptural basis for this:
Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God is mentioned
Genesis 1:26 the unity of God in plural persons
Psalm 2:7 the Son of God is mentioned
John 1:1 the Son of God
John 3:16 the Father is presented
Acts 2 the Spirit of God
Acts 5:3 the Spirit of God
Philippians 2:5 the Son of God
Perhaps the most dramatic is Matthew 3:16 in the account of the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River by John the Baptist - here all Three Persons are made manifest.
Yet, there are some who do not believe One God in Three Persons, do not believe Christ is the Son of God, don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct Person Who Is True God. This is just one example - believe me, there are a multitude more.
God bless
My understanding of this thread was not the development or search for, “…a single understanding…” but addressing the multiple contradictory understandings. Sola Scruptura where everyone can provide their own interpretation of the Bible is the single biggest reason why there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations.
For example, take the Catholic belief in the Trinity. There is a scriptural basis for this:
Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God is mentioned
Genesis 1:26 the unity of God in plural persons
Psalm 2:7 the Son of God is mentioned
John 1:1 the Son of God
John 3:16 the Father is presented
Acts 2 the Spirit of God
Acts 5:3 the Spirit of God
Philippians 2:5 the Son of God
Perhaps the most dramatic is Matthew 3:16 in the account of the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River by John the Baptist - here all Three Persons are made manifest.
Yet, there are some who do not believe One God in Three Persons, do not believe Christ is the Son of God, don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct Person Who Is True God. This is just one example - believe me, there are a multitude more.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, PRmerger,
That was an excellent set of links. Thank you. The last one with Jimmy Akins was really quite good.
God bless
That was an excellent set of links. Thank you. The last one with Jimmy Akins was really quite good.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Luvtosew,
From time to time folks mistype a response, or were distracted when they were writing or what-have-you. In looking back at your previous statement it is my understanding that you really mean what you have said below.
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Bible is inerrant (there is no error). Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:
stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2009/04/pope-speaks-on-inerrancy-of-scripture.html
cathtruth.com/catholicbible/inspire.htm
The Bible was written by sinful men - look at Peter who denied Christ - his writings are included in Sacred Scripture. The issue is that God inspired these human beings to write His Message of Salvation.
Notwithstanding your claim to being a Catholic for 50 years - your statement below is misleading to the point of being incorrect. The Bible is without error. Now, if you think it has an error you will have to present evidence of this to back up your statement. The Bible was written by sinful men - everyone who wrote any Book in the Bible was born with Original Sin. Probability is high they were also guilty of Actual Sin, too (let me use Peter again as the example). Yes, God is the Principal Author - but, He chose to use sinful men to write His Word.
I am not entirely sure what your point was when you wrote what you did … but, it really cries out for a major clarification. And, if you don’t believe me - just print out what you wrote and take it to your priest and ask him if you are correct.
God bless
From time to time folks mistype a response, or were distracted when they were writing or what-have-you. In looking back at your previous statement it is my understanding that you really mean what you have said below.
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Bible is inerrant (there is no error). Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:
stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2009/04/pope-speaks-on-inerrancy-of-scripture.html
cathtruth.com/catholicbible/inspire.htm
The Bible was written by sinful men - look at Peter who denied Christ - his writings are included in Sacred Scripture. The issue is that God inspired these human beings to write His Message of Salvation.
Notwithstanding your claim to being a Catholic for 50 years - your statement below is misleading to the point of being incorrect. The Bible is without error. Now, if you think it has an error you will have to present evidence of this to back up your statement. The Bible was written by sinful men - everyone who wrote any Book in the Bible was born with Original Sin. Probability is high they were also guilty of Actual Sin, too (let me use Peter again as the example). Yes, God is the Principal Author - but, He chose to use sinful men to write His Word.
I am not entirely sure what your point was when you wrote what you did … but, it really cries out for a major clarification. And, if you don’t believe me - just print out what you wrote and take it to your priest and ask him if you are correct.
God bless
A
andrewstx
Guest
Tom what is it you mean by inerrant?
I was originally brought up and baptised in the fundamentalist church of Christ, and they took inerrant very seriously. By them it meant it meant that every word of the bible is literal fact.
That the bible literally teaches science and history, and it is all literal fact.
That everyword is fact (not the same as true), that God created the world as descibed in Genesis chaps 1 & 2. That evolution is junk, and the sun really stopped moving
.If that is what you mean by “innerant” I just can’t accept it.
Surely the Catholic meaning of inerant is different from the Fundamentalist meaning of that same word?
- Status