Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Leave a nice comment or get a "holy whoppin."
About Me
- Joyful Catholic
- I returned to the "First Pre-denominational Church of Christ," (as my husband brilliantly 'dubbed' it) aka: the Catholic Church in Dec. 2004, after my husband told me he wanted to go back to the "faith of his youth." The decision to swim across the Tiber has cost dearly, but has been worth it all! AND we are new grandparents of twin boys this summer, 2010!
Pray for our priests & vocations
Places I like to go ...
-
-
-
-
14 years ago
-
7 years ago
-
15 years ago
-
-
9 years ago
-
7 years ago
-
4 years ago
-
1 year ago
-
1 year ago
-
2 years ago
-
-
7 years ago
-
-
-
14 years ago
-
-
-
14 years ago
-
5 years ago
-
8 years ago
-
-
2 days ago
-
-
6 days ago
-
-
4 years ago
-
-
11 years ago
-
7 years ago
-
1 year ago
-
-
-
-
2 years ago
-
9 years ago
-
9 years ago
-
14 years ago
-
7 years ago
23 comments:
Greetings Joyful Catholic,
I would like to share some thoughts with you, if I may. Please don’t consider any of this to be a personal insult to you (or any Catholic, for that matter). My goal is to give you food for thought.
You asked where the word “symbol” is in the “Bread of Life” discourse. I am assuming that you are speaking of John 6, but please correct me if I am wrong.
It is true that the word “symbol” is not in this passage, but neither are words like “sacrament,” “soul and divinity” or “Real Presence,” which Catholics certainly do attach to the Eucharist. So the absence of specific words does not necessarily prove anything. But please notice that there is indeed symbolism in this context, for example, verse 35 says:
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”
Are we to believe that whoever came to Jesus and believed on Him would never physically hunger or thirst again? Of course not. Jesus was simply using an analogy and comparing one's coming to Him with "hunger", and one's believing on Him with "thirst." Obviously figurative language. Starting with verse 26, Jesus is contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and He uses symbolic language to do it.
Also, please note that Jesus was speaking to the multitudes in this context (v. 22 and 24). And whenever He spoke to the crowds, He spoke to them in parables (figurative language). This was the NORM:
Matthew 13:10-11 - And the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And He answered and said to them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.”
Matthew 13:34 - "All these things Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable."
Mark 4:11 - And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables.”
Mark 4:34 - And He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.
If one wants to assert that Jesus was speaking literally here, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that. But I don’t see any evidence of that here.
Russell: the fact that a large amount of disciples turned their backs on him that day (Jn 6:66) and he did not say "Come back, it was just a parable?" is pretty good proof.
Also the fact that all Christians after Jesus died and rose again believed in the literal presence of Christ on the altar and not a symbol is pretty good proof as well.
Finally, I would respectfully ask you to read this blog post of mine
http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2010/06/discussion-by-apostle-john-and-his.html
Russell,
Thanks for coming by my blog and commenting. I do hope you'll visit Tiber Jumper's blog, he is a 'revert' to the Catholic Church and so am I. We were both in 'non-denom' fellowships for years. My husband and I left the CC in 1980 or around then.
For some 26 years we were in three differentevangelical 'fellowships' and while we had 'fun' being so 'free' in this worship style, what ended up as supposed 'freedom' was really a bondage to emotions and 'highs' experienced by 'great music' and 'good preaching' fun fellowship, but in the end, drastic lows and disllusionment because man cannot live by bread alone, or by only "man's opinions!" That doesn't really transform anyone or give one fullness of LIFE, but only more opinions! WE have enough of them around! Plus the contradictions of all the 'churches' and their vast conflicting doctrines became unbearable for me! TRUTH was beckoning and we had to answer to God one day. We are called to 'worship in spirit and in Truth.' That's not 'popular' but True. No other Church has the FULLNESS of TRUTH. Only One. The Catholic Church!
Had we KNOWN what the CC really is, and what she really teaches all those years ago,we'd have NEVER LEFT! That's for sure! You can read about our conversion/reversion process in May 2006 archives, when I first started this blog.
God bless you and please, do some reading of your own, like the Early Church Fathers, check out Mike Aquilina's blog and others like www.catholic.com and http://www.chnetwork.org/
Again, God bless you Russell and thanks for at least being civil. There's not much of that on line or in this world anymore.
- PAX CHRISTI, susie
I guess my only comment would be, when Jesus said that "not even the gates of Hell would prevail", is He not speaking of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Eucharist? What else could withstand 2000 years on this earth? A physical church or a "Divine Church"? The Eucharist IS the Divine Church.
~Paula~
Hello Tiber,
Thanks for your response.
You mentioned the disciples who turned away from Jesus in John 6:66, and that Jesus didn’t ask them to come back. But He was not obligated to chase after these “followers.” The Lord’s job is not to “baby” those who reject Him, or to beg them to follow Him. So, this “need” to call them back if He was speaking symbolically is simply speculation.
To say that “ALL Christians… believed in the literal presence of Christ on the altar and not a symbol” is a pretty tall claim. A statement like that cannot be verified (since we don’t have records of every Christian’s beliefs). Yet, it appears that at least some of the church fathers seem to have believed what you’re saying, but their language could also be taken in different ways. I am not qualified to debate the fathers and their views on the Eucharist, since I am limited in that field. But there are many who are far more knowledgeable about the fathers than me, who, I believe, would strongly disagree with you.
I also read the post you asked me to, but I think the possibility that Ignatius wrote that quote before John wrote his epistles and his gospel is unlikely. But even if he would have, your imaginary dialogue between John and Ignatius proves nothing, since it is more speculative than scriptural.
I think that those points in my first post [1) parables used for the crowds, and 2) the obvious use of symbolism in the context of John 6] are important and should not be glossed over. (These are only two of many more) With all due respect, your points here seem to be based more on speculation than on exegesis. Since we both agree that the Scriptures are inspired, I’d rather stick to them than the fathers, for a sure word.
Hi Susie,
I want to thank you also for your response and the kindness you extended.
You mentioned a lot of issues, and I agree with some of the things you stated. I visited both the links you shared, and I am already familiar with both the “Catholic Answers” website, and the “Coming Home” website.
I, too, was raised Catholic, but I saw a lot of things taught by the Catholic Church that do not line up with the Scriptures (including the Eucharist), and knew that I could not, in good conscience, stay there. As I state in my blog, although I am an ex-Catholic, I have no hatred or bitterness toward Catholic people, and I consider many of them my friends. I just want to share the things that God has shown to me.
Thanks again, and may God give us all a heart to hear and understand Him, and embrace the ultimate work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Russell...the early Church Fathers, many of them were only one generation from Jesus! They were the disciples OF those hand-picked by Jesus! They sat at the feet of those who sat at the Feet of Jesus! That's clearly a far "surer word" than the opinions of a good many theologians or "others" around today, 2010 years later, whom you mentioned above that are more 'knowledgeable' about the 'fathers.'
I might suggest a very powerful, short and easy to read little book by my friend, Mike Aquilina:
Mass of the Early Christians.
Just a thought.
God bless.
Russell, you said that you are linited in the field of the fathers. Well, I suggest there is so much riding on this doctrine, you may want to take an unbiased exploration and discover that the overwhelming majority of Christian writers and early Christian Fathers truly believed in the real presence, not a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharistic meal.
Please consider reading what protestant theologian Phillip Schaff says about the beliefs of the early Christians if you don't believe me. Also consider that Luther , at least initially believed in the Real presence. See below:
"What is the sacrament of the altar?"
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself. ( cf Luther's little Instruction Book.)
So if all the believers before 1500 believed it and even luther did, why does it make sense that only after the reformation would the correct doctrine symbolic interpretation be manifest. to me it goes against common sense, that God would allow the Church to stay in darkness for 1600 years regarding the most important sacrament He left us.
Russell:
Here is specifically what the Father of the Reformation (M. Luther) said regarding the Fathers of the Church regarding the Eucharist:
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
Regarding the Eucharist he also said: "For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500."
Hello Susie,
This is a common argument from Catholics when discussing the Eucharist. That is, they will refer to those who were “closer” in time to Jesus and the apostles, and since they were closer, then their beliefs must be true.
But that is not necessarily so. Being in a line of students directly up to the apostles does not prove the truth of one’s doctrine. Some of the epistles of Paul and John were specifically written against certain heresies, even that early. Paul warned that there would be false teachers, even among the elders of the church (Acts 20:28-30). Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18) were probably directly taught by apostles, yet they were teaching false doctrine. Worse yet, no doubt some had even stood in the very presence of Jesus Christ and claimed to be His disciples, but misunderstood or misconstrued what He taught, and then went out and taught heresy. Even Judas Iscariot was part of the “inner circle,” yet he did not cling to the truth.
Perhaps the LIKELIHOOD of being correct in those days was greater, but proximity in time does not guarantee truth. The fact is, both truth AND error existed in the teachings of their day, just as it is now. We don’t have living, infallible apostles today to keep us on track, but we do have infallible Scripture.
So, if the doctrine of the Eucharist is true, we will need to have better evidence than this for it.
Russell, you can read, thank a teacher. You can read the bible, so *thank the Catholic Church*
I had more written but it was too long so I'll catch ya later.
I've got to get to mass. Jesus is waiting for me...HIS REAL PRESENCE...IN the Eucharist.
:)
God bless.
Russell said:
"We don’t have living, infallible apostles today to keep us on track, but we do have infallible Scripture"
But you need an infallible authority in which to interpret the scripture. That is why Jesus gave us a Church, not the Bible. Jesus gave us the Church and approximately 350 years later at the Council of Rome Pope Damasus gave the final approval regarding which books would make up this bible. Before that, the Church grew and flourished throughout the ancient world and no one was carrying around a bible and self interpreting it.
If the scriptures were perspicuous (self interpreting) we would not be having this discussion.
Jesus said "this is my body" as he held out the bread to his disciples.
Paul in Corinthians said the Lord revealed himself to him and gave him this teaching directly. "this cup we bless, is it not communion/participation in the blood of Christ?" Note that Paul no where hinted at this being symbolic.
Some of them even died because they didn't rightly discern the body of Christ.
Why would people die over a symbol?
The weight of 2000 years of biblical exegesis and apostolic tradition(handed down from Jesus to his disciples) is strongly against a symbolic interpretation.
One has to ask themselves why don't you want the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ?
Yes, why is it that the thought of the Eucharist being 'truly' the Body/Blood of the Lord is so 'hard a saying after 2010 years?' Maybe because things haven't changed all that much? "Nothing new under the sun?"
The Truth still hurts, cuts, makes us 'wince' in pain before we finally are docile enough to "hear" (i.e.obey) Christ our Lord and receive the gift of faith to 'believe.'
Well said, TJ. Well said and Amen!
I am always somewhat puzzled that in discussion such as this those taking the Catholic position (or the Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran position) write as if the only way Christ is present in the Eucharist is through the consecrated elements. Did not Vatican Council II teach that not only is the person of Christ re-presented to us through the elements of bread and wine but also in the proclaimed word, the person of the presider and in the assembled people. Secondly most exegets I know of whether Catholic or Mainline Protestant or Anglican, teach that in the phrase, "This is my body," the word "this" does not refer to the element of the bread (the cases of the two words do not agree). Rahter this "this" refers to the same reality as the "this" of the following phrase, "do this..." In other words as one might well suspect in a Hebrew context what is being talked about here is not the substance of something but the action that is going on. So then the original meaning of these words is about the action that is going on between Jesus and his disciples, namely the sharing of bread and wine in the name of Jesus. Jesus is in effect saying "When you break bread together in my name I will be there in your midst." So the for the earliest gatherings of Christians what was revealed in their eucharistic gatherings was not simply the presence of Jesus in the consecrated elements - though indeed this also (by the time of the more Hellenistically oriented Gospel of John came to be the primary understanding) - what was revealed was the presence of Christ in and through the body of his gathered disciples. What was revealed and affirmed was the Church as the Body of Christ.
While this does not settle the question you all have been discussing, it does hopefully reveal that the focus of the discussion has been, perhaps, somewhat too narrow. Yes Christ according to the Fathers, the Medieval Church and certainly the followers of Luther and the subsequent Anglican reformation, is present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine - indeed as the Word of God, he is present in and through all of creation. And if the word "symbol" is understood in its usual theological sense, it can affirmed by a Catholic that Christ is present symbollically which is to say those physical realities that point to his presents in the worship of the church also bear with (sym) them the Presence to which they point.
@ Joshua: SO...seems that Bill Clinton was right. It depends on what the meaning of 'is' ... "is." And "this" 'this' is..."is."
Of course Jesus is present 'in the midst,' when two or more agree and are 'gathered in his Name, He is there. That's not the point. What is 'REAL' is or should I say, "IS" is this, The Bread and the Wine HE [Jesus] did change and continues to change, (through His anointed priest) into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Period.
Jesus made it perfectly clear in His Word. That's why many left him, it was too hard a saying then, and obviously now. It's why some peoples' "knickers still get twisted in knots" about it to this day. Mine aren't. Truth is IS Truth.
@ Russell: The CC and her teachings in NO WAY contradict the bible. Pick up a catechism, put it next to the bible...read them both. Neither contradict the other. His Church still stands as He said and He's never left Her, HIS BRIDE, to ever 'wander around like orphans' trying to 'figure it all out' through 'self-interpretation' but
Jesus gave us the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth 1 Tim. 3:15 as the final authority and it is the Church who thus teaches, leads, guides the flock by the same Holy Spirit, who cannot be contradict Himself.
Many 'denoms' "non-denoms' and 'inter-denoms' (where we used to go for 13 years) sure contradict each other, but yet, isn't it odd that 'that' doesn't seem to bug folks? It's only the CC that bugs the bat snot outta them. Oh well.
"Protestantism naturally gives way to toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority (the Church) in religion, it has neither foundation, nor clarity of faith." Victor R. Claveau, MJ.
Thanks for stopping by, Joshua.
God bless.
Hello Tiber,
You said:
“But you need an infallible authority in which to interpret the scripture.”
I don’t want to get too far off topic (the Eucharist), but I’d like to answer this comment. If “A” (Scripture) is infallible, and you need “B” (the Church) to infallibly interpret that authority, then wouldn’t you need another infallible authority “C” to interpret “B”, as well, since “B” is also infallible? And wouldn’t you need another and another, etc., etc. This is simply an infallible regress that has no end. It doesn’t make sense. At some point, the fallible has to be able to interpret the infallible. For more on Bible interpretation, see this article:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html
Back to the Eucharist… You referred to 1 Corinthians 11, which speaks of condemnation for those who profane the Lord’s Supper. And you believe that because of this severe penalty, the bread and wine cannot be just symbols. But, any Jew who rejected or profaned circumcision (which no one can deny is a symbol) was cut off from God and from His covenant (Genesis 17:10-14). For more details on this, see this article:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html
And Part 2 can be found here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html
You said:
“The weight of 2000 years of biblical exegesis and apostolic tradition (handed down from Jesus to his disciples) is strongly against a symbolic interpretation.”
That’s a pretty tall claim, Tiber, but it’s not true. For the record, the Catholic Church admits that the bread and wine are symbols (CCC #1333-1336), so all the efforts of Catholics to deny the symbolism of the Eucharist are actually futile.
You said:
“One has to ask themselves why don't you want the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ?”
Tiber, it’s not what I WANT that counts. First and foremost, I reject the doctrine because it is not only not scriptural (found in the Bible), it is also AGAINST the Bible. Secondly, Catholics claim the Eucharist is a “special miracle,” where the bread and wine supposedly turn into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Yet, this “miracle” is not at all like authentic miracles found in the Bible. If the Eucharist were a legitimate miracle, we would see evidence of that change each and every time the host is consecrated. But we don’t. For more info on this, see the link on Part 2, above.
By the way, Tiber, here is an article on the church fathers, as well:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers.html
This is going round and round. Russell, the 'anti-Catholic' blog/websites are nothing but heresy. You are wrong and sadly misguided. Where does the authority from New Testament come from if not from The Church?!
Side Note: OR, perhaps Joseph Smith WAS RIGHT! In that case,you and I are screwed! But who's to say he was wrong? His book was written on 'golden plates.' Or, I hear that "God" also "showed" David Koresh "things" and "told him" how to live the Truth about the Scriptures. Oops.
If you're going to be a "person of the book," why not pick one that's more lofty, like Moroni, or the Quran. Those books 'say' they're the 'Word of God.' The bible doesn't even claim to be the 'sole authority' or the "word of the Lord."
In the early Church days, the "scriptures" Jesus read and they read and quoted were the Old Testament. (That being, btw, the one INCLUDING the 7 books Luther ripped out, after making himself the "editor in chief" of "his" new "bible.")
If you're going to accept the authority of the bible you HAVE to accept the authority of the Church. Jesus and His Church are ONE. You dis the Church you dis Christ.
When you became a Protestant did someone have to 'convince' you of the authority of scripture? Or was it already placed there from your early Catholic formation?
Empty, specious arguments go nowhere. You are not seriously inquiring or want to learn what Catholics believe and what the Church REALLY teaches/believes. We left the Church. We came back to His Church, where the Fullness of Truth resides, by God's grace and the Holy Spirit. You and we cannot both be 'right' on this, that's why there's a CHURCH to go to to settle matters such as this, but you've already 'dissed' the Church. There's no more time to piddle around.
You came here *only* to argue, and not learn or even inquire. You have a giant ax to grind,Russell, nothing more. Therefore I will bid you farewell, 'shake the dust' and move on "to the next town." Figuratively speaking. :)
I will pray for you as I have done and for all ex-Catholics to return Home. They and you are missed.
Good day. God bless.
Viva la Papa, too!
http://freecatholiccds.excerptsofinri.com/
LISTEN AND LEARN, Russell. I mean, what can it hurt to know the Truth and be 'set free?' The 'onus' is on you, not the Church and not Jesus to run after you and "pamper" you in your search.
Russell:
You said:
"so all the efforts of Catholics to deny the symbolism of the Eucharist are actually futile."
Did you read what the catechism said before vs 1333 and after as well?
One of the keys to understanding theological concepts is to read the statements in the context. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church clearly states in too many places to mention, that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and not just a symbol! I struggle to understand how you can conclude that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in transubstantiation based on your pulling out a line in the catechism. Sure there is a symbolic element to the celebration of the Mass, but going beyond symbolism it makes it clear that the Mass brings the body and blood of Christ to the altar. Did you read further down?
Catechism 13331333 "At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood."
How do you read that as symbolic?
Russel, your hatred of Catholicism has blinded you from common sense and doesn't allow you to even attempt to argue in an honest fashion.
You have the words of Jesus, "this is my body", you have the massive amount of early Christian writings, you have the steadfast teachings of the Church for 2000 years, you even have the words of Martin Luther arguing to prove the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. But because of your hatred of Catholicism, you accept the arguments of fundamentalist anti-catholics .
I suggest you buy yourself a catechism ask the Holy Spirit to open your heart, and go back to Mass.
As Susie said, there's no arguing with you at this point, it's in God's hands and I pray he softens your hardened heart.
Hi Tiber,
(Part 1 of 2)
You said:
“Did you read what the catechism said before vs 1333 and after as well? One of the keys to understanding theological concepts is to read the statements in the context.”
Tiber, yes, I did read them, and I am familiar with the context, and well aware of the paragraphs before and after CCC #1333-1336. But they say nothing to disprove my point which I make below.
You said:
“The Cathechism of the Catholic Church clearly states in too many places to mention, that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and not JUST a symbol!” [Emphasis mine]
And:
“Sure there is a symbolic element to the celebration of the Mass…”
Now you are changing your argument. Remember, you first said:
“The weight of 2000 years of biblical exegesis and apostolic tradition (handed down from Jesus to his disciples) is STRONGLY AGAINST A SYMBOLIC INTERPRETATION.” [Emphasis mine]
And therein lies the dilemma: You believe the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is both “the real thing” and at the same time, a SYMBOL of the “real thing.” But a certain object cannot be BOTH a symbol of something else AND its reality. It is either one or the other. If it is a symbol of a particular thing, then it is not that particular thing. If it is literally the “real thing,” then there is no need for it to be a “symbol of itself.” You can’t have it both ways. It seems that the Catholic Church wants to have its cake, and eat it, too, but this is simply equivocation.
Catholics may believe that they can appeal to a “special case” for this “symbol / reality” idea, but such a concept is unknown in the Bible, nor is it found in the world in which we live.
If there is ANY symbolism in the bread and wine (pointing to His body and blood), then they are not the actual body and blood of Jesus.
(Continued)
(Part 2 of 2)
You said:
“I struggle to understand how you can conclude that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in transubstantiation based on your pulling out a line in the catechism.”
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that the Catholic Church does not believe in transubstantiation; they most certainly do. I simply pointed out that they DO consider the bread and wine to be SYMBOLIC (at least to some extent), contrary to what you said earlier.
You said:
“Russel, your hatred of Catholicism has blinded you from common sense and doesn't allow you to even attempt to argue in an honest fashion.”
Tiber, name one thing that I have been dishonest about, or how I have violated common sense.
You said:
“You have the words of Jesus, "this is my body", you have the massive amount of early Christian writings, you have the steadfast teachings of the Church for 2000 years, you even have the words of Martin Luther arguing to prove the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. But because of your hatred of Catholicism, you accept the arguments of fundamentalist anti-catholics .”
First, I do wish that Catholics would stop using the term “anti-catholic” for those who simply have doctrinal disagreements with them. It’s just a “loaded” term so often used to elicit an emotional response. I don’t use the term “anti-Protestant” toward people who disagree with me.
Secondly, if you want to deal with the words, “this is My body,” I will be more than happy to do exactly that with you. As far as the early Christian writings of the post-apostolic fathers, why stop there? Why not go ALL the way back to the original fathers… like the apostles and Jesus Christ, Himself? The words we have from them are infallible. The words of the fathers are not. I don’t know if you visited that link on the fathers that I shared above, but you might find it helpful.
As far as Martin Luther, yes, he still held on to some Catholic teachings from his days as a Catholic. But this proves nothing. He too, was fallible, and I believe wrong on this particular teaching.
You said:
“As Susie said, there’s no arguing with you at this point, it’s in God’s hands and I pray He softens your hardened heart.”
Tiber, I don’t want to *argue* (in the sense of bickering) with you or anyone. This is simply a cordial discussion. If you want to discontinue the discussion, that’s fine. At the beginning, I said that my purpose was to give you food for thought. I never pretended to be “inquiring” or “wanting to learn what Catholics believe.” That’s not at all what I said.
So, why the tension? Did I misrepresent the Catholic Church in any way? If so, please show me where. Or, do you feel threatened or are your feelings hurt simply because someone respectfully disagrees with you and offers biblical evidence for his case?
Honestly, I get all the "food for thought" ... and for *LIFE* at Mass, in the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ our Lord. The source and summit of the Faith. Your 'words' and "infallible" insights are merely YOUR OPINION, Russell. You and 'we' cannot both be 'right' about what we're 'discussing. You happen to be wrong. Very wrong. TJ and I have given you plenty, but you'd prefer to dis the Truth. So be it. You worship a 'book' we worship the Living Christ. His CHURCH gave you the 'book' you 'worship' so until you can 'face' that fact, this 'discussion' is anything but. You "pontificate" profusely. Unfortunately, you're rambling utter and complete nonsense.
See the above quote of St. Ignatius. God bless, Russell. See ya in purgatory...hopefully.
"Jesus Christ said over the consecrated elements, 'This is My Body.' You say, 'No. It is not His Body!' Whom am I to believe? I prefer to believe Jesus Christ". - Blessed Dominic Barberi
http://www.mbprice.com/therealpresence/tm-quotesaints.htm
And btw, any 'friend' of Christ's is a friend of mine, even if you prefer to 'dis' the Saints' and their wisdom. What church do you belong to again? Who started your church? You? Oh that's right, you never said. Ok. Nuff said.
Post a Comment