Things we have in common

LifeIn said:
This illustrates what I said about the obsessiveness of the anti-Catholicism witnessed here. The vast majority of non-Catholic Christians admit their common heritage with the Catholic Church, hanging their hat on the belief that somewhere along the way the institutional Church adopted corrupt practices from which it refused to reform, and so lost its legitimacy. Not so with the anti-Catholics here who maintain that the institutional Church never had any legitimacy to begin with, and was always in "darkness" as you say, and completely so. You will not find a single Christian school of theology that teaches this doctrine. You will not find a single named Christian church visible in society that holds this belief. But in order to hold on to this extreme view that the Catholic Church is totally in darkness, it is necessary to deny every single possible point of agreement, or avoid talking about it if it cannot be denied. I remember a time when Catholics were being criticized for being extreme in their religious exceptionalism and the only guardians of the truth, while the non-Catholics were the ones who were more tolerant of differences. From the responses in this thread it looks like the tables have turned. However I know this is not truth in the larger Christian world. I know that there are many programs of Christian solidarity between different Christian communities, including Catholics, all of which you would have to condemn as joining with the powers of darkness. I have seen the good fruits of these cooperations. It is too bad you cannot take inspiration in them too.
Click to expand...
Just because Christianity has been watered down and has compromised the gospel doesn't mean we all have. There are numerous people and churches that will not agree to participate in events if mormons are joining or muslims or some 'inter-faith' event. There are still some that will not compromise the gospel. Many of us here are just those people. It has nothing to do with being 'anti catholic' but pro gospel. I could not care less if you have things in common with us the fact is we are as far apart as eternity itself. Paul never said 'hey lets have a sit down with the Judaizers i'm sure we can find some common ground somewhere.' Jesus never partnered with the Pharisees did He? 'Other than hating me and wanting me dead, they're really not a bad bunch.' Any of that language in the n.t.? If there is please show it to me. I must have missed it.
 
1Thess521 said:
especially when you ignore its meaning!

How silly to rely on what scripture says devoid of any meaning.
Meaningless Scriptures seem to be your preference.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus meant what he said. Just like he meant what he said at the Last Supper when he said, "....this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..."
 
dingoling. said:
Yes, Jesus meant what he said. Just like he meant what he said at the Last Supper when he said, "....this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..."
Click to expand...
thanks for your interpretation: its too bad you make ZERO effort to reconcile that with the rest of Scripture :

Jesus often (mostly?) used figures of speech.
Most of His discourses involved some type of figurative language
and no, it was NOT required to label those discussions as figurative

Leaving the Last Supper Jesus said:
"I have spoken these things to you in figures of speech. "
 
Last edited:
Nondenom40 said:
Just because Christianity has been watered down and has compromised the gospel doesn't mean we all have.
Click to expand...
You seem to be drawing a distinction between Christianity and "you all", which is again an extreme (and invisible outside of this forum) position. Bonnie, for one, proclaims she is a Lutheran, and supports stated Lutheran beliefs that are reasonably well-known. But she is the exception in this forum, where most of the anti-Catholics remain deliberately vague about their particular Christian community, refusing to give it a name or point to any visible representation of their Christian community in society. These are the hallmarks of a secretive cult that operates in the shadows, invisible to the wider world. Your user name, in particular, suggests a firm refusal to commit to any named Christian community, like Baptist, or Methodist, or Presbyterian. Why is that? Catholics are visible and have been for 2000 years, as the historical record shows. If the Catholic Church were to disappear, what would you replace it with? The current collection of non-Catholic Christian denominations? A single one of them? Or an invisible cult?

Nondenom40 said:
There are numerous people and churches that will not agree to participate in events if mormons are joining or muslims or some 'inter-faith' event.
Click to expand...
And there are numerous ones who will.

Nondenom40 said:
There are still some that will not compromise the gospel.
Click to expand...
No compromise is required to pray for respect for life, or to admit publicly to such agreement.

Nondenom40 said:
I could not care less if you have things in common with us the fact is we are as far apart as eternity itself.
Click to expand...
More evidence of and extreme position that I have never seen any visible Christian community take (except perhaps Jim Jones)

Nondenom40 said:
Paul never said 'hey lets have a sit down with the Judaizers i'm sure we can find some common ground somewhere.' Jesus never partnered with the Pharisees did He? 'Other than hating me and wanting me dead, they're really not a bad bunch.'
Click to expand...
We don't hate you or want you dead, so that analogy just doesn't fly.
 
1Thess521 said:
thanks for your interpretation: its too bad you make ZERO effort to reconcile that with the rest of Scripture :

Jesus often (mostly?) used figures of speech.
Most of His discourses involved some type of figurative language
and no, it was NOT required to label those discussions as figurative

Leaving the Last Supper Jesus said:
"I have spoken these things to you in figures of speech. "
Click to expand...
Thanks for your interpretation. But I don't agree with it.

Jesus called the contents of the cup his "blood of the covenant" there is no way that the blood of the covenant can be symbolic. He wasn't calling the blood he was going to be shedding on the cross the blood of the covenant, he called the contents of the cup his blood of the covenant.
 
dingoling. said:
Thanks for your interpretation. But I don't agree with it.

Jesus called the contents of the cup his "blood of the covenant" there is no way that the blood of the covenant can be symbolic. He wasn't calling the blood he was going to be shedding on the cross the blood of the covenant, he called the contents of the cup his blood of the covenant.
Click to expand...
yep: that's what it represents:
that's why you can't give the correct answer as to when the NC went into effect..

If the blood of Christ was poured pout at the Last Supper and the flesh of Christ was was broken at the Last Supper;
Then the Last Supper should have some type of salvific effect: what is it?
What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?
 
LifeIn said:
You seem to be drawing a distinction between Christianity and "you all", which is again an extreme (and invisible outside of this forum) position. Bonnie, for one, proclaims she is a Lutheran, and supports stated Lutheran beliefs that are reasonably well-known. But she is the exception in this forum, where most of the anti-Catholics remain deliberately vague about their particular Christian community, refusing to give it a name or point to any visible representation of their Christian community in society. These are the hallmarks of a secretive cult that operates in the shadows, invisible to the wider world. Your user name, in particular, suggests a firm refusal to commit to any named Christian community, like Baptist, or Methodist, or Presbyterian. Why is that? Catholics are visible and have been for 2000 years, as the historical record shows. If the Catholic Church were to disappear, what would you replace it with? The current collection of non-Catholic Christian denominations? A single one of them? Or an invisible cult?


And there are numerous ones who will.


No compromise is required to pray for respect for life, or to admit publicly to such agreement.


More evidence of and extreme position that I have never seen any visible Christian community take (except perhaps Jim Jones)


We don't hate you or want you dead, so that analogy just doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
n/t
 
1Thess521 said:
yep: that's what it represents:
that's why you can't give the correct answer as to when the NC went into effect..

If the blood of Christ was poured pout at the Last Supper and the flesh of Christ was was broken at the Last Supper;
Then the Last Supper should have some type of salvific effect: what is it?
What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?
Click to expand...

Jesus told us. Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Those words definitely sound salvific to me.

Jesus definitely called the contents of the cup his blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
 
LifeIn said:
You seem to be drawing a distinction between Christianity and "you all", which is again an extreme (and invisible outside of this forum) position. Bonnie, for one, proclaims she is a Lutheran, and supports stated Lutheran beliefs that are reasonably well-known. But she is the exception in this forum, where most of the anti-Catholics remain deliberately vague about their particular Christian community, refusing to give it a name or point to any visible representation of their Christian community in society. These are the hallmarks of a secretive cult that operates in the shadows, invisible to the wider world. Your user name, in particular, suggests a firm refusal to commit to any named Christian community, like Baptist, or Methodist, or Presbyterian. Why is that? Catholics are visible and have been for 2000 years, as the historical record shows. If the Catholic Church were to disappear, what would you replace it with? The current collection of non-Catholic Christian denominations? A single one of them? Or an invisible cult?
Click to expand...
Wee, we are certainly not members of an invisible cult. We are Bible-believing Christians who do not necessarily worship in a traditional ecclesiastical church. And the Catholic Church has not been here for 2,000 years. That is an invention. Maybe 1600 years but not 2,000, so nothing identifiable with the earliest church Fathers (that being the apostles).

If the Catholic church were to disappear, Christians would still be around. The body of believers would still meet and praise God and do the work he has asked all of us believers to do. That would be to make disciples per Matthew 28. You do know the earliest churches of NT times were not united clones of each other. There were differences, but not on basic truths. It would be the same if the Catholic Church were gone.
 
dingoling. said:
Jesus told us. Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Those words definitely sound salvific to me.
Click to expand...

forgiveness of sin.
When was the penalty of sins paid for?

1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures

1 Peter 3:18
Christ died for sins, once for all”

Hebrews 9:15
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

Isaiah 53:
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors


  - What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?

What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?
forums.carm.org
 
dingoling. said:
Jesus told us. Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Those words definitely sound salvific to me.

Jesus definitely called the contents of the cup his blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
Click to expand...
Research the Passover Meal. Look at all the elements used. What was the purpose of each? Jesus changed the purpose and meaning of the two elements in the Passover-- bread and wine-- to mean something else spiritually. They remained literal bread and wine but now conveyed a new meaning as a New Covenant would be instituted.
 
organgrinder said:
Research the Passover Meal. Look at all the elements used. What was the purpose of each? Jesus changed the purpose and meaning of the two elements in the Passover-- bread and wine-- to mean something else spiritually. They remained literal bread and wine but now conveyed a new meaning as a New Covenant would be instituted.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.

Jesus definitely called the contents of the cup his blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
Click to expand...
 
dingoling. said:
In my post that you responded to I asked:

Jesus definitely called the contents of the cup his blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
Click to expand...
1) no one denies what Jesus said
2) your error is that you require symbolic language to be labeled as such,

So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
BECAUSE His blood was not poured out until the Cross
 
1Thess521 said:
1) no one denies what Jesus said
2) your error is that you require symbolic language to be labeled as such,

So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
BECAUSE His blood was not poured out until the Cross
Click to expand...
But Jesus clearly was referring to the contents of the cup when he said, "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

In the context of the discussion in the upper room with the disciples - the blood of the covenant is what was in the cup that they drank.
 
LifeIn said:
You do not have to pray exactly the same prayers to pray for the same common goal.


We do not have to pray "together" in the sense of praying in the same place at the same time with the same words. All that was asked was can you pray for these same things with us?


Just plain wrong.


Determining what Catholics believe about pro-life from a sampling of posts in this forum would be like me determining what non-Catholic Christians believe from from posts by the relative few who post here. I know better, because I've known good non-Catholic Christians all my life and they tell a very different story vis a vis Catholics. Social media tends to form silos instead of heterogenous communities. Silos exist in Catholic forums as well as in secular forums. What aspects of "pro-life" do you think are being universally denied by the Catholic Church? Have you read any of what Pope Francis has written about social justice, universal health care, etc.? What element of pro-life hasn't he talked about?


Have you seen the response by Catholics to these abuses? The laity is just as outraged over them as you are. This is NOT an example of Catholics not being pro-life. But if you want to add prayers to end all child abuse, I would be glad to join you in that. What possible objection would you have to praying for that along with the Catholics?
Click to expand...
Yep and you cannot pray with those who are praying falsely.

Yep I have seen the lack of response by RCs to the abuse. I watched days of the Royal Commission of Pell in Italy that gave true insight into the lack of care and lack of response by your institution. I have friends from here that I have asked to pray about things and I know they pray correctly. If not praying correctly the prayers will not be answered.

You very suggestion implies I don't know for the abuse children and for it to stop. I would change our sentences, so they remain in jail for the rest of their lives to be honest. Because there is very little evidence that these people change. If they get saved in Jail, there is a lot of work they can do in jail for God. I am normally against such actions because I believe jails should be about rehabilitation more than punishment. But we have a major responsibility to protect children.

It is not just child abuse which RCs seem to think I am obsessed with. I believe we should bring parenting training into schools to try and stop the cycle of dysfunctional parenting. I do not mean carrying a doll around for a few days. I mean training in how to speak to children, how to discipline in a correct way, how to encourage and what being positive means. I know it is hard to break the cycle without seeing there are other ways and what those ways mean. I thanked an aunt who had us for holidays for showing us there were other ways. I wish I understood more when my wonderful sons were younger about being positive. I did my best to be positive but if your main example is negative then it is hard. What pleases me is to see them as parents, and their interactions with their children. I praise God that that cycle of abuse has been changed.

I am also pleased that God has made me aware that my parents were a product of their upbringing and things that happened in their lives.

Your institution also has your priests fathering children outside of marriage. This is showing sexual immorality which your institution turns a blind eye to. But these children are brought up without their fathers, often in poverty. They should be supported financial by their fathers and this is often ignored.

So many ways your institution proves its pro life talk is just that talk.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top