The Eucharist

[1Thess521]

But you are wanting us to follow your claims too. How do we know that your "institution" isn't distorting scripture?

ask your parents
"So I always viewed listening to the priest and my parents as listening to God."
-Ding

 

[ding]

the scariest thing in the world for a Catholic to hear:
"You are personally responsible to know"

You do not get to say: So-and-So told me it meant "this or that": so I believed him.

It is my belief that God has established the office of the Pope as the final authority regarding what we are to believe as Christians. So I do get to say, "So-and-So told me it meant "this or that": so I believed him."

 

[ding]

ask your parents
"So I always viewed listening to the priest and my parents as listening to God."
-Ding

My parents aren't living anymore, however, I still listen to the priest as listening to God.

 

[1Thess521]

It is my belief that God has established the office of the Pope as the final authority regarding what we are to believe as Christians. So I do get to say, "So-and-So told me it meant "this or that": so I believed him."

how you would know if your Pope was in error?

 

[1Thess521]

My parents aren't living anymore, however, I still listen to the priest as listening to God.

how would you know if your priest was in error?

what do you do when Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals disagree?

 

[ding]

how you would know if your Pope was in error?

Because Jesus promised he would build his church and that the "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it".

 

[ding]

how would you know if your priest was in error?

I never have had to deal with that.

what do you do when Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals disagree?

The Pope is the final authority.

 

[Septextura]

More on religious syncretism in Rome:

Bacchanalia

Cultist rites associated with worship of the Greek god of wine, Dionysus (or Bacchus in Roman mythology), were characterized by maniacal dancing to the sound of loud music and crashing cymbals, in which the revelers, called Bacchantes, whirled, screamed, became drunk and incited one another to greater and greater ecstasy. The goal was to achieve a state of enthusiasm in which the celebrants’ souls were temporarily freed from their earthly bodies and were able to commune with Bacchus/Dionysus and gain a glimpse of and a preparation for what they would someday experience in eternity.

The rite climaxed in a performance of frenzied feats of strength and madness, such as uprooting trees, tearing a bull (the symbol of Dionysus) apart with their bare hands, an act called sparagmos, and eating its flesh raw, an act called omophagia. This latter rite was a sacrament akin to communion in which the participants assumed the strength and character of the god by symbolically eating the raw flesh and drinking the blood of his symbolic incarnation. Having symbolically eaten his body and drunk his blood, the celebrants became possessed by Dionysus.

 

[mica]

1Thess521 said:
how would you know if your priest was in error?

I never have had to deal with that.

you haven't had to deal with that because you don't know the difference between His truth and what the RCC teaches you. It teaches that its word is the truth and you blindly believe it. The Bereans wouldn't have known if Paul was telling the truth if they hadn't checked scripture regarding it.

1Thess521 said: - how would you know if your priest was in error?

The Pope is the final authority.

that's too bad. he is just a man. God is my final authority.

Will you be facing your pope on judgment day?

 

[mica]

Because Jesus promised he would build his church and that the "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it".

yes, His church, not the RCC. Christ defeated Satan at Calvary. It has nothing to do with the RCC or your pope.

 

[leonard03782]

Truth isn't settles by democracy is it? No I don't think so. We don't vote on the truth. God is the final/ultimate authority so what does God say is the truth? When Jesus said, "....this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..." was he using a figure of speech or not?

Rc's are hypocrites. You pick and choose what Scriptures that you want to believe and disregard the rest. This post is the perfect case to make my point. You believe this verse literally, yet you disregard these very words of Jesus:
Matthew 15:
Mat 15:3-9 KJV 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[leonard03782]

if Christ walked in a sat in the front pew of a Cathodic Church : would the Mass need to continue in that Church?
What happens during Mass that it would still need to continue ; even if Christ was sitting there.

Of course it would. Rc's and their church would label Jesus as a bigoted anti-catholic who rejects their traditions, the real presence, the perpetual vriginity of Mary, the infallibility of the pope, the primacy of Peter, etc., etc. And they would keep doing what they are doing.

 

[leonard03782]

That's irrelevant, AS. Many Protestants on this forum basically treat any denomination like a club and disavow association from them (so that they don't have to answer for their problems - while happily criticising the Church). Obviously, they have the Bible that fell out of the sky like mana and the experience of a few score years to know the truth, compared to Churches with historical pedigree, like the Catholic and and Orthodox Churches.

The historical "pedigree" of your church means exactly nothing. Everyone knows that history can be revised so that the errors or weaknesses of the one the that is writing the history are not included and that which you want people to believe is included.

 

[leonard03782]

That's irrelevant, AS. Many Protestants on this forum basically treat any denomination like a club and disavow association from them (so that they don't have to answer for their problems - while happily criticising the Church). Obviously, they have the Bible that fell out of the sky like mana and the experience of a few score years to know the truth, compared to Churches with historical pedigree, like the Catholic and and Orthodox Churches.

There is not one church on the face of this earth that does not have issues and problems to deal with. The reason you are complaining is that we are not giving you something to throw back into our face in order to distract us from the point we are trying to make.

What rc's refuse to accept is that name on the front of our building or the denomination that our church identifies or belongs to means very little to nothing compared to Who we worship on the inside of the building.
True Christians are are happy and content with just being called Christians. This is not the case for rc's.

God Himself preserved the Scriptures, not the rcc. I do not think that very many of my brothers or sisters would disagree with me when I say that the rcc would have edited the Scriptures to ensure that every one of its doctrines and dogmas would be found within them.

 

[mica]

jonathan_hili said:
That's irrelevant, AS. Many Protestants on this forum basically treat any denomination like a club and disavow association from them (so that they don't have to answer for their problems -

why do you say this? explain.

while happily criticising the Church). Obviously, they have the Bible that fell out of the sky like mana and the experience of a few score years to know the truth,

as did Jesus and the apostles criticize false teachers, it's scriptural.

is that written in the RCC handbook for online posters? it must be, it's used on here by catholics repeatedly. as with most that is taught by the RCC, it is wrong.

compared to Churches with historical pedigree, like the Catholic and and Orthodox Churches.

made up by the men of those churches. It is not biblical.

those who are born again have a biblical pedigree, based at the foot of His cross when we became part of His family. It is all about Him, not the local 'church' group or its earthly leader. He is the head of His church, man is not.

 

[balshan]

There is not one church on the face of this earth that does not have issues and problems to deal with. The reason you are complaining is that we are not giving you something to throw back into our face in order to distract us from the point we are trying to make.

What rc's refuse to accept is that name on the front of our building or the denomination that our church identifies or belongs to means very little to nothing compared to Who we worship on the inside of the building.
True Christians are are happy and content with just being called Christians. This is not the case for rc's.

God Himself preserved the Scriptures, not the rcc. I do not think that very many of my brothers or sisters would disagree with me when I say that the rcc would have edited the Scriptures to ensure that every one of its doctrines and dogmas would be found within them.

Other churches have recognised their problems and changed things, the leaders who have failed are dismissed. They do not continue to dismiss, migrate the evil done as the RCC is still doing and most of all they do not lie about who they are unlike the RCC who makes false claims about itself. We all know those claims to be false because its fruit stinks and is rotten.

RCs if they have problems with other churches should go to the right threads and state their case but no they just point fingers. It is a fallacy of tu quoque.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The historical "pedigree" of your church means exactly nothing. Everyone knows that history can be revised so that the errors or weaknesses of the one the that is writing the history are not included and that which you want people to believe is included.

So, you'd just throw out the window the discipline of history? We should always look to the most trustworthy sources.

 

[jonathan_hili]

There is not one church on the face of this earth that does not have issues and problems to deal with. The reason you are complaining is that we are not giving you something to throw back into our face in order to distract us from the point we are trying to make.

I agree, any society formed of humans is going to have problems. One of my main complaints would be that many people on here attack aspects of the Church while shielding themselves by disavowing any association with any Christian body. It's a good tactic but either suggests (a) evasion in not admitting which church one belongs to that can be equally criticised or (b) cowardice in claiming one belongs to no real "visible church" so that one can make up doctrine and practice as they go along and avoid any criticism.

What rc's refuse to accept is that name on the front of our building or the denomination that our church identifies or belongs to means very little to nothing compared to Who we worship on the inside of the building.

Yes... I agree with that. The thing is though, what your denomination is will skew who you worship.

True Christians are are happy and content with just being called Christians. This is not the case for rc's.

Ahhh I see you fit in category (b). Catholics are Christians.

God Himself preserved the Scriptures, not the rcc. I do not think that very many of my brothers or sisters would disagree with me when I say that the rcc would have edited the Scriptures to ensure that every one of its doctrines and dogmas would be found within them.

Ohhh how did God do that? Did He copy all the manuscripts? If so, He made a lot of copying errors for a deity.

 

[jonathan_hili]

why do you say this? explain.

I say this because many people on here don't have to guts to say: "I'm a Calvinist" or "I'm a Baptist" or "I'm a Lutheran", as if there's this blanket term "Christian" that is unaffected by denominational membership. If someone said, "I'm a Lutheran" and then went on to criticise elements in the Catholic Church, the Catholic respondent could then turn the tables and show how the Lutheran Church is equally guilty of them.

as did Jesus and the apostles criticize false teachers, it's scriptural.

is that written in the RCC handbook for online posters? it must be, it's used on here by catholics repeatedly. as with most that is taught by the RCC, it is wrong.

Your position is totally parasitic on the Catholic Church. The Church formed the canon, preserved the scriptures, developed the creeds, etc. that is the backbone of Christianity (as a religion). Since the Reformation, there's been nothing but dissolution in the faith as every thread of the Christian garment has been slowly pulled more and more apart.

made up by the men of those churches. It is not biblical.

Nope. Coming from Christ.

those who are born again have a biblical pedigree, based at the foot of His cross when we became part of His family. It is all about Him, not the local 'church' group or its earthly leader. He is the head of His church, man is not.

No they don't, they just have an inner sensation. The fact that you can't see that it's about Christ and the local church shows this. The local church consists of our brothers and sisters in Christ, therefore they are Christ to us and we are Christ to them. To disdain them for whatever one personally interprets from scripture is a grave problem.

 

[mica]

jonathan_hili said: That's irrelevant, AS. Many Protestants on this forum basically treat any denomination like a club and disavow association from them (so that they don't have to answer for their problems -

mica said:
why do you say this? explain.

I say this because many people on here don't have to guts to say: "I'm a Calvinist" or "I'm a Baptist" or "I'm a Lutheran",

Why should anyone claim to be a Calvinist if they aren't? or a Lutheran if they aren't? because you think they should?

Why do you think every believer must belong to a denom? what denom did the apostles belong to?

as if there's this blanket term "Christian" that is unaffected by denominational membership.

There are Christians in many different denoms. most likely some non Christians also. There are also Christians who aren't 1 particular denom. I can worship with believers of many different denoms or non denoms.

If someone said, "I'm a Lutheran" and then went on to criticise elements in the Catholic Church, the Catholic respondent could then turn the tables and show how the Lutheran Church is equally guilty of them.

catholics do that on here to those who are denoms and non denoms.

Your position is totally parasitic on the Catholic Church. The Church formed the canon, preserved the scriptures, developed the creeds, etc. that is the backbone of Christianity (as a religion).

no it didn't. those are lies taught to you by the RCC.

Christianity isn't a religion. those are man made. Christianity is a relationship with Christ.

Since the Reformation, there's been nothing but dissolution in the faith as every thread of the Christian garment has been slowly pulled more and more apart.

dissolution of what faith? faith in the RCC?

catholics don't know or believe in 'threads of the Christian garment'.... what they know is threads of catholicism, taught to them by the RCC.

mica said: made up by the men of those churches. It is not biblical.

Nope. Coming from Christ.

wrong. the specifically catholic teachings are not found in scripture. that's why catholics always say things like 'the RCC teaches', 'the Church says', 'we can assume...', 'it's possible...', 'from this we see...' etc (there's a long list...

mica said:
those who are born again have a biblical pedigree, based at the foot of His cross when we became part of His family. It is all about Him, not the local 'church' group or its earthly leader. He is the head of His church, man is not.

No they don't, they just have an inner sensation.

yes, they do.

they have much more than an 'inner sensation'. What do you consider to be an 'inner sensation '? I have an inner sensation by mid - late afternoon if I haven't eaten yet. I also have an inner sensation in the middle of the night when my bladder alarm goes off. Neither of those signal the Holy Spirit in my life.

The fact that you can't see that it's about Christ and the local church shows this.

I know it is all about Christ. I've posted that many times in replies to catholic posts here. For believers, Christ is the center of their lives. It isn't about a local church group. That can change and I have done that many times as I've moved around the country or even a great distance in the same city or state. There are church groups of believers all over the US.

catholics are the ones who can't see that it is all about Him. to them it's all about the RCC / pope / Mary (and many others) rather than Christ. that's why catholics believe in and obey the RCC / pope instead of Christ and His word. That's also why we continually read on here things like 'the Church says...' or the 'RCC teaches...' posted by catholics.

The local church consists of our brothers and sisters in Christ, therefore they are Christ to us and we are Christ to them. To disdain them for whatever one personally interprets from scripture is a grave problem.

I'm a sister in Christ to those who are born again, not to those who aren't born again.

right, and believers don't each have their own personal interpretation of scripture. catholics here have posted that before. Is that another false teaching by the RCC about those who aren't catholic? catholics do believe the personal interpretation of the men leading their church.

Those who believe the words of men instead of those of God have a grave problem.