The Journey Home

I guess getting pass all the bias is the first step before truly understanding the other side!

 

I've been reading many testimonies of people who have converted from one Protestant denomination or another to Catholicism, and actually John 6 is often one of the catalysts, because people see that Christ said his blood is REAL drink and his body is REAL food. Many disciples left him over these words, because it was too hard to accept. Instead of telling them he was being symbolic, he simply repeated himself. Studying church history, I'm learning that ALL of the church since day one has taken John 6 literally, up until the Reformation - and even at the Reformation, the Protestants were split on this issue, Luther arguing for the literal interpretation and Zwingli arguing against. Many Protestand denominations today still hold to the literal view.

Yes, because many people understand that the personal actions of individuals do not define the Christian faith.

Again, these things do not deal with the core faith, the core doctrines, but rather with corruption and mistakes. Many Protestants of the Reformation would probably want to do the same to Dr. Graham, many would probably want to do the same to you and me.

Brian

 

Isn't it fascinating that it is the Catholics which more often then not, get the rap on the knuckles---not Anglicans, Atheists, Agnostics, Jewish folks, Mennonites....or....! Interesting, huh?

 

Not necessariy true. It depends who is posting here. If you are an apologist defending the Catholic faith expect to get shot down.
A Charismatic can expect full and equal treatment as will Mormons and others.
DHK

 

Well, shot at anyway.

Shot down? Eye of the behold, I would say.

 

Well, shot at anyway.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes that is probably more accurate, I must admit.
Not every battle is won. But rest assured we will win the war.

 

Five-hundred years later I would expect you guys to be moving closer to the answer of it all, but instead you just have 28,000 different ones.

 

The question remains - have they ALREADY looked at John 6 and SEEN that Christ HIMSELF states that the literal flesh is literally "Worthless" and that it is His WORD that is Spirit and LIFE - and THEN come to the RCC and given UP that view?

Or did they simply never come to that understanding in the first place?

Obviously the "faithless" group of John 6 were taking this literally JUST as you stated.

But PETER says "YOU have the WORDS of LIFE" - in direct contrast to the faithLESS stuck on the point of "eating Literal FLESH". The faithFUL seem to fully "get the point".

So the question AGAIN - is has anyone become RC AFTER having carefully reviewed the point above - observed the contrast IN the Statements of the views of the faithFUL and the faithLESS disciples in John 6 - and then later become RC??

So when they get the Vicar of Christ lecture - and are ALSO told how that person slaughtered his own cardinals in his papal warship - they respond with "well you just can't trust the vicar of Christ - we all knew that, so no problem lets get sprinkled".

Here is a key point you are ducking.

#1. The protestant period of murderous domination of the European content was "nothing" compared to the RCC and EVEN the RCC admits it.

#2. Protestants are FREE to appologize all day long for even ONE murder in history. The RCC on the other hand has PAPAL statements endorsing torture and murder and has YET to state that the rules of engagement were wrong, that it was a sini to kill and torture those people etc etc.

So when you "try" to gain equivalency between the two groups - you have the RCC itself stand aloof from your claim.

As Dr. Carroll emphatically pointed out - the RCC has NOT appologized FOR ANYTHING - specifically - being done in error. No Massacre, no policy of torment and torture - NONE of it is specifically appologized for. No specific crime against humanity is admitted to - or appologized for.

Hmmm - makes sense if all those vicars of Christ must hold to the infallable party line.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually Bob, it was an article in Modern Reformation magazine, a Presbyterian publication, which made me begin to "think Eucharistically" even while I was yet Presbyterian.

As for the issue of "the flesh profiteth nothing", then if you take that to the logical conclusion, Jesus death profits us nothing, for it was "in the flesh" wasn't it?

Wanna reconsider that statement?

Maybe what Jesus was saying in John 6 in that regards has to do with the contrast between the Manna in the wilderness and Jesus' true Flesh as true Food.

The Manna was simply fleshly. There was nothing of the spirit "in it" so to speak. Therefore, Jesus states that the flesh profits nothing because in the Old Covenant, the Holy Spirit was not given and the Sacraments in which Jesus dwells by the action of the Holy Spirit upon the words of consecration had not been given to the Church in the wilderness yet. Thus, their eating of Manna was a merely fleshly and prophetic activity which could not give eternal life as Jesus' Flesh DOES

Do your homework. Stay within the context of the subject and compare the two issues -- manna vs Flesh. Then you will get it correct.

Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

Brother Ed

 

No - the point is that "eating His flesh" is just as worthless today as it was in John 6 - which is why NNE bit him in John 6 AND He did not complain that they were failing to bite him.

My point is that this perspective is so clear and obvious for a non-RC. How could anyone who had thought it through to this level - become RC?

Basically - there is "no hope" of Becoming RC once you have looked at this from the non-RC POV and observed these various details.

The fact that is abundantly clear is that each time we discuss John 6 - these are the very points that the RC responses seek to avoid - as if not responding to it "Makes their case more compelling". But that is only true for the already-RC. If you were on the outside of the RC and already knew these details about John 6 - how could you ever join?

It seems like an impossibility.

You have to admit - prior to your joining the RC EVEN as a presbyterian you were not thinking to yourself "See, nobody is literally biting Christ in John 6 AND Christ Himself states that biting his flesh is worthless - biting literal flesh is STILL worthless EVEN AFTER the death of Christ. Flesh EATING was never the point. The FaithFUL disciple agree 100% with Christ's OWN summary that it is His WORD - for the WORD became flesh".

Actually the lesson of the Manna as God stated it in Deut 8 is "Man shall not live by bread alone but by Every WORD that comes from God" and Jesus makes the SAME point of the manna in John 6 "MY WORD is Spirit and is LIFE".

The entire point of John 6 was the "MEANS" for obtaining life.

Again - if you had seen this prior to becoming RC. If you had seen the Deut 8 "point" of the Manna and observed how Christ's own John 6 SUMMARY makes that SAME point - how in the world could you become RC? It just would not work.

My point is - there must be a point where prior to being RC - you simply have observed too many things in scripture to then actually become RC. Some of the RC arguments only work if "you are already RC" because they could never compell IF you are starting with observations that are at the detailed level in John 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just one fine point for you Bob.

I am not Roman Catholic. I am of the Catholic Faith, but my praxis is Eastern Orthodox.

Have a look for yourself:

BYZANTINE CATHOLICS

And also here, to see the difference visually:

AN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Now I have a question for you. Seeing that the teachings of the Early Church show us that the Early Fathers believed the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ, and seeing that they learned this from the apostles, who were instructed directly of Christ, how is it that you DISBELIEVE that which the apostles taught?

Your problem, sir, is that you consider your thoughts on this subject to be more noble, more spiritual, more precise, and more intelligent and understandable than those of the men who learned from Jesus Himself.

Isn't that a tad egocentric?

You know, I was reading in Romans 4 this morning, and I came across the phrase, regarding Abraham, which says:

"He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

Your problem is that unlike Abraham, who believed that which seemed utterly impossible to men you think your doubts, misunderstandings, and intellectual cramps over this doctrine somehow make the promise of God void.

This is the problem with all Protestants. They look at things in the Christian Faith which seem utterly impossible to men, and they decide they must not trust God in this, but take matters into their own hands, just as Abraham did with Hagar.

And look at the results today in the Middle East.

Protestant thought:

God can't keep the Church doctrinally pure with evil men in charge of it. Poor old helpless God. Guess we'll rebel, break off, and restore the "ancient and true faith"

God can't turn wine into the real and true Blood of His Son and bread into the real and true Flesh of Jesus. Guess we'll study the Bible until we find the "real meaning" of this verse, because the literal one certainly couldn't be true, even though it was taught from the start by those dumb "papists".

Of course, you know where this goes, don't you?

Straight downhill ----

God can't really send men to hell. God really can't raise physical bodies from the dead. God really can't......(fill in whatever YOUR ASSEMBLY disagrees with in the teachings of the Faith).

Where does it then stop when the mind of man, rather than the fidelity of God through the Church, is the final arbitor of truth?

It doesn't.

I would rather believe that God can do that which my mind cannot understand, than to have a God I can surround with my puny mind. Guess you like having a "tame lion" (to misquote C.S. Lewis).

Brother Ed

 

Brother Ed,

I was cheering right along until I read:

"Where does it then stop when the mind of man, rather than the fidelity of God through the Church, is the final arbitor of truth?"

The fidelity of God through the WORD is the final arbitor of truth!

I'm sorry, but the Bible warned us that in these last days men would come to us teaching doctrines that are not in accordance with the Gospel, and SAY that they are of God. They will CONFESS that Jesus is the Christ, but yet they themselves will be that spirit of antichrist.

We are not to put our trust in men.

We are only to trust in God.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

Hi Ed,

Actually, you are a Roman Catholic The term "Roman Catholic" does not necessarily mean a Catholic practicing in the Roman Rite of the Church. It can also mean (and this is its majority meaning) all Catholics (both East and West) who are united to the Roman See.

Are you coming to the Defending the Faith conference this weekend? I'm flying out to Texas on Friday morning, and I'll be attending the Applied Biblical Studies conference both today and tomorrow.

 

Up until recently, I would have agreed 100% with you. Indeed, I still agree the word (scripture) is authoritative, and is truth. However, this verse has been keeping me up at night lately:

1 Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

Hi Brian,

Here's another verse to ponder..

"To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph 3:8-10).

 

As per the suggestion of the name of this thread, the emphasis on
Journeying Home would bypass the RCC and take us back to the unnamed
faith of the Apostles.

More verses that would keep a good Catholic awake wondering why God's
Supposed Pet Church was never named in the bible would be this verse
that suggest that churches were established in the faith without
ever mentioning the word Catholic. Or is God playing this mindtrick thing on us
just to add some mystery and complexity to our search for eternal life?

Actss 16:5
" And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased
in number daily."

That tells us that the churches (at least 100 years Pre-Catholic) were established
in the faith. There was no new or needed revelation to be forthcoming.

And another:

Acts 2:47
" Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved. "

Here, God was adding numbers to ''the church'' and again this was a Pre-Catholic
fellowship that was established in the faith.

 

Acts 12:5
" Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of
the church unto God for him"

Imagine Peter starting the Catholic Church and having the keys to the
kingdom and being the pillar of truth as the Vatican claims ..............

and then try to explain WHAT CHURCH was in the background that
was praying for him...??

 

Singer,

It also appears that Peter hadn't had a chance to tell them to pray to Mary, and other dead Saints yet.......look at who they were praying to!

 

Thanks Kelly....I'll have to add that to my list of "Catholic Stumpers" .

Have a nice Sabbath today....(I mean Sunday)