What do you want from your church?

In replying to Carson, Singer commented:

Catholics ................. have a Church that is Apostolic unlike every one of the religions or
sects mentioned in your post above.

And he replied:

Please don't misconstrue my words, Singer. In all charity, the term is applied to you loosely, since you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Let me know and I will sponser you in R.C.I.A (Rite of Christian Instruction, Adult) and hold my hand on your shoulders as you are baptised into the Catholic Faith, and be there when you receive your first Holy Communion!

When you do that, you will be a full blown Catholic!

And my original words were:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that all non-Catholic
Christians are members of Holy Church albeit in an incomplete way.
In a sense, you guys are "Catholic and don't know it" even while not
completely. Christ loves you guys just as much as He loves all of us!

Notice the word "incomplete," Singer? I sure would like you to become a full-fledged member!

Keep on reading what I tell you, Singer!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

Oops, I almost missed this reply, so here goes...

Does it really suprise you that my replies are "atypical and reflect the unity with the Catholic Church"? That argument works against you, Singer.

But like a previous reply to you this day, your reply does nothing to refute my treatise. If you were to do so, you would have copied it, pasted it in and refuted it line by line!

I will give you the opportunity to do so, but with a similar comment made in another forum that is a bit meater then the treatise on my web site, so I pasted it in here for your response:


NOTE: Sentences that begin with ">>>>" are from the person I was discussing the issue with.

Paste-in here......................

What does Chapter 6 start out with? The multiplication of the loaves (and fishes) of course! By performing the miracle of multiplying this small bit of food (certainly against nature, I am sure you would agree) I propose to you that Jesus was setting them up for what was to occur later (and why John wrote his gospel the way he did.) Jesus is speaking of food. As we have previously discussed, we both agree that by this act, Jesus further establishes His own divinity. He "credibility" of being who He is claiming is reinforced. Which means that what he says further must have greater weight.

(And in between, we have Jesus "walking on water" in the discourse that has Jesus traveling with his companions to Capernaum, across the Sea of Galilee.

And then guess what? The crowds came in boats to follow to where Jesus was! They were interested in what He had to say! Is He indeed, the Messiah? Is He who He is claiming to be. And just maybe he will "feed us again" is performing another miracle! (I'm setting this all up for what I am about to say here.)

In verses 24 thru 26, we read (Taken from the Catholic NAB):

[blockquote]When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. And when they found him across the sea they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus answered them and said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled."[/blockquote]

Notice that the theme of food is still with us....

Reading further, we notice that Jesus takes the opportunity to speak of not working for food that perishes but for food that "endures for eternal life" (verse 27) in what I consider a most skillful "easing-in" of a profundity that will be rejected by many. But here is how He does it:

Verses 32-33:

[blockquote]So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life tro the world."[/blockquote]

Christ goes all the way back to the Old Testament to see a forshadowing of what is to come as the "true bread."

Notice further that there is nothing that can be taken literally here. The natural tendency is to see this "bread" as a metaphor for "something that will save us" most likely Christ Himself.

And as we well see, nothing truer then "Christ Himself" can said!

From verse 35:

[blockquote]...whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.[/blockquote]

Now, what do we see starting with verse 41?

[blockquote]The Jews murjured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."[/blockquote]

...and they go on to note that they knew him from his youth, his family, wondering how it is that He says, "I have come down from heaven." (verse 42)

And I will continue off of your last statement:

The person I was speaking with then said:

>>>>>Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Just like He also said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine." These are obvious metaphors, but the "bread" metaphor just may not be. Could "bread" be something just a bit more literal here?

We read in verses 49 thru 51:

[blockquote]I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."[/blockquote]

Oops, something quite disturbing here! He speaks of "eating" what is identified and His own "flesh"!

And now we come down to my previous question:

>>>>Why did the Jews desert Him here, as well as some of His own disciples?

Verse 52:

[blockquote]The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'[/blockquote]

Do you see a questioning of his deity here? And did they really understand the implications of exactly what this "bread" was, His own flesh, that they did not take Him literally here?

You are confusing the reference back to verse 41, where indeed, they may have questioned exactly who He is, even His divinity. But that is not the main objection here, including those who would join the Jews is objecting to Him.

>Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,

>>>>whose father and mother we know? how is >>>>it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

>>>>they didn't ask "How is it that He claims to be bread?" They were questioning His claim to deity - that's why they left.

No, it is not at this point that they left, sir! And we will see exactly why they left, including some of His own disciples!

To what were they originally reacting to, as we see in verse 42 which I give again:

[blockquote]The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'[/blockquote]

Get it yet? They questioned, "HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" (The body of His disciples were still "entact" up to this point.)

Now, are you ready for this, sir? What was the thing that Christ said after the above "quarreling among themselves"? Do you not agree that the Jews took Christ literally in that they were to "eat" His body? Now, if they were mistaken, and if Jesus really meant to use the term "his body" im a metaphor or figurative sense, could He not then correct them? Could He not simply say, "No, no, I mean that figuratively, not my actual body!"

So now, let's see what Christ actually said in verses 53 thru 56:

[blockquote]Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and ddrink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is strsue drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.[/blockquote]

Is that not a statement that hits you over the head like a club? Does it not only affirm what the Jews suspect (a literal interpretation) but why some of His own disciples join with the Jews and leave him?

Look at verses 60 to 62:

[blockquote]Then many of his disciples who were listening said,"This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them. "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the son of Man ascending to where he was before?[/blockquote]

In other words, if you don't believe Jesus now, why would you believe if you saw Him ascending back to heaven? Why is this saying so hard if Jesus was only speaking metaphorically or symbolically about the eating and drinking of His body and blood? Instead of a simple explaination, why the reaffirmation of his "hard saying?"

And now, verse 63:

[blockquote]It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.[/blockquote]

Some Protestants point to this verse as Christ correcting the impression of what he just said. The problem with this is what happened later in verse 66:

[blockquote]As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.[/blockquote]

Well, I thought verse 63 explained all that! It obviously did not!

Why don't we see an affirmation of the defecting disciples, with a "oh, I get it now! You were only speaking figuratively and not actually!" But no, they depart from Him!

What Christ is saying in verse 63 is that only the Spirit can understand, the flesh cannot understand it. Christ explains why His words are rejected - the flesh rejects it! If they have had the Spirit, they would have at least taken His words at face value, even while they may not have understood exactly how they were to "eat" His body and drink His blood - Something that became plain as day at the Last Supper!

Even the apostles, including Peter, stayed with him, so the Spirit was at least active to that extent. And I love the words of Peter as he answers Jesus' question, "Do you also want to leave?" (verse 67)

"Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

AMEN TO THAT!

End of paste-in..............

What you need is a gung ho Catholic speaking to you! Know of any?

Look, Singer, you will always get a babble of voices, all confused and with different doctrines and beliefs that are hard to decipher, just as I had experienced in my high school days and before I joined the Navy (1947).

How do you find the truth? I would suggest you go to the oldest source on Christianity, and there are none more ancient then the Catholic Church. She was the original and the very one Christ established, but if she failed and fell into error as you may claim, you need to look elsewhere for your religion and relationship with God, as then Christianity would be a fraud! (Which it is not, of course.....)

Singer, look for the righteous and the holy men and women in the Catholic Church, not those who do not practice their faith very well. They exist if only you will seek them out.

As for being smug, I have been accused of that a time or two, and all I can say is, Lord, please beat any vestige of smuggness out of me!

I do feel confident in my faith, having defended it from the time I became a Catholic, therefore, some of my comments may come off as being smug. I regret that impression if it occurs...

Well, even while that is an old worn-out cliche, is it not true? We have then in all walks of life, including some of the "faithful" in the Catholic Church.

See, you do find good holy men and women in the Catholic Church!

Gee! I'm speechless!

I do! What I call the "Christian Sabboth!" But actually, I go to the Saturday Vigil Mass, which means it falls on the old Jewish Sabboth (if only they really knew it was the actual seventh day God rested on, but that is another argument...)

"Exclusivity," just may come with the territory if you have the truth exclusively.

In the early days of the Church, from Pentecost until about the 9th century (and the first schism from the Church) there was indeed, "exclusivity."

However, if "exclusivity" brings on pride, we have another matter and another issue...something the Pharisees were guilty of.

You are almost there, Singer!

Which is included as a sub-set of your belief in Jesus, right? If so, look further into what it means to "believe" in Him.

Does it also mean being subject to the very Church Christ founded? Think real hard on that, Singer. I will pray that I can somehow, someway, enlighten you.....

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

You know what happens to those who strive to be FIRST.....
don't you, Bill ?

 

Bill,

You do a wonderful job of getting your point across. You are a definite
warrior for the Catholic Church. I read with enthusiasm your every word.
Long posts do not generally get read thoroughly so I'll post a few short
ones.

The first half of your post terminated with this statement:

Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (vs 68)

You used that as the crux for the whole chapter in dealing with the flesh
and blood and that Jesus' purpose was to impress upon them the need
to eat his actual flesh and blood.

I disagree.

St John Chapter 6 is our scripture.

You referred to vs. 27 where Jesus said "Labour not for the meat which
perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life"

In vs. 28 the disciples asked what "we shall do, that we might work
the works of God"?

Jesus' answer was "This is the work of God, that ye believe on
him whom he hath sent." (Vs 29)

Then the conversation transpired over the flesh and blood as you noted.

What you failed to reveal was the CONCLUSION of the conversation
which brought out the real purpose and the answer to the disciples
original question.... "What shall we do"?

After Jesus' explanations.....they finally realized what it was that they
were to do and they admitted it in Vs. 69 that you so gallantly
overlooked.

"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son
of the living God."

Thus they confirmed and admitted to what Jesus told them in the
first place....(verse 29...("Believe")

* Ya always have to read clear through to the end of the story, Bill.

 

You know what happens to those who strive to be FIRST.....
don't you, Bill ? </font>[/QUOTE]What happens, Singer, can you tell me?

What happens if indeed, they are first? The Catholic Church was, you know....

Or do you dispute that? If so, put forth your best argument.............

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Singer, first of all, thank you for the compliments that I do not deserve. I post long posts simply because I quote almost verbatum my adversaries comments so that are not misconstrued.

Not really, as the crux of my argument is in the body of the comments I made. However, Peter's comments does illustrate the total and complete faith he has in Jesus, even while he does not comprehend what Jesus is saying here. He is taking Jesus on His word in blind faith, something none of us do completely.....

I didn't think you would!

My bible says "food" instead of "meat," but nevermind. What do you think Jesus is speaking of here? A real "food" or what?

OK..............

Singer, what am I to do with you anyway?

After the Jews and many of His own disciples leave him, only Peter and the other apostles remain, what exactly what do you think they are "believing in" anyway? Christ just told them that they are to "eat His flesh and drink His blood," something they obviously do not undertstand, but they continue to believe that He is the Son of God! Oh, what an act of faith (soon to vanish as he is denied by Peter, and the others abandon him as He hangs on the cross) on something the "flesh" cannot understand, but only the "spirit" (like say, that comes at Pentecost) will they understand, and you expect this to be a conclusion to an argument for what, Singer?

That He speaks of His flesh a blood figuratively,

OR

He speaks of his flesh in actuality (to be revealed at the Last Supper as He consecrates the bread as "His body" and the wine as "His blood.")

Believe in what, Singer?

What are they to believe concering His body and blood? Why did those disciples leave him, along with the Jews, if Jesus was only speaking fuguratively?

Indeed, and if you stick with me, you will see the ultimate conclusion! Heehee!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Believe in what, Singer?

IN WHAT YOU ASK.........?
I know that Catholics intentionally miss the answer just as you have.
The apostles asked the same question you did.
The answer is always the same.

It's in verse 29, Bill....right here:
Jesus' answer was "This is the work of God, that ye believe on
him whom he hath sent." (Vs 29)

AND AGAIN IN VERSE 69:
"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son
of the living God."

That's the question that has plagued mankind from the beginning
of creation. It is the basis of faith, an object of faith and the thing
that when answered wrong......can send people to eternal death.

Concentrating on whether some breaddough and pink liquid are
actual or representative of Christ's suffering on the cross is a
trivial matter that; regardless of the answer, does not result in a
souls departure to either eternal life OR death.

Believe me, Bill.

 

John 6:47,48

"Verrily, verrily I say unto you "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

vs 48: I AM that bread of life."

Isn't that ironic that those two statements (Both by Jesus) are back to back ?

 

sorry........ deleted!

 

A sound vision statement inspired from God
Unity
Good Teaching

 

Singer:

Apparently the Lord doesn't have the same low view of the Sacraments which you hold to:

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Notice that the Lord identifies Himself as "the bread". NOT belief in Him, not a "spiritualized" idea of faith in Him, but He says "I AM THE BREAD".

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

I am that bread. I am everlasting life. Verse 47 and 48 tie together in identifying what that everlasting life is. It is the Bread of Life, and if one eats that Bread, one has eternal life.

Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

How can anyone misunderstand the words here. THIS is the bread which came from Heaven. (Jesus). I am the living bread. If any man eat

Sure seems that Jesus had a different idea.

Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

And now the Protestant translation

Joh 6:54 Whoso believes in me, and hath faith alone without anything else, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Singer, why not just believe the Lord the way He said it? That is what the Church did for the frist 1500 years of its existence until heretical other ideas were hatched up. Why not take the side of Jesus and the apostles over that of men who made up doctrines 1500 years later?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Brother Ed:

We who disagree with "actual blood and flesh" can only feel sorry for you
who do. I've learned alot about the RCC in recent months and it gets worse
as it proceeds. Don't stop "enlightening" me as I'm building a case that I
use in witnessing.....(and it is not in favor of Catholicism to be sure).

Amongst RCC posters here I see a desire and attempt to convert non-Catholics
into Catholics. That same syndrome was apparent in the sect (2x2) that I grew
up in. I commented to my parents at an early age that their motive was to take
saved Christians and transpose them into 2x2s. The motive behind RCCism
seems to be the same. (Convert Christians into Catholics). If Catholics are
Christian also (disputable)..........then the sole motive becomes to convert
Protestants to Catholicism. And to what gain I might ask....? Saved is Saved !!
Let it rest. If there is a need to be CAtholic in order for salvation to take place,
then millions of Protestants are blindly oblivious to that reality. (And the bible
is neglectful in revealing it).

Bill has compared Moses' followers eating manna to the need to eat the blood
and flesh of Jesus. The emphasis is on the ACTUAL practice...not to be symbolized.

Compare that thinking to St John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up

To stay true to your course, I'm sure you'd agree that Jesus actual body must be
lifted up. Is that why the priests always raise their hands that contain the bread
and wine before offering it to followers ? If you're going to obey ALL of the
commandments, don't over look this one.

To me that verse is described in vs 15 that follows a colon: That whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have eternal life

There's that horrible truth that Catholics have to face AGAIN. (Believe in Him).

Then the ever popular John 3:16 follows that...
" For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Those are the words of Jesus Himself. No emphasis on actual anything.

Only one requirement.....FAITH !!!

Singer

 

And exactly what was the "work of God that ye believe on him that hath sent"? That is what I am trying to get out of you.

Peter and the rest of the apostles stuck with Jesus while a goodly portion of his disciples and the Jews left Him? So exactly what was it they could not believe in that Peter and the apostles continue to believe?

Why did His disciples suddenly leave Him then? Did they not also believe that He was the Son of the living God"? Even some of the Jews were wondering if indeed, Jesus was the Messiah, so what was it He said that turned them away as well?

Was it not something so astounding that it would be the only place in scripture where we see a separation of "the men for the boys" so to speak?

Is this not the only place where some of His own followers depart from Him? Why, Singer?

As a matter of fact, Jesus does not even hint of bread and wine here, albeit there is some harking back to His feeding the multitude with "food," something He springboards from that the only real "food" is His body and blood.

No one had the slightest notion that His body and blood would take the form of bread and wine, not until the Last Supper, the night before He was betrayed and crucified.

I last said:

Singer, what am I to do with you anyway?

Believe you what, Singer?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

First of all, define what it means to "believeth on me" (Jesus). Does it include obeying all of His commandments, including subjection to the very church He founded?

And secondly, I have already noted that this is an obvious metaphor at the beginning of the "bread of life" discourse, only to slowly and methodically ease the meaning to include a literal meaning.

The figurative meaning is always easier to believe in then the stark reality of the literal, especially when it comes to an astounding statement that all must "eat and drink His blood" else they will have no life in them. (paraphrased).

One of these days, it is going to hit you like a ton of bricks, Singer, and when you suddenly are enlightened, the tears will stream down your cheeks as you contemplate the most beautiful of the seven sacraments given to us by Christ and His church!

Been there, done that!

Consider this:

At the Last Supper, Christ did not say, "I am the bread;" He said instead, "This is my body..."

And again, He did not say, "I am the wine;" He said, "this is my blood..."

Note the subtle difference.............

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

I would personally like to see this "case" you think you are building, and instead of "feeling sorry" for us who believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist, wonder in the beauty of such a sacrament - contemplete what if it is true - and ask yourself, is that not a beautiful thing for Christ to do?

I may have "hinted" in conversion to Catholicism in jest, but I mainly want you to seek for the ultimate truth, even if it does not lead you to the Catholic Church. And that is certainly encumbant upon me as well...

Why would you choke at Catholic attempts to convert you to their way of believing, when we Catholics are subjected to it constantly? (Not this conference, specifically, but in so many I post in......)

Jesus does this Himself, Singer, in John 6, and all I am doing is showing the forshadowing that the feeding of the multidude in the OI has for the new covenant "food" that is being introduced here.

Hummmm, I never thought of that! The brazen serpant just may be sort of a prefigurement of what is to come, I suppose, but lifting up the host and the chalice is for for all of us to view and adore more then anything else.

Would that possibly include "obeying all that He commands you" as well, Singer?

And you actually think that Catholics don't "believe in Him," Singer?

What else is there to say them a big AMEN!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

[ May 01, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

I may have "hinted" in conversion to Catholicism in jest, but I mainly want
you to seek for the ultimate truth, even if it does not lead you to the Catholic
Church. And that is certainly encumbant upon me as well...

I rather think that is your entire motive, Bill, and for what gain....I have no idea.
Do you gain reward for generating members to the Vatican's coffers, or do you
think you will gain reward in heaven for convincing someone of an issue about
blood and meat.? Ask yourself what God's desire is? What is the Gospel.?
What is the Good News ? What is supposed to be spread to all corners of the
earth before Christ will return? What is the message of the messengers of Christ?
What is the object of our faith? Who was the sacrifice for our sins?
None of those could be answered with ......" ummmmm....believing that wine
and bread is the actual body of Christ". !!

Why would you choke at Catholic attempts to convert you to their way of
believing, when we Catholics are subjected to it constantly? (Not this conference,
specifically, but in so many I post in......)

That's a good question, Bill. WHY DO people propagate their beliefs.
I do it because I received Christ's forgiveness myself, experienced an amazing
Baptism of the Holy Spirit complete with tongues, accepted His work on the
cross as final and rest in assurance of eternal life. That is what I like to share
and that is what His Great Commission is. The topic of ''actual blood and meat''
get in the way of revealing that the real issue is getting people to "believe in Jesus
Christ" in the first place. Your agenda disrupts mine.... Do my attempts to
share Jesus get in the way of your agenda ?

Jesus does this Himself, Singer, in John 6, and all I am doing is showing the forshadowing
that the feeding of the multidude in the OI has for the new covenant "food" that is being
introduced here.

Right and Jesus does it to reveal his coming sacrifice and the availability of eternal life
that will follow because of his blood that will be SHED on the cross, NOT CONSUMED
by his followers. See the light, Brother.

Hummmm, I never thought of that! The brazen serpant just may be sort of a prefigurement
of what is to come, I suppose, but lifting up the host and the chalice is for for all of us to
view and adore more then anything else.

Haha...I thought maybe I was wrongfully putting ideas in your head. Sorry.
Is the brazen serpent something like the golden calf ?

Would that possibly include "obeying all that He commands you" as well, Singer?

Considering that a person can receive salvation on their deathbed or in a doomed airplane
before it hits the ground, or to a 6 yr old, .....................NO, I doubt that it includes obeying
all the He commands. Works demand obedience which yield rewards in heaven.
Salvation is a whole different topic.

And you actually think that Catholics don't "believe in Him," Singer?

You know very well that your 'believing in Him'' includes
1. Belonging to a church that was supposedly started by Christ
2. Never missing Mass
3. Believing that bread and wine are the actual blood and meat
4. Not relying on the bible as sola scriptura
5. Supposing a mere sinful man can forgive your sins
6. Hailing Mary as the Mother of God
7. Thinking that the Body of Christ is the Catholic Church
8. Thinking that the Kingdom of God is the Catholic Church
9. Not accepting Grace by Faith as the final answer.
10. Did I forget something ?

Oh yes, the RCC does not preach that Jesus' work was complete on the cross
without some additions of your own.

Why then did Jesus say "It is finished"....?

* And of course your answer will be that..................
(No, forget it...I'm beginning to read your mind is all)

Singer (Saved by Grace through Faith. Period)

 

I previously said:

I may have "hinted" in conversion to Catholicism in jest, but I mainly want
you to seek for the ultimate truth, even if it does not lead you to the Catholic
Church. And that is certainly encumbant upon me as well...

What, to convert you to Catholicism or to seek the truth?

Be advised that I cannnot "convert" you to anything - your own free will must be active in what you choose - and all I can do is point out what I believe to be the truth.

Come, Holy Spirit..............

I gain reward in heaven in loving the Lord with my whole heart, mind and strength and to comply with His commandments. The "Vatican coffers" is the furthest thing from my mind.

As for "blood and meat," you still don't get it, do you? Oh well, all I can do is speak in terms the best I can to show what I believe to be Christ's teachings and ask the Holy Spirit to take over and do the rest.

What is the gospel? It is the Good News of and about Jesus Christ! For about the first 30 to 50 years after Pentecost, the "Good News" was oral only, not one whit of it was ever written down, until later, when Matthew, Mark Luke and John committed it to papyrus.

Singer, the Eucharist is only a small part of the whole gospel message! The need for baptism is also called for, reconsiliation too (per John 20:22-23, which is another part of scripture I would love for you to "analyze" for me) as well as what constitutes a marriage, how we are to treat our neighbors, including anointing then with holy chrism when they are sick and/or near death, and also the great commission given in -Holy Orders. And I could go on and on and on.......

I last said:

Why would you choke at Catholic attempts to convert you to their way of
believing, when we Catholics are subjected to it constantly? (Not this conference,
specifically, but in so many I post in......)

The answer is quite simple - They do so because they have the truth to salvation! And as Matthew 28:19 would have the apostles do before Christ ascended, we are to "make disciples of all nations."

Your "agenda" has no bearing on mine, which is mainly defending the Catholic faith from the untruths said about it.

As for "tongues," I cannot know of the authenticity of your experience, other then to say that this phenomenon occurs within some occult religions - Voodoo, for example. And by the way, it has been documented in contempory times in Catholicism - The famous stigmatic, Therese Neumann, is documented to to have spoken in tongues that complies with what the phenomenon was intended to produce in scripture - that others will understand what you are saying even while they do not speak in our own tongue.

On the whole, I am very skeptical of "tongues," just as I am skeptical of the Blessed Virgin Mary apparing on glass windows and tortillas.

I last said:

Jesus does this Himself, Singer, in John 6, and all I am doing is showing the forshadowing
that the feeding of the multidude in the OT has for the new covenant "food" that is being introduced here.

Then why does Christ refer to "eating his body and drinking His blood"? Is it not obvous to you that the Jews were disgusted with this statement, taking Him at His literal word, as did some of His own disciples?

And if they took Him wrong, why does He not correct them with, "Oh no, I meant it figuratively when I said 'eat my body and drink my blood.'"

It is simple as that, Singer.....

I last said:

Hummmm, I never thought of that! The brazen serpant just may be sort of a prefigurement
of what is to come, I suppose, but lifting up the host and the chalice is for for all of us to
view and adore more then anything else.

Yes, it became that way. And as I recall, they were punished for it.

Please don't take the prefigurement too far in any analysis, and of course, the brazen serpant is not God, if it were considered so, then it would become an idol, wouldn't it?

But the Eucharist is God, if indeed, it becomes Christ's body and blood, soul and divinity, wouldent it?

A whole nother matter.......

Would that possibly include "obeying all that He commands you" as well, Singer?

If you believe in Christ, including the profound intention of obeying all that He commands you, then you suddenly die, you certainly will not be penalized for not having the opportunity to do some of this "obeying," right? God judges the heart, like Christ judged the heart of the good thief on the cross.

He had little opportunity to "obey all of what He has commanded all of us to do" either.

But if you "believe in Jesus" but then consciously withhold what becomes obvious to you is a commandment of Christ, such as to subject yourself to His church and the authority He infused it with, that that is a whole nother matter.

And you actually think that Catholics don't "believe in Him," Singer?

There was a time, I did none of those things, and by my own free will of choice, I not only embrace what you list above, I do so with gusto!

By the way, in #5, please discuss with me, John 20:22-23

But yes, you did miss a few!

Such as:

Prohibition against artificial birth control is one that comes to mind, and the scriptural prohibition against divorce.

In 1930, all non-Catholic Christians stood with the Catholic Church is considering artificial birth control a grevious sin.

Where are they today, Singer?

There are more, but this is enough to get you to thinking real hard................

First of all, document for me please, where the Catholic Church abridges the completeness of the work on the cross.

And what is your interpretation of "It is finished"? Mine is, he finished the work of redemption as the Father sent Him to do. But it cannot be construed to go so far that once a person is saved, he/she cannot loose that salvation by grevious sin. ("Once Saved, Always Saved.")

So far, you are batting zero as to reading my mind, so don't try it But for starters, I provided you one above for you to mull over!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Listen, my son, to what I tell you now. Do not be troubled,
nor disturbed by anything, nor pain, Are you not under my
shadow, my protection? And am I not life and health? Do
you need anything else? Do not be troubled, or take thought
of your uncle's illness, for he will not die of this seizure,
and is well even now"

What the vision of Our Lady of Guadalupe said to Juan Diego,
just before he discovered that his uncle was completely cured.

 

What, to convert you to Catholicism or to seek the truth?

To convert many to Catholicism.

I gain reward in heaven in loving the Lord with my whole heart, mind and
strength and to comply with His commandments. The "Vatican coffers" is the
furthest thing from my mind.

Maybe we should be attending to the matters of resolving what the
commandments are then instead of debating Catholic/Protestant topics.
Don't forget to visit the sick or widow ladies while you're at it.

As for "blood and meat," you still don't get it, do you? Oh well, all I can
do is speak in terms the best I can to show what I believe to be Christ's
teachings and ask the Holy Spirit to take over and do the rest.

Ironically enough, I credit the Holy Spirit with protecting me from succumbing
to teachings such as that.

What is the gospel? It is the Good News of and about Jesus Christ!
For about the first 30 to 50 years after Pentecost, the "Good News"
was oral only, not one whit of it was ever written down, until later,
when Matthew, Mark Luke and John committed it to papyrus.

I like that Bill, will you post it on my What is the Gospel thread. No trickery now

Singer, the Eucharist is only a small part of the whole gospel message!

Funny thing....I have never considered it to even be a part of the Gospel message.

.....and also the great commission given in -Holy Orders.

Hmmmm....that has a Catholic 'ring' to it....am I right ?

And I could go on and on and on.......

How well I know, Bro

Your "agenda" has no bearing on mine, which is mainly defending
the Catholic faith fromb the untruths said about it.

I thought your agenda was to uphold the Catholic Church...
Shame on you. If the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Catholic
Church anyhow, then why are you spending your time in warfare in
defense of it when you could be telling people about Jesus.

As for "tongues," I cannot know of the authenticity of your experience,
other then to say that this phenomenon occurs within some occult religions
- Voodoo, for example.

Cannibalism is also practiced by satanists and warlords from the Amazon jungle.
They actually eat human flesh and drink their blood. Some churches promote that too.

On the whole, I am very skeptical of "tongues," just as I am skeptical
of the Blessed Virgin Mary apparing on glass windows and tortillas.

I know what ya mean...that Lady of Fatima thing is a GAS isn't it ?


Then why does Christ refer to "eating his body and drinking His blood"?
Is it not obvous to you that the Jews were disgusted with this statement,
taking Him at His literal word, as did some of His own disciples?

Yes, they were the first of the deceived to think that Jesus was literally
talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they couldn't
stomach the fact...so they left. Those who understood that He was
actually referring to their need to believe in "Him who sent me" stayed
with him.


And if they took Him wrong, why does He not correct them with,
"Oh no, I meant it figuratively when I said 'eat my body and drink my blood.'

Because Jesus often gave parables and then said "If you have an ear to hear".
Some of his followers evidently did not have that ear to hear and thought He
was asking them to drink his blood and eat his flesh. They flipped out.

But the Eucharist is God, if indeed, it becomes Christ's body and blood,
soul and divinity, wouldent it?

Boy if the bible ever said the "Eucharist is God" ....I sure missed it.
I'm only familiar with God is Love and the Word is made Flesh and
the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.
You actually think you're eating God ? How unappetizing.

If you believe in Christ, including the profound intention of obeying all
that He commands you, then you suddenly die, you certainly will not
be penalized for not having the opportunity to do some of this "obeying,"
right? God judges the heart, like Christ judged the heart of the good
thief on the cross.

Time is nothing to God, Bill. If I were to wait a thousand years, it
would only be one day to God.

But if you "believe in Jesus" but then consciously withhold what
becomes obvious to you is a commandment of Christ, such as to subject
yourself to His church and the authority He infused it with, that that
is a whole nother matter.

I can ''believe in Jesus'' without ever subjecting myself to denominationalism...
including the Catholic Church. And I don't consider your telling me that the
Catholic Church ( a brainstorm of Jesus ) is an unction from
the Holy Spirit to join it.

There was a time, I did none of those things, and by my own free will of choice,
I not only embrace what you list above, I do so with gusto!

Ah shucks....and I was just getting to like you.

By the way, in #5, please discuss with me, John 20:22-23

This oughta be good .

In 1930, all non-Catholic Christians stood with the Catholic Church
is considering artificial birth control a grevious sin.

They wised up....realized they couldn't feed 15 kids per family.
Kinda went out the window along with Catholics rejection of meats
on Friday. Like......what used to be a sin...ain't no more.

First of all, document for me please, where the Catholic Church
abridges the completeness of the work on the cross.

Remind me to do that...I must have something on file.

And what is your interpretation of "It is finished"? Mine is, he
finished the work of redemption as the Father sent Him to do.

Hey we agree on something...No buts though. If you're going to
add to it by those 10 plus points that your pursue with ''gusto'', then
you're attempting to add to your salvation. Don't contaminate Jesus'
blood with trying to add a cubit here or a cubit there.

Singer
p.s. What's PAX ?....sounds like a stomach antacid .

 

Bill,

When Jesus said "I am the bread of life", you translate that literally and have a liturgy
for actually changing wine into blood. Would you also take the following verse, apply
a little hocus pocus and end up with yourself actually becoming Christ's flesh and
blood body? If not, why do you take some verses as literal and some not?


Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 1 Corinthians 12:27 (K)

Singer

 

Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 1 Corinthians 12:27

Notice how earlier in the same epistle, Paul connects the Eucharist to our being Christ's body. Because we participate in the body & blood of Christ through reception of the Eucharist, we are unified as one body. This is why the Church teaches that the Eucharist builds up the Church and why those who do not profess the same faith in unity may not partake of the table - that would be to commit perjury - because reception of the Eucharist implies that you are "one" with the Church and her faith.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (10:16-17)