Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #136  
Old Apr 10, '12, 12:07 pm
Huiou Theou's Avatar
Huiou Theou Huiou Theou is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Posts: 2,159
Religion: Catholic; eg: under the Pope -- love of Maronite rite too.
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinette View Post
I understand Jesus to mean true flesh and true blood.


I agree, although the theology of St. Thomas concerning the appearances (accidentals) and the substance were not both made dogmatic; and his struggle (and partial failure) to understand is also ours;

There still is some Catholic freedom to understand the "atoms" and other physical attributes of the bread and wine as remaining under normal acts of trans-substantiation. eg; That is, we are not restricted to believing what is seen is an "optical" illusion with something from 2000 years ago "substituted" underneath.
Our understanding changes, because the WHO and WHAT that holds the soma/corpus of bread in existence goes from impersonal/indirect -- to a person and their Spirit.

Quote:
Spiritual food to me would be grace.
That's a very good answer; and Grace is fruitless if it isn't BI-directional between two people. Grace can't truly be a gift, *ALONE*. It must also be a "Thank you" in order for it to be fruitful (God's grace does NOT return to him empty, he himself decrees it.)

The word "Charis" in Greek is "Grace" in English.
We say Eu-Charis-t; and we mean both, THE "Good-Gift" and "Thanking Well"; In many translations, (including Lutheran, etc.) Jesus is said to have given "thanks" in Matthew 26:27; The actual word for thanks is : ευχαριστησας eu-CHaris-t-Esas; Jesus literally thanked-well. (His Father...), and gave us a Good Gift.

Again in Mark 8:6 with the non-formal-Christian, but rather public and inclusive crowd, Jesus broke the seven loaves and "gave thanks": (The exact same word/Eucharist)

So, you see -- the moment you say "Spiritual food"; and "Grace"; you have automatically brought (almost redundantly) physical food and drink back into the discussion. Most Catholics pray grace before every meal, not just the Eucharist.

Quote:
I cannot recall the name of the place in Italy but many years ago a priest doubted that the bread and wine turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus. At the consecration he couldn't believe his eyes when, as he raised the Host, it turned to flesh in his hands!. The wine in the cup turned to blood! The flesh and the blood still exists today and is preserved in a special glass display.
This comment is the main reason I wanted to respond to you. That flesh and blood, may be interpreted in many ways; but it is not the normal way Jesus presents the Eucharist to us. This miracle did not happen at the last Supper, or at the breaking of loaves of barley. The church did not permit anyone to receive the Eucharist in that form. I mean to caution you, what happened is a result of disbelief -- and to take those images and apply them to a normal Eucharist does have a real danger in mis-interpretation.

In some modern versions of this event; scientific enquiry about the nature of the flesh and blood were carried out; and what one sees and may assume about the blood and flesh (Thomas Aquinas went almost crazy over this point) are counter-intuitive to believing these to be the results of crucifixion and in particular *death*.

Don't misunderstand, they certainly CAN be his flesh and blood -- (I myself accept it) -- but there is a serious mis-direction of focus when one thinks that somehow "reality" is made fully visible when there is human flesh and blood showing; That image alone easily mis-directs the neophyte into a potentially serious trap. For it raises more questions than it answers in the long term; though it's awesomeness may strike at disbelief in the short term.

Quote:
I think the place is called Lancerno and if you google you will find the story with pictures I am sure.

Yes, that is correct.
  #137  
Old Apr 10, '12, 5:07 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,257
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
=Cinette;9163547]
I fail to understand how you cannot see and acknowledge the irreparable harm Luther did to Christianity. I cannot understand your staunch loyalty to such a man!
Irreparable? That seems a rather low opinion of the power of the Holy Spirit. That said, he had an huge amount of help from some folks in Rome at the time.


Quote:
It is inconceivable and doesn't make any sense.
So, what teachings of the historic Church am I aloud to agree with then.

Quote:
Despite your inconceivable reasoning I can only say that I believe that you believe in your sincerity! It is very hard.
Alas, your belief that I am sincere doesn't answer the question as to whether you think I am shallow.

Quote:
Why would I have to believe everything they say in order to recognize the greatness of their faith and leadership?They represent truth - they occupied/occupy the seat of Peter - they were/are the representatives of the Church here on earth. They were appointed by God to take care of the flock! How can you deny that?
[/quote]
I only question that they have universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #138  
Old Apr 10, '12, 6:53 pm
Abu Abu is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2008
Posts: 4,627
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
JonNC #137
I only question that they have universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.
That’s where you deny Christ who gave His authority to Peter and His successors (post #126).

Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)
St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

But Christ is not enough; St Paul’s clear understanding is not enough for the new oracle JonNC.

St. Paul has counseled us as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

"That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph 4:14).

St John counsels: "We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit." (1 Jn 4:6 ).

Thus Christ’s own know the pitfalls of selfism.
  #139  
Old Apr 10, '12, 7:12 pm
tqualey tqualey is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 5,674
Religion: Cradle Catholic
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Hi, JonNC,

As you know, Catholics believe two things about the Eucharist that are really critical to a genuine understanding of this Mystery of Faith:

1.) Only a duly ordained priest acting within his competence can consecrate ordinary bread and wine, to be both valid and licit.

2.) The Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

There was no Apostolic Succession through Luther or via any 16th Century followers of Luther or any of the others who revolted from the Catholic Church - except initially for the Anglicans, but this did not last long because of the desire to totally break with the Catholic Church.

And, that appears to be where the disagreement lies (at least for this specific thread )... well, at least as I see it. Lutherans (and a few others) have developed their own traditions and customs specific to what they call communion. But, lacking Apostolic Succession - and this would be through the consecration by a bishop of a man to be an ordained priest, there is no valid minister of the Sacrament. And, lacking a valid minister, all that is taking place is (hopefully) an edifying experience.

Now, I would be curious as to why you claim to believe the seven early church councils and three creeds - and stop there. Now, I can only guess that you are including the very first council, the Council of Jerusalem (c. 66AD) and then from there I think the order is:

1st Council of Nicaea 325AD
1st Council of Constantinople 381AD
Council of Ephesus 431AD
Council of Chalcedon 453AD
2nd Council of Constantinople 553
3rd Council of Constantinople 680AD and if the Council of Jerusalem is not counted, then
2nd Council of Nicaea 787

So, why stop there?

God bless




Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Irreparable? That seems a rather low opinion of the power of the Holy Spirit. That said, he had an huge amount of help from some folks in Rome at the time.



So, what teachings of the historic Church am I aloud to agree with then.


Alas, your belief that I am sincere doesn't answer the question as to whether you think I am shallow.
I only question that they have universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

Jon[/quote]
  #140  
Old Apr 11, '12, 4:16 am
Cinette Cinette is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 4, 2008
Posts: 3,652
Religion: Passionate Catholic Revert
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Irreparable? That seems a rather low opinion of the power of the Holy Spirit. That said, he had an huge amount of help from some folks in Rome at the time.

So, what teachings of the historic Church am I aloud to agree with then.

Alas, your belief that I am sincere doesn't answer the question as to whether you think I am shallow.
I only question that they have universal jurisdiction or infallibility ex cathedra.

Jon[/quote]
Yes I firmly believe that Luther is responsible for a HUGE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE to Christianity and it continues to this day. One sees thousands of Protestant denominations which continue to increase to this day, all as a consequence of Luther's actions. He attacked the scriptures denying James' epistles which is part of the Canon. He thought he was more powerful than the Pope - in fact, he was his own "pope".

I think you are misguided. I do not believe you are shallow. You love the Lord, I believe that - I believe that you care very much about your beliefs (although some are erroneous). I cannot call you shallow in any way. You are absolutely wrong in many of your statements - yes!

__________________
:Love.....love changes everything::

People do not want truth - they want reassurance (Anon)
  #141  
Old Apr 11, '12, 7:21 am
PoorKnight PoorKnight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 250
Religion: "Boomerang" Catholic
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

I know the thread is off the OP but I had a thought on it...

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Ok, I'm a boomerang (born / raised Catholic, drifted to protestantism in young adult hood, came back with a vengence last year).

This was the quote that really started me back. Protestants are HUGE on "Christ died for you" i.e. gave his body (flesh) for the forgiveness of sins or stated another way, gave us life through his death and resurection.

If that's the case then the bold part above either means one of two things 1) We must eat his flesh

-or-

2) That is bread nailed to a cross.

The Greek supports this view.

Also... "This IS my Body". In the Presb chuch I was in, they were HUGE Calvinists / Westminster Confessionalists. They used - what they told me were - Calvin's rules for interpretation of the Bible: One could interpret a passage to have a dual meaning but that secondary meaning COULD NEVER contradict the origional passage. For example, "Thou shalt not steal" could NEVER mean: in general it's ok to steal.

I tried asking how "This is My Body" could then be interpreted as "This is NOT My Body". I didn't get an answer.

This is the Central Mystery of the Chirstian Faith and through study I found only the Catholic Church to take it seriously: That Christ is present in the Eucharist BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY

PRAISE GOD!!
  #142  
Old Apr 11, '12, 10:18 am
Cinette Cinette is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 4, 2008
Posts: 3,652
Religion: Passionate Catholic Revert
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorKnight View Post
I know the thread is off the OP but I had a thought on it...

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

........................................ .................

This is the Central Mystery of the Chirstian Faith and through study I found only the Catholic Church to take it seriously: That Christ is present in the Eucharist BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY

PRAISE GOD!!
Amen to that! The Eucharist is also a mystery and I believe Jesus' words in John 6 are literal and I trust and love Him so I believe without understanding. It is as he said.

__________________
:Love.....love changes everything::

People do not want truth - they want reassurance (Anon)
  #143  
Old Apr 11, '12, 2:33 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,257
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
=Abu;9167181]That’s where you deny Christ who gave His authority to Peter and His successors (post #126).
Where did Christ give Peter universal jurisdiction? And if He did, why is He seemingly contradicted by Nicea, canon 6?

Quote:
Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)
St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

But Christ is not enough; St Paul’s clear understanding is not enough for the new oracle JonNC.
Aside from personal jab, which I shall ignore except to ask where in my entire record here at CAF have I treated Catholics in such a manner, which patriarch of the early Church should I believe regarding this matter?

When all of those who compiled the Bible and wrote the early councils agree on this most important point, I will submit.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #144  
Old Apr 11, '12, 2:44 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,257
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
=Cinette;9168412]

[color="Blue"][size="3"][font="Comic Sans MS"][i]Yes I firmly believe that Luther is responsible for a HUGE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE to Christianity and it continues to this day. One sees thousands of Protestant denominations which continue to increase to this day, all as a consequence of Luther's actions. He attacked the scriptures denying James' epistles which is part of the Canon. He thought he was more powerful than the Pope - in fact, he was his own "pope".
Source please, where he said James was not part of the canon.
Quote:
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;
Quote:
I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”
He preached from James his entire life.


Quote:
I think you are misguided. I do not believe you are shallow. You love the Lord, I believe that - I believe that you care very much about your beliefs (although some are erroneous). I cannot call you shallow in any way. You are absolutely wrong in many of your statements - yes!
Well, this is better than being charged with being anti-catholic, or "a new oracle".

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #145  
Old Apr 11, '12, 2:48 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,257
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by tqualey View Post
Hi, JonNC,

As you know, Catholics believe two things about the Eucharist that are really critical to a genuine understanding of this Mystery of Faith:

1.) Only a duly ordained priest acting within his competence can consecrate ordinary bread and wine, to be both valid and licit.

2.) The Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

There was no Apostolic Succession through Luther or via any 16th Century followers of Luther or any of the others who revolted from the Catholic Church - except initially for the Anglicans, but this did not last long because of the desire to totally break with the Catholic Church.

And, that appears to be where the disagreement lies (at least for this specific thread )... well, at least as I see it. Lutherans (and a few others) have developed their own traditions and customs specific to what they call communion. But, lacking Apostolic Succession - and this would be through the consecration by a bishop of a man to be an ordained priest, there is no valid minister of the Sacrament. And, lacking a valid minister, all that is taking place is (hopefully) an edifying experience.

Now, I would be curious as to why you claim to believe the seven early church councils and three creeds - and stop there. Now, I can only guess that you are including the very first council, the Council of Jerusalem (c. 66AD) and then from there I think the order is:

1st Council of Nicaea 325AD
1st Council of Constantinople 381AD
Council of Ephesus 431AD
Council of Chalcedon 453AD
2nd Council of Constantinople 553
3rd Council of Constantinople 680AD and if the Council of Jerusalem is not counted, then
2nd Council of Nicaea 787

So, why stop there?

God bless




Those are the seven accepted by the undivided early Church. That's not to say that there aren't things in other councils I accept.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #146  
Old Apr 11, '12, 2:53 pm
Courtney134 Courtney134 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: April 11, 2012
Posts: 5
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

JonNC - I don't have a specific source, but I have read several apologetics in my search of the truth. (Quick back story - baptized Catholic and received First Communion, my mom switched to the First Christian Church, and now I'm thinking about returning to Catholicism). During the course of my reading, I've learned that Luther doubted the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation in the New Testament. However, it wasn't very popular with the masses, so he ditched that idea. His reasoning for rejecting James was because it conflicted with his belief of being saved through faith ALONE, while James stresses the important role of works as being a part of salvation.
  #147  
Old Apr 11, '12, 5:36 pm
tqualey tqualey is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 5,674
Religion: Cradle Catholic
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Hi, JonNC,

You really need to provide some detail ... and some citations if you please

So, exactly what do you mean by the 'undivided early Church' with the 7th Council in 787AD. The Great East-West Schism is usually identified as having begun in 1057AD - is this what you are talking about?

And, not to put too fine a point on it - just who are you to determine which items from a Council you accept and which you reject?

God bless




Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Those are the seven accepted by the undivided early Church. That's not to say that there aren't things in other councils I accept.

Jon
  #148  
Old Apr 11, '12, 5:49 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,257
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by tqualey View Post
Hi, JonNC,

You really need to provide some detail ... and some citations if you please

So, exactly what do you mean by the 'undivided early Church' with the 7th Council in 787AD. The Great East-West Schism is usually identified as having begun in 1057AD - is this what you are talking about?

And, not to put too fine a point on it - just who are you to determine which items from a Council you accept and which you reject?

God bless
Tom,
Without sounding argumentative, which councils are accepted by Orthodoxy?

I am a Lutheran. These are the ones Lutherans accept.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #149  
Old Apr 11, '12, 6:02 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,257
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Courtney134 View Post
JonNC - I don't have a specific source, but I have read several apologetics in my search of the truth. (Quick back story - baptized Catholic and received First Communion, my mom switched to the First Christian Church, and now I'm thinking about returning to Catholicism). During the course of my reading, I've learned that Luther doubted the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation in the New Testament. However, it wasn't very popular with the masses, so he ditched that idea. His reasoning for rejecting James was because it conflicted with his belief of being saved through faith ALONE, while James stresses the important role of works as being a part of salvation.
Luther recognized the disputed nature of the Antilegomena, which dates back to Eusebius.
With James, the issue was, primarily, the question of authorship, again a historic question long before Luther. Luther did have trouble James' message, but not in the way Catholic apologists sometimes present it.
Quote:
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;
Regarding sola fide, James does not contradict it. It is law oriented, sure. And it properly reminds us that a faith without works is a dead, not a living faith.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
  #150  
Old Apr 11, '12, 7:38 pm
jcrichton jcrichton is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2005
Posts: 3,144
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Protestants and Holy Communion

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorKnight View Post
I know the thread is off the OP but I had a thought on it...

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Ok, I'm a boomerang (born / raised Catholic, drifted to protestantism in young adult hood, came back with a vengence last year).

This was the quote that really started me back. Protestants are HUGE on "Christ died for you" i.e. gave his body (flesh) for the forgiveness of sins or stated another way, gave us life through his death and resurection.

If that's the case then the bold part above either means one of two things 1) We must eat his flesh

-or-

2) That is bread nailed to a cross.

The Greek supports this view.

Also... "This IS my Body". In the Presb chuch I was in, they were HUGE Calvinists / Westminster Confessionalists. They used - what they told me were - Calvin's rules for interpretation of the Bible: One could interpret a passage to have a dual meaning but that secondary meaning COULD NEVER contradict the origional passage. For example, "Thou shalt not steal" could NEVER mean: in general it's ok to steal.

I tried asking how "This is My Body" could then be interpreted as "This is NOT My Body". I didn't get an answer.

This is the Central Mystery of the Chirstian Faith and through study I found only the Catholic Church to take it seriously: That Christ is present in the Eucharist BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY

PRAISE GOD!!
Welcome Home!

...what I truly find interesting is how non-Catholic Christians define Jesus' Word as symbolic/figurative in every instance that their theology/descent conflicts with the Teaching of the Church--even when Jesus clearly and adamantly states that we must Eat and Drink His Body and Blood... even when Scriptures include the reaction of Jesus' audience to His Command and Jesus' refusal to tone down His so called "hyperboles" and "allegories."

Maran atha!

Angel
__________________
Smile, God is Watching Us!
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8330Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Mary Virginia
5080CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4386Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4036OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: aellis422
3854SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3638Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3266Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3229Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3216Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: TheWhim
3079For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: georget



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:03 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.