What the Nicene Creed is and isn’t etc..

[JonC]

Can you quote Church Fathers using those terms?

You already did.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.


"So the one being baptized must fast for one to two days. If you can baptize (immerse) it is to be done in living water. If none is avaliable, in other water. If this is not avaliable, pour water over the head three times."

Now, are you telling me that your church orders the one being baptized to fast beforehand for one to two days?

And then you immerse in living water (a river....naturally flowing water)?

If none is avaliable you then substitute other water (still water, like a pool)?

And only if no other water is avaliable you pour water over the head three times?


Most Catholics I know have an Illegitimate "baptism".

But I don't know how your church does it.

 

[Cathode]

You already did.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.


"So the one being baptized must fast for one to two days. If you can baptize (immerse) it is to be done in living water. If none is avaliable, in other water. If this is not avaliable, pour water over the head three times."

Now, are you telling me that your church orders the one being baptized to fast beforehand for one to two days?

And then you immerse in living water (a river....naturally flowing water)?

If none is avaliable you then substitute other water (still water, like a pool)?

And only if no other water is avaliable you pour water over the head three times?


Most Catholics I know have an Illegitimate "baptism".

But I don't know how your church does it.

I don’t think you grasped what I said. I think these were Ecclesial rules not universal prescriptions for all time.
Do you understand that?

Mode was changeable to circumstances and discretionary to the ecclesial authorities. What they hold valid is valid, it’s on their authority as with Cyprian, sprinkling the sick.

Don’t tie your horse to the idea that because something is a norm, that it is the only way, and a universal prescription. It is unsound and goes beyond scripture.

Something like the invocation of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit you can tie your horse to, but as to mode no.

You are approaching this from a tradition that has no binding and loosing authority to suit circumstance. Textual prescription is the only lense you view things through.

Cyprian was a Bishop, and in our Catholic Tradition, he has binding and loosing authority, so whether pouring or sprinkling, it’s down to him for the situation and circumstance.

Let’s not forget how The Holy Spirit is described as coming to us.

But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.

Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high,
And the wilderness becomes a fruitful field,
And the fruitful field is counted as a forest.

And I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,' says the Lord GOD.'

whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

We weren’t immersed in The Holy Spirit from the first, The Holy Spirit was poured out upon us.

People can get fixated on stupidities like mode, and totally miss the important point that Baptism is salvific and regenerative.

 

[Cathode]

All the Church Fathers understood Jesus words on Water and Spirit as being about water baptism.

Baptism wipes away all sin, like the waters of the flood. It clears our conscience toward God, like confession, only it is plenary meaning total.

 

[JonC]

I don’t think you grasped what I said. I think these were Ecclesial rules not universal prescriptions for all time.
Do you understand that?

I understand that is what you believe, and how you reconcile with the fact the Roman Catholic Church is absolutely foreign to Scrioture, to the Apostles, and to the Early Church.

You have a faith built upon sand - built upon a "church" that changes doctrine....while I have a faith built upon the rock.


Think about what you just admitted.

Baptism had to be immersion in naturally moving water unless circumstances prevented this....until the 14th century and then it didn't because doctrine is subjective to man.

The elements of Communion did not become literal blood and flesh but the previous meaning of the words changed within the covenant act.....until the 5th century.....then the elements changed to blood and flesh.

Christ's atoning work was solidarity, sharing what men share, along side us....until the 12th century then it was satisfaction for the effect of human sin.

Your "church" is built upon the politics of man, built upon sand. That is why you find your truth to be so subjective and shifting each generation. It is not about God but about man.

We see this today in the way the Roman Catholic Church shifts to try and accommodate culture. It is a very broad way.

 

[Cathode]

The elements of Communion did not become literal blood and flesh but the previous meaning of the words changed within the covenant act.....until the 5th century.....then the elements changed to blood and flesh.

Have stop you there. I just quoted early Church Fathers that said that Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. You simply ignore it. You are the one trying to see his own theology where it isn’t. And you still aren’t giving references, but are merely making assertions again.

The Sacrifice of The Mass is a fulfilment of the prophecy in Malachi.

“Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the Gentiles, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the Gentiles,” says the Lord Almighty.”

In the Didache 14 we see the sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist.

“But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.”

The early Christians have a sacrificial view of this ritual and see it as a fulfilment of Malachi, directly quoting Malachi even.

The Sacrifice for Christians is the Body and Blood of Christ, this is the pure sacrifice.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny this gift of God are perishing” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

This is the very Catholic belief we maintain today.

Baptist’s don’t believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, nor do they have a sacrificial service or ritual.
This is very unlike the early Church.

 

[JonC]

Have stop you there. I just quoted early Church Fathers that said that Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.

We all agree the elements are the blood and body of Christ.

What you ignored is HOW the ECF's believed this true.

You ignore it concerning non-Cathokics as well, but that is excusable as I do not expect you to understand our beliefs. BUT I do expect a bit more out of you when it comes to the ECF's.

Catholics often reference men like Tertullian, for example. But they reinvent their writings.

Tertullian did speak of Christ's body and blood....as do Baptists.....BUT Cathilics completely ignore Tertullian's explanation that the bread and wine are symbols representing His body and blood (Against Marcion).

Martyr also referenced the elements as Christ's body and blood. BUT he also provided context stating this was so as commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho).


Clement explained that wine is a symbol of His Blood (The Instructor).

Origen that the bread is a symbol of Chriat's body (Against Celcus).

Cyprian regularly spoke of the eucharist as literal, but was careful to e plain that the elements were representations of flesh and blood (Epistle).

Esebius refered to the elements as representative of Christ's flesh and blood (Demonstratia Evangelica).


Ambrose is my favorite because he specifically stared that the change occurs not in the elements but in the words, thar "bread and wine" take on a sanctified meaning.


Every Baptist church pastor prays and states that the bread and wine are the blood and body of Christ. BUT none of them teach that bread becomes flesh and wine becomes blood.

Yet Roman Catholics, if they were to read our service, could argue we do based on our words out of their own context and without explanation.


Roman Catholic "churches" are notorious about ignoring parts of the ECF doctrines and writings (as well as Scripture).

The only way they get away with this is Roman Catholics look to their "church" as a type of god, telling them what to believe....and they do, either in willful ignorance or knowing that the "truth" they are fed is less than factual. 1984 called it "double-think".


Like I said, we each must choose who to follow, and live or die by those choices.

 

[Cathode]

We all agree the elements are the blood and body of Christ.

What you ignored is HOW the ECF's believed this true.

You ignore it concerning non-Cathokics as well, but that is excusable as I do not expect you to understand our beliefs. BUT I do expect a bit more out of you when it comes to the ECF's.

Catholics often reference men like Tertullian, for example. But they reinvent their writings.

Tertullian did speak of Christ's body and blood....as do Baptists.....BUT Cathilics completely ignore Tertullian's explanation that the bread and wine are symbols representing His body and blood (Against Marcion).

Martyr also referenced the elements as Christ's body and blood. BUT he also provided context stating this was so as commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho).


Clement explained that wine is a symbol of His Blood (The Instructor).

Origen that the bread is a symbol of Chriat's body (Against Celcus).

Cyprian regularly spoke of the eucharist as literal, but was careful to e plain that the elements were representations of flesh and blood (Epistle).

Esebius refered to the elements as representative of Christ's flesh and blood (Demonstratia Evangelica).


Ambrose is my favorite because he specifically stared that the change occurs not in the elements but in the words, thar "bread and wine" take on a sanctified meaning.

Every Baptist church pastor prays and states that the bread and wine are the blood and body of Christ. BUT none of them teach that bread becomes flesh and wine becomes blood.

Yet Roman Catholics, if they were to read our service, could argue we do based on our words out of their own context and without explanation.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a valid Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius of Antioch 110 Ad.

Without an Apostolic Bishop, the Eucharist is not valid, firstly. Baptists departed the Apostolic succession long ago.
Secondly. Nor do they believe that what they do is sacrificial.
Thirdly. Nor do they even intend to confect the body and blood of Christ.
Fourthly. Nor do they believe it to be the body and blood of Christ, but common bread and wine.

Neither in intention, purpose or belief.

Although Catholics have always held to the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist what never escapes us is the symbolism that surrounds that reality.
We may refer to the Eucharist as the Bread of Life, but by that we mean the Body of Christ.

So although we may express in symbolic terms, it does not negate the underlying reality of what believe.
A great deal of symbolism accompanies the reality.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

 

[JonC]

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a valid Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius of Antioch 110 Ad.

Without an Apostolic Bishop, the Eucharist is not valid, firstly. Baptists departed the Apostolic succession long ago.
Secondly. Nor do they believe that what they do is sacrificial.
Thirdly. Nor do they even intend to confect the body and blood of Christ.
Fourthly. Nor do they believe it to be the body and blood of Christ, but common bread and wine.

Neither in intention, purpose or belief.

Although Catholics have always held to the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist what never escapes us is the symbolism that surrounds that reality.
We may refer to the Eucharist as the Bread of Life, but by that we mean the Body of Christ.

So although we may express in symbolic terms, it does not negate the underlying reality of what believe.
A great deal of symbolism accompanies the reality.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

If anybody is reading in passing, and caught between Chriatianity and Roman Catholicism, please note the issue here.



I apologize, @Cathode , for not addressing you but instead using your posts as an example. I prefer to debate directly, but when discussing these things with Catholics I have found that only the truly indoctrinated participate here, and they are here not to open up to God's Word but to be apologetics for their masters.



Note that @Cathode selects segments of those writings, and ignores the whole. He has read the ECF's to support what he has been taught, not to learn what they believed.

The ECF's are not Scripture and they have flaws. But the Roman Catholic Church changes these writings.

A Baptist could very well say the exact same words as @Cathode quotes and also mot mean a change occurs to the elements. The point of Ambrose- if you read in full - is a change in meaning of words when applied to a covenant. He specifically states this (not in the words Cathode lifted, but in the writing).


But the point here is that Roman Catholics aldo do the same with Scripture.

Their authority is man. And Roman Catholicism appeals to our human nature.

I am drawn to it because I like the order, tge ceremony, the ritual, and even the mythology.

BUT God teaches this is wrong, it is the "broad path". It appeals to our human nature.

I have also found that there is a much deeper faith, a much more complex and spiritual experience with God than a true Catholic can ever know.



Read @Cathode 's posts. He has proved my point.

Then choose who you will follow and live or die with the choice.

 

[Cathode]

If anybody is reading in passing, and caught between Chriatianity and Roman Catholicism, please note the issue here.

I apologize, @Cathode , for not addressing you but instead using your posts as an example. I prefer to debate directly, but when discussing these things with Catholics I have found that only the truly indoctrinated participate here, and they are here not to open up to God's Word but to be apologetics for their masters.

I’ve never been turned into a salutary lesson before. My only intent is to defend my faith against various attacks on it presently.

“ and they are here not to open up to God's Word but to be apologetics for their masters.“

Sounds rather dramatic. Shrill even.

Note that @Cathode selects segments of those writings, and ignores the whole. He has read the ECF's to support what he has been taught, not to learn what they believed.

The ECF's are not Scripture and they have flaws. But the Roman Catholic Church changes these writings.

I haven’t changed anything, I simply quoted the Fathers writings, writings that only come down to us through the Catholic Church, part of Catholic patrimony, not Baptist patrimony.

A Baptist could very well say the exact same words as @Cathode quotes and also mot mean a change occurs to the elements. The point of Ambrose- if you read in full - is a change in meaning of words when applied to a covenant. He specifically states this (not in the words Cathode lifted, but in the writing).

If that were so, you would have quoted the Fathers as liberally as I have to make your case.

Only the highly indoctrinated could read the Fathers and come away thinking they held baptist beliefs.

Baptism, the Eucharist, Confession to a priest and much more finds ample support among the Fathers.

I’ll give another quote of Ambrose, if his previous quote wasn’t enough for you.

“Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.'” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

Read baptist theology into this, if you can. Don’t try this at home and wear a hernia belt before making the attempt.

It does require a mature intellectual honesty and I suppose a love of history, but also a certain love of truth to engage with the Fathers.

 

[Cathode]

And Roman Catholicism appeals to our human nature.

I am drawn to it because I like the order, tge ceremony, the ritual, and even the mythology.

You should only be drawn to a thing if it’s True primarily, or it is Beautiful or it smells like bbq.

BUT God teaches this is wrong, it is the "broad path". It appeals to our human nature.

I have also found that there is a much deeper faith, a much more complex and spiritual experience with God than a true Catholic can ever know.

There is no more difficult a Faith to follow and no harder path than the Catholic Faith. Examinations of conscience, moral dilemmas faced in life, sacrificing your own opinion and will, rejecting the easy false liberty.

If you want an easy Christian experience stay protestant or baptist, where your opinion of scripture is the whole of the law, and no one imposes authority over you. You can simply leave a denomination that try’s to.
And you can live in the pernicious peace that you are saved already, with no peril to your salvation.
I can’t think of broader more easy and comfortable path than this, very appealing to human nature.

 

[Cathode]

Then choose who you will follow and live or die with the choice.

Nothing need nearly be so demanding. I don’t want any followers, I’m a gardener not an apologist.
I trust the gentle Grace of Jesus to lead people to where He wants them to be, He will meet them wherever they are at.

So long as they draw breath and are open to Grace, beautiful opportunities are prepared for them by God.

 

[JonC]

There is no more difficult a Faith to follow and no harder path than the Catholic Faith.

Both Catholicism and Protestantiam .... and those in between.....require faith.

But you are right that Catholicism is harder than Christianity.


Anyway, our discussion has to come to an end.

I'm heading to St Thomas....not the Catholic saint but the island....and will not have internet nor the inclination to use it.


Reader should look into this themselves. Don't read @Cathode 's snippets but read the entire works of those ECF (they are not very long and are easily avaliable).

Then read Scripture, and decide who to follow.

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed because it has become a discussion between two members.

Please feel free to start another on any of the topics covered.