Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

[Thinkingstuff]

I never said Lutheran believe in transubstantiation. I did say that most Lutherans deny they believe in consubstantiation.

I was taught at California Baptist College that they believed in consubstantiation and found out that is wrong. I mentioned that the LCMS vehemently denies consubstantiation. Most Lutherans prefer to say that the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ. As Bob mentioned, they prefer not to say how. Anglicans seem to think similarly.

The LCMS website does address it.

I find it interesting that Luther uses the same term as the nicean council

 

[lori4dogs]

I found this statement in Wikipedia:

"It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ's presence."

 

[lori4dogs]

A source of documentation regarding the early Christians and charges of cannabalism due to their belief that the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine were, in fact, the body and blood of Christ is found on the following webpage courtesy of Calvin College (Reformed).

It is found under the heading 'Content and Purpose' (down the page a ways)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.iii.i.html

 

[lori4dogs]

A good source of documentation regarding the early Christians and charges of cannabalism because of their belief that the elements of bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ is found on the following webpage by Calvin College (reformed)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.iii.i.html

Found under the heading contents and purpose

 

[lori4dogs]

Sorry about the double post

 

[lori4dogs]

Actually, Lori, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.



...says the person who claims that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation.

BTW, would you tell me the difference between Real Presence and what the denominations I listed believe concerning the bread and the wine in the Eucharist?

Would you also show me where, as you have falsely accused me, I claimed that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation?

I would appreciate an apology, but I know as in the past, you don't do that.

 

[DHK]

Here is a clarification:

I was browsing your article concerning the various views of the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist. You noted that none of the Lutheran pastors who have spoken with you could cite anything, beyond modern articles, asserting that the Lutheran position is not "consubstantiation." Allow me, first, to present a source from the time of the Reformation and, second, to add some clarification.
Nicolaus Selneccer(1530-1592), one of the authors/orchastrators of the Formula of Concord writes, "Although our churches use the old expressions 'in the bread', 'with the bread,' or 'under the bread' ... they do not teach an inclusio, consubstantiatio, or delitescentia. The meaning is rather that Christ, 'when giving the bread, gives us simultaneously His body to eat...'" Vom hl. Abendmahl des Herrn etc. (1591) Bl E 2.
The reason Lutheran pastors get upset over the attribution of the term "consubstantaion" to our theology is two-fold.
First, you may find in early Luther (the Luther of whom he himself writes, in his introduction to his Latin writings, was still a "raving papist.") that he preferred "consubstantiation," as argued by Peter d'Ailly's "Questiones on Peter Lombard." Luther preferred d'Ailly's view, however, largely for philosophical reasons. It required only a single miracle whereas transubstantiation, as it had been pushed from Aquinas to Duns Scotus required a second miracle: the annihilation of the substance of the bread. Though, at the time, Luther only argues that it is "better philosophy" and would be preferred only if transubstantiation hadn't already been declared by the Church. So, the first reason why Lutherans reject the idea of consubstantiation is that the term itself is wrapped up in the same philosophical categories as transubstantiation and is, therefore, rejected on those grounds. The Lutheran objection to transubstantation wasn't so much that they excluded the bread/wine, but that the theory had dogmatized Aristotle which, in turn, speaks where Scripture has remained silent. It forces theology in a way typical of Scholasticism: it sets up a principle (principium/Oberbegriff) as the "first thing," under which all our theology must be made to fit. The Lord can't be forced into our principium, therefore, where the Lord has not declared the "how," we are best never to dogmatize our theories about how it may have been possible. Notice these words from the Smalcald Articles, III, 6 "We care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remains only the appearance and colour of bread, and not true bread..." The criticism, here, isn't merely the conclusion (that bread is no longer) but the philosophical method, or "sophistical subtelty" which attempts to expalin the how. Lutherans were quite willing to allow for transubstantation, or even consubstantation, so long as the Church would not make a dogma of such. The reason, in the Babylonian Captivity, Luther cites transubstantiation as one of the "three walls" having obscured the Gospel of the Sacrament is not that they have gotten rid of bread, but they have dogmatized a theory that can't be scripturally substantiated. Thus, the reason we reject consubstantiation is for the very same reason we reject transubstantiation. Instead, we prefer to speak of the "Sacramental Union," or the "unio sacramentailis." The unio sacramentalis is the Lutheran counterpart to Roman transubstantiation, and Late Medieval consubstantiation, with which is it often mistakingly confounded. Like consubstantiation, unio sacramentalis presupposes the bread and body, wine and blood, exist together. Bread and wine are not destroyed or "transubstantiated." The difference, however, is that no theory is built up about the coexistence of two substances, reflecting the accidents of one to the exclusion of the other.
Second, we prefer not to be call "consubstantiationists," because the differentiation implied by the use of the term suggests that our primary "difference" in our confession of the Sacrament, against Rome, is that of bickering over the presence of bread and wine. This isn't the matter, at all. While we do believe Rome is wrong to dogmatize a philosophical theory (transubstantiation) our real "criticism" with the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist is the *sacrifice* of the mass. Hence, as Luther says in the Babylonian captivity, they have turned what is truly Gospel (beneficium) into law (sacrificium). That is, they have turned something that is primarilly God's gracious, Gospel-deliviering action *for us* into an action we offer to God in order to appease the wrath of the Father.
Ryan T. Fouts

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/eucharis.htm


It is still very much different than the RCC view of transubstantiation.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

From wiki --

Perhaps not exact, but a pretty fair view of things comparing real presence with the Zwinglian memorial view. Hope this helps.


Reformed (Calvinist, Presbyterian, most United churches) - "Real Presence" as "pneumatic presence"

Many Reformed, particularly those following John Calvin, hold that the reality of Christ's body and blood do not come corporally (physically) to the elements, but that "the Spirit truly unites things separated in space" (Calvin).

Following a phrase of Augustine, the Calvinist view is that "no one bears away from this Sacrament more than is gathered with the vessel of faith". "The flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God's elect believers", Calvin said; but those who partake by faith receive benefit from Christ, and the unbelieving are condemned by partaking. By faith (not a mere mental apprehension), and in the Holy Spirit, the partaker beholds God incarnate, and in the same sense touches him with hands, so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ's presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.

This view holds that the elements may be disposed of without ceremony, as they are not changed in an objective physical sense and, as such, the meal directs attention toward Christ's "bodily" resurrection and return. Actual practices of disposing of consecrated elements vary widely.
While Reformed theology has taught that Jesus' body is seated in heaven at the right hand of God and therefore is not physically present in the elements, nor do the elements turn into his body in a physical or any objective sense, a long standing tension within Reformed theology combined with recent ecumenical developments have placed this theology in transition. To wit, Reformed theology has also historically taught that when the Holy Communion is received, not only the spirit, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence "real") are received through the Spirit, but these are only received by those partakers who eat worthily (i.e., repentantly) with faith. The Holy Spirit unites the Christian with Jesus though they are separated by a great distance. See, e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 29; Belgic Confession, Article 35; open communion.The theologies of Presbyterian and Reformed Free Churches in this tradition are in flux, and recent agreements, especially A Formula for Agreement, between these denominations and the Lutherans have stressed that: "The theological diversity within our common confession provides both the complementarity needed for a full and adequate witness to the gospel (mutual affirmation) and the corrective reminder that every theological approach is a partial and incomplete witness to the Gospel (mutual admonition) (A Common Calling, page 66)." Hence, in seeking to come to consensus about the Real Presence, the churches have written:
"During the Reformation both Reformed and Lutheran Churches exhibited an evangelical intention when they understood the Lord's Supper in the light of the saving act of God in Christ. Despite this common intention, different terms and concepts were employed which. . . led to mutual misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Properly interpreted, the differing terms and concepts were often complementary rather than contradictory (Marburg Revisited, pp. 103-104);" and further:
"In the Lord's Supper the risen Christ imparts himself in body and blood, given up for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine....we proclaim the death of Christ through which God has reconciled the world with himself. We proclaim the presence of the risen Lord in our midst. Rejoicing that the Lord has come to us, we await his future coming in glory....Both of our communions, we maintain, need to grow in appreciation of our diverse eucharistic traditions, finding mutual enrichment in them. At the same time both need to grow toward a further deepening of our common experience and expression of the mystery of our Lord's Supper (A Formula for Agreement)." No Real Presence

Some Protestant groups see Communion (also called the Lord's Supper or the Lord's Table) as merely a symbolic meal, a basic memorial of the Last Supper and the Passion, which is done by the ordinance of Jesus, but in which nothing miraculous occurs. This view is known as the Zwinglian view, after Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss leader during the Reformation. Zwingli taught that Christ was not present in the bread and the wine because he could not be in more than one place at one time

This perspective is commonly associated with Baptists and many other Evangelicals. It is a perspective not uncommon "in the pews" (that is, among lay members) of some Reformed churches, even among those whose official doctrines are more in accord with the Calvinist spiritual real presence discussed above.

 

[lori4dogs]

Here is a clarification:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/eucharis.htm


It is still very much different than the RCC view of transubstantiation.

Real Presence means Real Presence.

Hey, I never heard you retract your statement in which you stated that Luther and Lutherans do not believe that baptism is necessary to salvation.

Still think that way after reading what Luther wrote in the Larger Catechism?

 

[lori4dogs]

BTW, DHK:

Thanks for posting documentation proving that Johndeerefans wrong in stating that Lutherans believe in consubtantiation. Now if he would just apologize making the false accusation that I said Lutherans believe in transubstantion.

You know anytime I have posted something that I found out is erroneous in nature I have admitted it and apologized. It's important to be able to be humble and honest.

 

[DHK]

Real Presence means Real Presence.

Hey, I never heard you retract your statement in which you stated that Luther and Lutherans do not believe that baptism is necessary to salvation.

Still think that way after reading what Luther wrote in the Larger Catechism?

Second, we prefer not to be call "consubstantiationists," because the differentiation implied by the use of the term suggests that our primary "difference" in our confession of the Sacrament, against Rome, is that of bickering over the presence of bread and wine. This isn't the matter, at all. While we do believe Rome is wrong to dogmatize a philosophical theory (transubstantiation) our real "criticism" with the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist is the *sacrifice* of the mass. Hence, as Luther says in the Babylonian captivity, they have turned what is truly Gospel (beneficium) into law (sacrificium). That is, they have turned something that is primarilly God's gracious, Gospel-deliviering action *for us* into an action we offer to God in order to appease the wrath of the Father.

If you can wade through this last paragraph, I don't think he was advocating a "real presence," and it is easily understandable that he was totally against what the RCC believed.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If you can wade through this last paragraph, I don't think he was advocating a "real presence," and it is easily understandable that he was totally against what the RCC believed.

the Lutheran Church does believe in the "real presence"...
Source

i talked with many Lutheran pastors during my journey that led me to the Orthodox Church and everyone said that they believe in the 'Real Presence', but did not take it as far as the RCC did with their definition of 'transubstantiation '.

also, even the Orthodox Church rejects the specific definte terms regarding 'transubstantiation' with regard to "substance" and "accidents".

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You know anytime I have posted something that I found out is erroneous in nature I have admitted it and apologized. It's important to be able to be humble and honest.

don't hold your breath lori..."most" fundamentalist think they know everything about everything...and like i've said before...it's not what they know per say, it's what they've been told...so as long as their 'source' is in error, they too will be in error...

In XC
-

 

[lori4dogs]

If you can wade through this last paragraph, I don't think he was advocating a "real presence," and it is easily understandable that he was totally against what the RCC believed.

The Lutheran Church holds to the belief of the Real Presence. Any Lutheran, pastor or laity will affirm that this is so. They in no way hold to simply a 'symbolic' view of the Holy Communion. Nor do they believe baptism is not necessary to salvation. DHK made the statement that Luther did not believe that it was necessary to salvation (totally a false statement) and I proved through Luthers own words that he certainly did. DHK has yet to awknowledge he made a false accusation about Luther and Lutheran doctrine regarding Baptism. That saddens me. He is so certain that "Solo Fide" denies this need and if fact Luther as many other theologians (besides the Catholic) church make it clear that it is what the bible teaches.

 

[DHK]

it clear that it is what the bible teaches.

It doesn't matter what men teach or say, does it?
It matters what the Bible says.
And there is no way possible that the Bible teaches that baptism saves. There is no where is Scripture where you can demonstrate that. You have an audience. Set forth your case using Scripture alone. Never mind appealing to the ECF or the Reformers. Make your appeal to the Word of God. It does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is both a teaching and a tradition of man, many of whom will go to hell because of it. For if they are trusting in their baptism, they are not trusting in Christ. They will lose all eternity because of it.

 

[lori4dogs]

It doesn't matter what men teach or say, does it?
It matters what the Bible says.
And there is no way possible that the Bible teaches that baptism saves. There is no where is Scripture where you can demonstrate that. You have an audience. Set forth your case using Scripture alone. Never mind appealing to the ECF or the Reformers. Make your appeal to the Word of God. It does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is both a teaching and a tradition of man, many of whom will go to hell because of it. For if they are trusting in their baptism, they are not trusting in Christ. They will lose all eternity because of it.

No, DHK, The link I supplied which is a joint declaration of the Lutheran and Catholic Church makes it CLEAR what they a trusting in. And, your right, you will continue to to deny what the ECF and the rest of the Church has taught from the beginning because it doesn't agree with your heresy that Baptism is nothing but a symbol. The Catholic Church's catechism doesn't conflict with scripture. I was the Catholic Church, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, that compiled those 27 books you love so much. A Church you claim was apostate.

You were shown you were WRONG about Luther's belief that baptism was necessary for salvation (plus all Lutherans today) but refuse to acknowledge your error. Shame on you! Be humble enough to admit it.

There are many facts that support that the Catholic Church was always the faith followed by Christians from Pentecost on. Look at the Malabar Church of India. Completely lost (basically not known of) and was founded by St. Mark. When Christians finally rediscovered it what did they find? A bunch of Ana-baptist. No, a Church that looked remarkably like the Catholic Church ass found in the rest of the Christian world.

History is just not with you baptist. The spotty ana-baptist groups existing before the reformation had no resemblance to what Baptist churches are now. They were full of heresies. They through in with Donatist and other heretical groups and were full of errors.

Marcia makes a good point about y'all reading the Catechism. Although it is obvious she reads it with Baptist colored glasses and ignores the teaching that have been held from the beginning of the Christian Church (such as John Chapter 6) she would rather believe what reformers came up with thousands of year later. Beliefs NNE held prior. Ana-baptist included.

There really is not much in the way of edification to gained by re-hashing the same old objections that you obviously ignore when confronted with truths and are un-willing to admit your wrong (ie. Johndeerefan, DFK) concerning Lutherans. BTW, I challenge any of you to visit the threads Johndeerefan participated on in the forums of 'Catholic Answers' You will see his claim for being 'banned' for sharing the 'True Gospel of Christ' is a lie. Check out what he was REALLY banned for.

So, so long Baptist Board, it has been fun. Not very edifying though. When we meet in heaven I hope we have a big laugh about this.

Seeing how you use will not allow Catholics more mature in the faith to contribute anymore (under the guise they were proselytes and not simply defending the faith) I will leave it to other Christians on the board that too knowledgeable about what the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran to contend for the faith and not let you get away with making false allegations against faiths you completely mis-understand or have a hatred for.

I will be spending my time during lent in Catholic Evangelistic Retreats working to bring other people to a saving knowledge of Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

So Long!

 

[lori4dogs]

don't hold your breath lori..."most" fundamentalist think they know everything about everything...and like i've said before...it's not what they know per say, it's what they've been told...so as long as their 'source' is in error, they too will be in error...

In XC
-

The fact that they refuse to admit when they are clearly and error and after they challenged me to provide proof of their error either ignore their error or say "they still don't believe in Real Presence". Thanks for providing me additional information to prove both Johndeerefan an DHK clearly made erroneous statements about Luther and Lutheranism.

They will never admit though!

Check out Johndeerefans posts on the forums on Catholic Answers. You think he made rude and snarky remarks here? You think he only calls people fools and idiots here? They let him get away with his nastiness for too long on that forum. They really go a long way not to ban people before they rudeness and disrespectful manner of posting goes over the line. Yet he would have you believe it was because they couldn't answer his questions.

Anti-Catholic bigots such as John McCarthur don't bother me as much because when they make false comment about Catholics they do so not knowing better. I even provided a link show McCarther made several major errors in presenting Catholic teaching and it was virtually ignored by the rabid anti-Catholics on this board. Oh, actually one of the said 'I would much rather believe what he says about the Catholic Church than you!' WOW

Any way, 'beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life to be found here!'

God bless you in your efforts Agnus Dei. I still correspond with many others who have converted from being Baptist after study of the threads WHEN Catholics were allowed to debate here. Keep contending for the faith.

 

[DHK]

No, DHK, The link I supplied which is a joint declaration of the Lutheran and Catholic Church makes it CLEAR what they a trusting in. And, your right, you will continue to to deny what the ECF and the rest of the Church has taught from the beginning because it doesn't agree with your heresy that Baptism is nothing but a symbol. The Catholic Church's catechism doesn't conflict with scripture. I was the Catholic Church, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, that compiled those 27 books you love so much. A Church you claim was apostate.

The Apostles and the early church compiled the canon of Scripture before the RCC ever existed. Nevertheless, I see you ignore trying to present your case from Scripture. You cannot. Other cults believe the same as you do. So do the Hindus. But they don't agree with the Scriptures. Water cannot wash away sins. Hydrogen and Oxygen washing away sins is just a silly superstition.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Jeremiah knew better 3,000 years ago.

You were shown you were WRONG about Luther's belief that baptism was necessary for salvation (plus all Lutherans today) but refuse to acknowledge your error. Shame on you! Be humble enough to admit it.

What Luther believes doesn't matter does it. He is not infallible. He is only a man. What does the Scripture say? That is what is important. What God says is important. And God says: "For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works." Baptism is a work. It is not of baptism. Salvation is by grace through faith--not of baptism. If you are trusting in your baptism to save you, you are not on your way to heaven, for baptism cannot save.

There are many facts that support that the Catholic Church was always the faith followed by Christians from Pentecost on. Look at the Malabar Church of India. Completely lost (basically not known of) and was founded by St. Mark. When Christians finally rediscovered it what did they find? A bunch of Ana-baptist. No, a Church that looked remarkably like the Catholic Church ass found in the rest of the Christian world.

Your history is all wrong.

Many converted Indians were opportunistic Rice Christians, who even practiced their old religion. This was seen as a threat to the immaculateness of the Christian belief. St. Francis Xavier, in a 1545 letter to John III of Portugal, requested an Inquisition to be installed in Goa.

The inquisitor's first act was to forbid any open practice of the Hindu faith on pain of death. Sephardic Jews living in Goa, many of whom had fled the Iberian Peninsula to escape the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition to begin with, were also persecuted. The narrative of Da Fonseca describes the violence and brutality of the inquisition. The records speak of the necessity for hundreds of prison cells to accommodate fresh victims. Seventy-one "autos da fe" were recorded. In the first few years alone, over 4000 people were arrested, with 121 people burnt alive at the stake[7].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

This source puts it far too kindly. It was actually far worse than wikipedia describes it. They have toned it down for "public consumption," no doubt.
The cruelty of the RCC testifies to its paganistic characteristics; its anti-Christian doctrines.

History is just not with you baptist. The spotty ana-baptist groups existing before the reformation had no resemblance to what Baptist churches are now. They were full of heresies.

We know who is full of heresy. The ones that carried out Crusades against the Albigenses, and treated the Anabaptists in the same way. True Believers don't act in this way.

They through in with Donatist and other heretical groups and were full of errors.

Like the Spanish Inquisition?

Marcia makes a good point about y'all reading the Catechism. Although it is obvious she reads it with Baptist colored glasses and ignores the teaching that have been held from the beginning of the Christian Church (such as John Chapter 6) she would rather believe what reformers came up with thousands of year later. Beliefs NNE held prior. Ana-baptist included.

You don't have to parrot Catholic indoctrination to me. I have heard the gibberish before. Those that penned the Bible taught the Bible and ever since then God has had his own all throughout each age. They certainly weren't Catholics, but they continued to protest against the RCC heresies.

There really is not much in the way of edification to gained by re-hashing the same old objections that you obviously ignore when confronted with truths and are un-willing to admit your wrong (ie. Johndeerefan, DFK) concerning Lutherans.

It doesn't matter what the Lutheran's teach. It matters what the Bible says. But you won't go there. That is a sign to me of something lacking in your life.

BTW, I challenge any of you to visit the threads Johndeerefan participated on in the forums of 'Catholic Answers' You will see his claim for being 'banned' for sharing the 'True Gospel of Christ' is a lie. Check out what he was REALLY banned for.

Not interested in other forums; don't have the time.

Seeing how you use will not allow Catholics more mature in the faith to contribute anymore (under the guise they were proselytes and not simply defending the faith) I will leave it to other Christians on the board that too knowledgeable about what the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran to contend for the faith and not let you get away with making false allegations against faiths you completely mis-understand or have a hatred for.

I don't have a hatred for Catholics, etc. I have a hatred for all false doctrine; especially doctrine that sends people to hell.

I will be spending my time during lent in Catholic Evangelistic Retreats working to bring other people to a saving knowledge of Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

So Long!

If you are trusting in your baptism to get you to heaven I feel sorry for you. The Bible says to examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith. There is that chance, and it may be a good one, that you may be wrong. Salvation is found in Christ alone.
Check John 14:6

 

[JohnDeereFan]

BTW, would you tell me the difference between Real Presence and what the denominations I listed believe concerning the bread and the wine in the Eucharist?

Would you also show me where, as you have falsely accused me, I claimed that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation?

I would appreciate an apology, but I know as in the past, you don't do that.

I find it interesting that you consistently refuse to answer my question, but then demand that I answer yours.

And you're right: I do tend not to apologize when I haven't done any thing to apologize for.

Out of curiousity, have you apologized yet for repeatedly accusing me of lying about why I was banned from Catholic Forums?Or for falsely implying that I lied when you stated that there was no evidence I had posted on Catholic Forums?

No, of course you haven't.

 

[lori4dogs]

I find it interesting that you consistently refuse to answer my question, but then demand that I answer yours.

And you're right: I do tend not to apologize when I haven't done any thing to apologize for.

Out of curiousity, have you apologized yet for repeatedly accusing me of lying about why I was banned from Catholic Forums?Or for falsely implying that I lied when you stated that there was no evidence I had posted on Catholic Forums?

No, of course you haven't.

I never implied or said there was no evidence on Catholic Answers. I simply said that I was unable to find your posting under the log-in name that I typed in. I typed it in incorrectly. For that I am sorry. I never IMPLIED anything. It is your perception.

However, you accused me of saying that Lutherans believe in Transubstantiation. Could you share with us the post in which I did so. No you can't. You lied!

You also said Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. Even DHK proved that was a fallacy.

You claimed you were banned from Catholic Answers for 'sharing the "true" gospel of Christ when in fact anyone who reads through all your postings will see the real reason you were banned.

I feel sorry for your congregation. Probably lots of empty pew space! You make personal attacks and do not conduct yourself as a true born again Christian. Your hatred of Catholics runs so deep that you cannot contain your venom or admit when your wrong.

I encourage all poster here to visit Catholic Answers are review Johndeerefans contributions. Notice the snarky, and impolite manner he posts. Look at his accusations of people lying, being idiots and fools. Johndeerefan know everything and can learn nothing.
Too bad, so sad!