Catholic Questions.

[Curious]

Hey, this is me, PeterMeansRock...

They already suspended my account for asking too many questions so I've assumed a new name...I'll attempt to answer these questions later...

The Catholic Church doesn’t require or make a person ask a Saint to pray for them. It’s up to the individual.

Indeed. She merely says "this is permissable and perhaps laudable, so long as you're doing it properly" (i.e. not practicing necromancy, as cited above)!

In the Catholic Catechism which is posted on www.vatican.va, I see the following two notations (copied below) #'s 1367 and 1368. They seem to say that Christ is still being sacrificed, although in a different (unbloody) manner, and that Catholics are joining Him also in a sacrifice of their works, praise, prayers, etc.

...

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."

This right here is saying precisely that Christ was sacrificed ONCE and for all, not resacreficed over and over. He is the once-for-all sacrifice; and the eucharist is that exact same sacrifice re-presented (not represented) presently.

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head.

Indeed he said "do this in rememberance of me"...it is a participation in his body and blood by the church, by his own words. I fail to understand your objection here.

After John 6:54 the disciples tell Jesus that this is a hard saying and who can hear it? He is clear in John 6:63 that the flesh profiteth nothing and the words he spoke are spirit and life.

Here we have "flesh" used in two different terms. The "flesh" as in the understandings of men profit us naught. But the flesh and blood of the god-man are our food.

Notice the Jews in John 6 first understand him to be speaking metaphorically, but he continues on until they understand him to be very literal, saying "how can this man give us his FLESH to eat?!"

Notice then that Christ does not correct them. It wasn't a metaphor. Earlier he made a metaphor about the "leaven of the pharaisee's", which his diciples misunderstood - and he corrected them. Why no correction here? Why allow them to leaven him grumbling "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?" Because this was a very importaint matter of doctrine.

Jesus wasn't telling them to metaphorically break the levitical law, but to actually consume his blood and flesh. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (lev 17). His LIFE is good for us!

Again, thanks for responding.

No Problemo. Thank you for asking!

Spirit does NOT mean "symbolic"

Indeed...

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

You said...

"You might want to "save your breath" on this one. Having had "discussions" with D28guy on this issue several times,..."

Hi DT.

I remember our conversations and I hope all is well with you.

"...and having made the same simple arguement myself that you yourself make here, I can predict what the response will be. D28 will say that you are obviously "distoring" and "mangling" the meaning of the James passage (despite what it explicitly says!),"

Probably the best way would be to say that he is failing to allow the scriptures to "interpret themselves", as God intended. The Catholic Churchs false take on that passage causes it to fly in the face of reams and reams and reams of biblical truth regarding justification.

The correct interpretation of James causes the scriptures to fit together like a hand in a glove.

And yes, it is of course scripture "mangling".

"...and then he will proceed to pontificate on how sola fide (and sola scriptura for that matter) are both "truths" that are "thundered forth" in the Scriptures."

I couldnt have said it better myself!

...altough I dont "pontificate".

"He will then post a litany of verses..."

Yes, and unfortunetly I'll have to type out EVERY...LAST...ONE...of them.

Grrrr.

"...which really do nothing to prove sola fide...."

Needless to say...they do.

"...(and they certainly don't overthrow the truth of James 2:24)"

They support the truth of James beautifully

"...so brace yourself."

Oh...he doesnt need to do that. I'm gentle and kind, but I do share the truth.

Grace and peace to you,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

PeterIsTheRock/Curious...

"Hey, this is me, PeterMeansRock...

They already suspended my account for asking too many questions."

(((huh???)))

I've never heard of any "asking too many questions" terms of service violation??

Could you share exactly what was said in explanation to you?

Puzzled,

Mike

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No one is ever banned for asking too many questions.

 

[Matt Black]

So why the suspension of the account, Roger?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This was handled by an administrator.

Questions should be directed privately there.

It would be unfair to PeterMeansRock/Curious to post the real reason in public.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Yes one would hope there was another reason because his posts do not look like they justify any sort of castigation.

 

[riverm]

I’ve noticed that PeterMeansRock/Curious, both “PMs” have been disabled. That means he was banned. That’s what happens here. No tolerance for other Christian Denominations. A Catholic starts to post his defense and does a good job at it and they ban him. What’s the point of even having an “Other Christian Denominations”?

Boy I'm glad I'm no longer a better than you are baptist...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

He disabled his PMs before he was banned.

Unless you know the facts, don't make accusations.

He was not banned for being a Catholic or defending his views. There are a handful of Catholic members here.

 

[riverm]

I just emailed him, so I'll know the scoop shortly.

Developing...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am consistently bothered that people will visit a site owned and paid for by someone else and then be critical of how it is run.

It is a privilege to post here, not a "right." The Webmaster is the owner and proprietor of this site. If his rules don't suit, there are hundreds of other Christian forums around.

Or, one could always set up and pay for his own.

 

[riverm]

The fact is that this is an “Other Christian Denominations” forum for Christians that are NOT Baptists. That means, to me that an Atheist, Methodist, Lutheran, SDA, Church of Christ and CATHOLIC should be ALLOWED to post here, as long as they are respectful.

It is interesting to note that what Catholics are on the BB don’t discuss their faith, but when a Catholic does he is banned within a few days.

PeterMeansRock did nothing that I and a lot of other members here on BB saw that was in violation. He posted no Catholic material or websites. He just answered the many questions that was thrown at him.

Who cares if this site is owned and paid for by someone else. It’s free for us and It is false advertisement to include an “Other Christian Denominations” forum and then ban a person for no obvious reason other than their “Denomination” and it shows religious intolerance by the administrator.

Easy solution would be to make this strictly a Baptist only board or make people pay to post here and donate the money to missions.

It’s this kind of attitude that pushed me away from being an IFB my whole life. I saw myself turning into a “holier than thou” person that I did not like and when things like this happen here, banning people, because someone disagrees with them, just reinforces why I left the Baptist Church.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

So was he really banned? That's a bummer.

(I guess my warning about "uppity Catholics" mysteriously disappearing was prophetic in his case...I just didn't think it would be that soon.)

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
So was he really banned? That's a bummer.

(I guess my warning about "uppity Catholics" mysteriously disappearing was prophetic in his case...I just didn't think it would be that soon.)

Doubting Thomas:

I sent him a personal message yesterday morning and welcomed him and actually told him that I’d be surprised if he last’s the week, but one day, boy, that has to be a record.

But oh, riverm, he wasn’t banned because he was Catholic…

 

[Charles Meadows]

I would certainly have to think there was something else which occurred. This site really has been quite fairly administrated all in all (in my 2 years of posting).

In response to Roger's comments I do NOT think it is unreasonable to ask that moderators, administrators, and "average joes" act even-handedly regardless of who owns the site. This is a visible Christian site and no doubt there are "lurkers".

But that being said I have NOT seen anyone banned who did not demonstrate significantly bad behavior of some sort. I would find it hard to believe that his posts got him banned.

 

[riverm]

I will put it this way; I’ve been visiting this site since 1999 and joined BB for awhile as a Baptist. My family and I moved and were without an ISP for about a year and a half and signed back up in August.

I have never known a “Baptist” to mysteriously disappear. You can tell if someone has been banned b/c their PMs will be turned off. It’s amazing, every Catholic that knows his stuff has been banned every one of them. It wasn’t because they were rude or hateful and full of pride, it was because they where sharp as a tack and Baptist generally have a hard time defending tough questions regarding theology, especially from a Catholic. So the easy thing to do is ban them and claim that this site is paid for and it’s a privilege to post here, but only if…

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by riverm:

PeterMeansRock did nothing that I and a lot of other members here on BB saw that was in violation.

You are not aware of the whole situation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by riverm:
You can tell if someone has been banned b/c their PMs will be turned off.

No you can't - this members PMs were blocked by himself before he was banned.

You are totally in error riverm. Call me a liar if you like - but you are wrong on the reason for his banning. His banning was not a result of his denomination or his posts.

 

[Frogman]

"Turning Off" pms is not a tell all.

There are multiple reasons pms may be turned off.

In this case, as in all others, what occurs in regards to banning members is according to the rules established by the owner of the board.

As brother C4K has pointed out this is a privately owned board and is operated accordingly.

There is a reason that Catholics are no longer permitted to post on the BB even prohibiting their posting on the other Christian Denominations forum.

As I understand things that is an appropriate reason.

This has nothing to do with baptists being 'bad' or exclusive, or anything else detremental to the name of Baptist.

I am sorry reverm that you are no longer a Baptist, but that is your decision to make according to your own conscience and how you believe scripture is to be interpreted.

Remember that it was Baptists that first guaranteed that right to you, and that is a right. Also remember that it is a baptist that has reminded you of that freedom of conscience.

As far as 'knowing' the scoop, it appears to me your own curiosity is taking you along an unBibical way, I would suggest not being overly curious such that you become a busybody or backbiter.

Bro. Dallas
(Frogman-comoderator)

 

[Charles Meadows]

There is a reason that Catholics are no longer permitted to post on the BB even prohibiting their posting on the other Christian Denominations forum.

Now wait a minute...

I thought it was established that there was NOT a prohibition on catholics posting. What possible reason could there be for that? SDA, oneness, and CoC members till post.