I am not a RC scholar, so please give me some room for error if I'm wrong (and feel free to correct me), but I do see a difference in the way many Protestants interpret Scripture, versus the way RC's interpret. Protestants approach the Bible with the understanding that there are figures of speech "metaphors" and "similes"With. These are used in our present day language as well. When these moments arise, we intuitively know that everything is based on context. With this in mind, we know that when we approach passages that appear to have one meaning, but our general sense of "reality" says otherwise, we must look for the spiritual context of the passage. The passage of the Lord's supper is a perfect example...based on the general revelation God has given us (common knowledge via our senses evidenced by sensual experience) we know the difference between wine and blood... a wafer and flesh. Okay, so my point is this, at some point, the average RC member must stop and question the teaching of its leadership...we Protestants do this all the time with our leadership, because guess what? they are often wrong on serious theological doctrines. So I would just encourage all RC's to not follow for the sake of tradition or comfort, you can be sincere, but you can also be sincerely wrong.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Catholic Church Is Not Entirely False And Does Worship The Biblical And Historical Jesus As God
- Thread starter John Yurich
- Start date
- Status
I am not a RC scholar, so please give me some room for error if I'm wrong (and feel free to correct me), but I do see a difference in the way many Protestants interpret Scripture, versus the way RC's interpret. Protestants approach the Bible with the understanding that there are figures of speech "metaphors" and "similes"With. These are used in our present day language as well. When these moments arise, we intuitively know that everything is based on context. With this in mind, we know that when we approach passages that appear to have one meaning, but our general sense of "reality" says otherwise, we must look for the spiritual context of the passage. The passage of the Lord's supper is a perfect example...based on the general revelation God has given us (common knowledge via our senses evidenced by sensual experience) we know the difference between wine and blood... a wafer and flesh. Okay, so my point is this, at some point, the average RC member must stop and question the teaching of its leadership...we Protestants do this all the time with our leadership, because guess what? they are often wrong on serious theological doctrines. So I would just encourage all RC's to not follow for the sake of tradition or comfort, you can be sincere, but you can also be sincerely wrong.
Good grief, why would you ever want to attend a Christian worship service that is in any way unscriptural? That makes no sense at all to me.
Oh my, you are so completely confused. Your newfound Baptist friends come nowhere to believing in the things that you continue to believe in. Perhaps you should go out and start a new Christian sect.
Christian history? Let's start with there being but one Universal Christian Church after the last of the Apostles died. This went on into the first few hundred years of the newly forming Christian Church, led by the Bishop's whom we call the "Early Church Fathers", the men for formulated the basic doctrines which all Christians believe; the men who fought the various heresies that arose; the men who collated the Holy Scriptures, and the men who called all the synods and councils that dealt with everything that came up regarding the Christian faith.
These leaders believed wholeheartedly in what the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church's of today believe i.e. the Sacraments, the "Real Presence", and an ministerial priesthood. In no sense were these leaders of the Universal Christian Church baptists or any other succeeding Christian sect that came about after the 15th century
As for the other Christian sects let's say it's not 30,000, but it is certainly in the thousands - is that more acceptable? As for the Catholic (Latin) Rite, there are only about 23 other churches that align themselves with the Bishop based in Rome.
What does Jesus say for us to do? He says we are to re-enact the Last Supper where He instituted the Holy Eucharist as the permanent memorial to Him and His crucifixion. (You know full well where this is commanded in the Scriptures) This has been done from the very beginning of the newly emerging Christian faith and remains the core of orthodox worship.
I do not say that the preaching and teaching of God's word is not a valid expression of worship, in fact we ourselves do this, but it seems to be that you guys relegate the Last Supper part to be but a minor part in worship. We do it at every Mass, you folks do it sparingly.
We don't say abracadabra to turn Jesus into a cracker either. There are prayers of institution that are said where the Holy Spirit comes down and turns the water and wine into Jesus's blood and the bread into His body. Yes, this is a mystery that some people can accept and other people such as yourself can't - it is what it is.
As for the purgatory eisegesis, that is what has been taught by the Church for thousands of years. I am not a biblical scholar, but I can accept in faith what the Holy Church teaches about this. It may or may not be true, but I can accept the possibility that it is as evidenced by the appropriate biblical passage. As with the previous issue, it is what it is.
You do not need to trust me about anything concerning 2000 years of Christian scholarship but only to believe the historical record. The fact is your biblical interpretations only came about over 1400 years down the line of Christianity starting with Martin Luther who came up with the Sola Scriptura idea in the late 1400's and leading up to the Baptists who came about in the 17th century (1608/09) started by one John Smyth in Holland.
The question that really needs to be answered is why should anyone trust the Christian scholarship of people who only came up with their ideas some 1400 years and further into the Christian experience?
Last edited:
A lie that's closer to the truth than a bigger lie is still a lie.
In truth, there are only a couple dozen denominations.
Not only did you say that, you mocked us for believing it.
If you're doing it wrong, then it doesn't matter how often you do it.
The Bible doesn't tell us how often to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Typically, it's once every 4-5 weeks.
But you admit that you do say an incantation to that causes His body to become bread and wine.
"It's a mystery" isn't why we don't accept it. We don't accept it because it's Unbiblical, pagan nonsense.
So then you don't actually know, you're just repeating what you've been told.
At least you were honest enough to admit it's eisegesis.
No kidding.
Your ignorance of Church history is duly noted.
I'd be really careful about that, if I were you. Many of the things you now accept as common Catholic dogmas and doctrines were invented around that time.
But what does it matter when something is codified, as long as it's true?
It's obvious we do not agree and that you are a diehard anti Catholic/Christian orthodox person. You think you know and have all the answers - you don't.
All you have is a different interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, an interpretation by singular men who started their own religious institutions that only came about over 1400 years into the Christian experience.
Actually, I'm very much pro-Catholic people. That's why I continue to tell them the truth and preach the Gospel to them.
It's Catholicism I hate, not Catholics.
Different than a Catholic's? I should hope so, particularly given that you just admitted that the Catholic Church practices eisegesis.
...says the guy who claimed that there are "30,000 Christian denominations".
Sorry, but we are not believing your "truth".
Yes, the Catholic Church practices biblical interpretation - the whole church from throughout the centuries. No Martin Luther here, or Ellen White there, or John Smyth over there, or JohnDeereFan out yonder, with each coming up with their own opinion.
Why should the average RC member stop and question it's leadership? We are Catholics because we look to the Church and all it's history for the correct teachings of things. We believe that they are the authority God has placed over us for correct Scriptural interpretation and it is incumbent for us to accept that. If I could not do such a thing I would leave the faith.
When we read the Scriptures, we are to read them in accordance with what the Church teaches and when I do so, I find myself in agreement with them. This is quite unlike how I see how other Christian faith traditions interpret them and left to my own devices I would quickly go off the mark.
Like I noted your sarcasm/slander towards me and my faith tradition.
Please show evidence that I have slandered either you or your "faith tradition".
Calling Jesus in the Holy Eucharist a "cracker". You say the prayers that are done during Communion is an "incantation" and used the word "abracadabra" - obviously a reference to something demonic or paganistic. I said I am not a biblical scholar - you replied "no kidding". You call our belief about the Holy Eucharist "pagan nonsense" and "unbiblical". That is a direct slander on our most core belief and teaching.
Right!! I have read your posts for years. I read your post on Catholic Answers and the vitriol in which you posted caused you to be banned. I used to be an anti-Catholic bigot too! I have shared my conversion story on this site before so I won't re-post it again. My own sister was a Baptist missionary in Mexico until she studied the Catholic faith and now is a Catholic Christian.
I believe in most cases, people have been unwittingly taught hatred towards the Church and don't realize it. They believe they are doing the right thing. I always found it interesting that when someone becomes Evangelical who was previously Catholic; they tend to trash their previous Catholic faith, claiming it was a cult or even Pagan. And when Evangelicals become Catholic, they affirm their Evangelical past seeing it as real Christianity. I believe it has to do with what converts have been taught when becoming Catholic and what converts are taught when becoming Evangelical. One of the things I always liked about being Catholic is that I wasn’t encouraged to trash anybody’s faith even if they were trashing mine. And it really didn’t matter if they were sending me to Hell because they were not the just judge any way. I find that I am more tolerant of the short comings of Protestants then with the short comings of Catholics because I believe somehow the Catholics should know better.
One of the first anti-Catholics, in Christianity, was the Apostle Paul (Saul) who went around persecuting and imprisoning Christians. He was involved with the murder of the first Christian martyr "The witnesses laid down their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul" (Acts 7:58). In his anti-Catholic fervor "he was trying to destroy the whole church" (Acts 8:3). Saul in his spiritual blindness did not see that he was persecuting Jesus by persecuting His Church. And so he was given the infirmity of physical blindness so that eventually he may see his spiritual blindness (Acts 9:8). Saul did not see the evil he was doing, never-the-less, Jesus must have seen something good in Saul and he was later converted.
The anti-Catholics of today are like Saul in his blindness. They are persecuting the very Catholic Church that Jesus founded "Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me" (Acts 9:4). If God can see something good in one of the first anti-Catholics, then I can see something good in today’s anti-Catholics. And eventually, when the scales (Acts 9:18) fall from their eyes, they will see clearly as well.
It is interesting to note that some of the more extreme anti-Catholics (like I was) are actually vulnerable to becoming Catholic. This is because they believe that virtually all things taught in Catholicism are false. Once they come to a realization that one or more things are right in the Catholic faith, the walls begin to fall and they find themselves falling in love with the very Church they were taught to hate.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is that slander? Do you not believe that the wafer if Christ's literal body?
How is that slander when you, yourself, admitted that the priest does say something that causes the wafer and wine to become Christ's literal flesh and blood? You admitted as much and called it a "mystery".
So how is agreeing with you "slander"?
How is that slander when it goes against scripture and when you, yourself, can't even come up with the appropriate scripture to back it up?
Actually, the reason I was banned from Catholic Answers was "promoting doctrines contrary to Catholicism", same as every Christian who posts there eventually is.
If you really believe I was banned for "vitriol", then please feel free to provide a link to this "vitriol".
First of all, no such thing as a "Catholic Christian".
Second, if she was a missionary, then she's probably already familiar with 1 John 2:19.
Oh, yeah. Catholics never trash our faith. They never call us "invincibly ignorant" or make snide little comments about how we're all our own popes or tell us that we don't have the fullness of Christianity or lie that we have "30,000 denominations". No, that would never happen.
Actually, Paul lived and died before Catholicism even existed.
When I was a young boy, I accidentally fell into an open septic tank some men were working on. I don't go back to Catholicism for the same reason I don't dive back into a septic tank: they both stink and they're both full of the same thing.
By all means, show us where we see Purgatory, insufficiency of Christ's atonement, prayer to the dead, the eternal virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, eternal insecurity, works righteousness, and infused righteousness in the Bible.
Here is the verse.
Revelations 21
21The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.
22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
NOTHING IMPURE WILL EVER ENTER HEAVEN.
You can GOOGLE "CAN I SIN IN HEAVEN?"
You cannot sin in heaven PERIOD.
SO explain to us will there be a time BEFORE you enter heaven when you STOP SINNING. And since the PLACE can't be heaven name the place you STOP SINNING.
No. There will no time or place before we are in Heaven that we will stop sinning and you have provided no verse that says there is.
When we are I Heaven, we will be changed. We will be like Christ. We will not have a sin nature or the propensity to sin.
This is why Paul longed to be in Heaven. It is why Heaven is the hope of believers.
In the twinkling of an eye, utilyan.
How will you stop sinning in Purgatory when you still have your sin nature?
And how will stopping sinning undo all of the sin you've already done?
Walter, are you able to answer any of my questions? Any evidence for the accusations you made against me?
- Status