Why do Catholics…

[Marymog]

Why can't you understand symbolism? Jesus (the actual living person, in the flesh) was reclining at the Passover table with His disciples. He passed the unleavened bread around and told them to eat it and He passed around the wine goblet and told them to drink it. He said that they should continue to do these things to remember Him. Now, how could the bread and wine be His actual body and blood if He is there with them handing it to them??? It is purely symbolic!

Thanks Jim B. You pose a very good question.

Jesus said to his Apostles it was his body/blood. So either he was lying OR it was a symbol. I take Him at his word. You don’t. The question is where is the evidence that the Apostles or 1st century Christians took him at his words instead of what you have been taught by your men 2,000 years later; that it is a symbol.

Several years AFTER the Last Supper Paul asked a question: Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? What is your answer to that question Jim?

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. How can one eat/drink something in an unworthy manner and bring judgment upon themselves if it is just a symbol Jim?

Jesus told you Jim that his flesh is food and his blood is drink and that you must eat his body and drink his blood to have life in you! How do you eat his flesh and drink his blood Jim?

If you read early Christian writings all the way thru the 2nd century you will see that they also believed it to be His body/blood, just like He said it was. So, who would know better Jim; Your men 2,000 years later or the men who walked and talked with the Apostles?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

How did you get that out of this???
↓↓↓

And you Ferris seem to have forgotten that you wrote THIS

A born again person who ALREADY has the life of the sacrifice in him does not need to eat bread and wine to get the life of Christ he ALREADY has in him.

Sooooo which one is it Ferris? Do you NOT need to eat bread and wine since Christ is already in you OR do you celebrate and commemorate by partaking of bread/wine?

 

[Brakelite]

You’ve made an issue about how the Catholic Church is “bad” because of the behavior of some of its adherents – even hierarchy.

As for the “bad players” in Church history – YOU can whine about it until the cows come home and I will STILL be right.

There have ALWAYS been bad players within the Church ever since Jesus picked Judas – and there will ALWAYS BE bad players in the Church.
I showed YOU a couple of examples of some of them in your OWN sect.

You go around pretending that men in the Catholic Church are the “ONLY” ones within Christianity that have done evil – and that SINCE those men were “Catholic” – the entire Church his “evil”.

That’s nonsense – as I have AMPLY shown by some of the bad apples within your OWN sect. I don’t judge your ENTUIRE Church or your doctrines on the behavior of its worst sinners. Scripture WARNS us about that kind of self-righteous judging (Matt. 7:1-6).
That’s nothing but sanctimonious HYPOCRISY . . .

As for your erroneous obsession with the Sabbath – I schooled you othere aas well when you falsely claimed that “NO ONE in Catholicism” attempts to justify Sunday observance in place of the Sabbath in Scripture. No ONLY did I douse that lie – I gave you the quotes of some of the GIANTS of Christian faith.

So, if you want to whine about the Sabbath some more – go whine elsewhere.
I’ve already PROVEN you wrong . . .

Your attempts at deviating the conversation away from all the points I made in this post.....

You and Illuminator are as bad as each other. It's now become a standard response that when you are shown and challenged regarding an ongoing Catholic practise that is entrenched within the mindset of the hierarchy, is utterly unbiblical and antithetical to everything God has established for His people, was clearly forbidden as a practice smokey God's church, is a particular characteristic of pagan thinking, was encouraged and introduced into the church by the most respected and renowned of Catholic theologians and scholars, both considered doctors of faith, (Augustine and Aquinas), is currently being promoted and exercised by not just the present Pope, but was also to a more or less degree by every Pope before him, the automatic response is
A. Blame it on a 'few' bad apples and
B. Point out individuals' sins in other churches which are not the typical practise of the church itself, but indeed are of a few individuals.
Which in relation to the union of church and state, bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever. We are not discussing a few bad popes here and there, I am not denying there may be a few good popes, the discussion is about politics in the church. Or the church in politics. A combination of statecraft with Christianity, a mingling of the profane and holy, a compromise and spiritual adultery whereby the church itself, the actual institution, has within the framework of it's very nature, the acceptance of force and the use of state powers in the military, the political arm, and in judicial legislation to spread the Christian ethos in the world. The excuse when persecutions and killings are mentioned is either the state did it, or a few bad eggs did it.
Let me make something abundantly clear. If my church began to practice political chicanery and the use of the military to enforce Sabbath keeping or Bible study or any other valid or invalid Christian practise, I would leave the church yesterday. And if my church refused to effectively deal with perpetrators of abuse in the church, of whatever nature, I would leave the day before yesterday. And what's more, if my church has in its persona, a characteristic whereby persecution and the use of the "sword" was seen as an acceptable means by which to establish God's kingdom on earth, and the leading theologians from it's inception wrote on the topic, published manuscripts and books extolling the virtue of a union of church and state and the appropriate use of force to compel people to worship according to the rules of the church, I would never join. And I left your church for those very reasons.

... ...Are futile and contradictory to your originally stated purpose as a presence and contributor to this forum... Expose lies. You have not in your response above exposed any lie, and you have not at all debunked, schooled, or taught me anything on the Sabbath. All you have accomplished is to reveal your arrogance, create interminable strawman red herring rabbit holes irrelevant to the discussion, and prove your inability to refute the points I made. Your bluster and your proud arrogance avails you nothing in any desire you may have for truth.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

And you Ferris seem to have forgotten that you wrote THIS

A born again person who ALREADY has the life of the sacrifice in him does not need to eat bread and wine to get the life of Christ he ALREADY has in him.

Sooooo which one is it Ferris? Do you NOT need to eat bread and wine since Christ is already in you OR do you celebrate and commemorate by partaking of bread/wine?

Virtually all non-Catholics observe Communion. So it's not a matter of if we do it or not. It's a matter of WHY we do it. You do it to get life. We do it because we ALREADY have life. We do it as a commemoration of what Christ has done for us, not as a way to get what Christ will do for you. Non-Catholics are already born again and have the life of Christ in them that Catholics don't have and are trying to get by consuming wine and the bread.

 

[RedFan]

Virtually all non-Catholics observe Communion. So it's not a matter of if we do it or not. It's a matter of WHY we do it. You do it to get life. We do it because we ALREADY have life. We do it as a commemoration of what Christ has done for us, not as a way to get what Christ will do for you. Non-Catholics are already born again and have the life of Christ in them that Catholics don't have and are trying to get by consuming wine and the bread.

Perhaps there is a third possibility - that both Catholics and non-Catholics are already "born again" (although I'm not sure Catholics would use that exact phrase to express the notion) but Catholics regularly partake of the bread and wine in order to follow the admonishment of John 6:53-56, as a means of expressing their participation in the Body of Christ rather than as a means of being re-born again with each communion.

 

[Marymog]

Virtually all non-Catholics observe Communion. So it's not a matter of if we do it or not. It's a matter of WHY we do it. You do it to get life. We do it because we ALREADY have life. We do it as a commemoration of what Christ has done for us, not as a way to get what Christ will do for you. Non-Catholics are already born again and have the life of Christ in them that Catholics don't have and are trying to get by consuming wine and the bread.

Soooooo what you said earlier when you said a “born again person who ALREADY has the life of the sacrifice in him does not need to eat bread and wine to get the life of Christ” was not what you meant. They already have life in them?

So now I have to ask; How does eating/drinking a symbol give us life? You said we do it to get life! So, how does participating in a commemoration give us life? If it is just a symbol it wouldn’t do anything; would it?

But you have also said that life is already in a born again Christian sooooo I guess they really don’t need to eat the bread to give them life?

You have me so confused Ferris!

What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray for our daily bread in the Lords Prayer? What is that “daily bread” he is speaking of?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your attempts at deviating the conversation away from all the points I made in this post.....

Because your diatribes alwats go off on tangents.
You don't understand how to stick to a single topic and debate it - then you wind up going off in ten different directions.

FOCUS on the discussion - and stick to the point.

... ...Are futile and contradictory to your originally stated purpose as a presence and contributor to this forum... Expose lies. You have not in your response above exposed any lie, and you have not at all debunked, schooled, or taught me anything on the Sabbath. All you have accomplished is to reveal your arrogance, create interminable strawman red herring rabbit holes irrelevant to the discussion, and prove your inability to refute the points I made. Your bluster and your proud arrogance avails you nothing in any desire you may have for truth.

WRONG.

I debined everything that YOU claimed about what CATHOLICS have taught about the Sabbath being fulfilled in Scripture.

YOU are the one who made the intellectually-Bankrupt claim that “NO ONE in Catholicism” attempts to justify Sunday observance in place of the Sabbath with Scripture.
I exposed your LIE by presenting a litany of Church Fathers who were ALL Catholics.

If you're having a problem woith this - then don't make those idiioc claims.

 

[Jim B]

Soooooo what you said earlier when you said a “born again person who ALREADY has the life of the sacrifice in him does not need to eat bread and wine to get the life of Christ” was not what you meant. They already have life in them?

So now I have to ask; How does eating/drinking a symbol give us life? You said we do it to get life! So, how does participating in a commemoration give us life? If it is just a symbol it wouldn’t do anything; would it?

But you have also said that life is already in a born again Christian sooooo I guess they really don’t need to eat the bread to give them life?

You have me so confused Ferris!

What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray for our daily bread in the Lords Prayer? What is that “daily bread” he is speaking of?

It seems that you are really confused.

Jesus said to eat the bread and wine to remember Him. He is no longer on earth -- He is at the right hand of God -- so we remember all He did for us when He was here: His example of how to live, His healings and blessings of others, and finally His sacrifice to pay the price for all sin.

There is no need to eat the bread and wine; by itself it accomplishes nothing.

Regarding the "Lord's prayer", his disciples (Jews, not Christians) asked Him how they should pray. In part, He told them to request their daily bread -- actual food! -- it doesn't mean anything more than "don't let us go hungry".

 

[Marymog]

There is no need to eat the bread and wine; by itself it accomplishes nothing.

Paul disagrees with you:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

 

[Brakelite]

You’ve made an issue about how the Catholic Church is “bad” because of the behavior of some of its adherents – even hierarchy.

No, that's not what the issue is. That's what you and other Catholics claim, and I have no argument that some individuals in the church and even within the hierarchy are bad, that's common to all denominations, even my own. But that's not the issue! You still aren't reading my posts properly, or perhaps choosing not to actually address what I'm saying because you have no answer. The issue is not with individuals. Nor is it with any select group, aka 'hierarchy, within the church. The issue is with the ethos and religious worldview of the institution. Allow me to quote again what I have written, and been saying all along, and let us see you actually respond to that, and not use diversionary tactics because you prefer not to address the issue...

Catholicism committed spiritual adultery when her popes embraced and coveted civil power... That union of church and state which is the Hallmark of pagan and Catholic ideology,

Trusting in the kingdoms of this world and forsaking the Lord as king, doing exactly what Israel did in demanding a king from Samuel. The slight difference (from Israel) is in who Rome appealed to for that civil authority... Instead of one of God's prophets,(Samuel) they accepted the power, the throne, and the authority of the dragon... Through Pagan Rome, legally and directly from the eastern pagan emperor, Justinian 1.

How many Popes have annulled the teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas who I believe both were instrumental in establishing the concept of church/state union in the papacy? You know, the 2 swords theory?

The decision makers who had their decisions engraved in infallible stone: decisions approved by series of papal councils, which are also set in infallible stone.

The issue is popes' teaching, and the church adopting, doctrine contrary to scripture. Like for example the union of church and state and the use of the state to persecute dissenters.

Even secularists, such as Benjamin Franklin, (whose character is open to question) whose intelligence and perception was stellar, recognized the lack of integrity and the hypocrisy inherent in the amalgamation of church and state, saying, quote:
"In the affairs of this world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it"...and
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that it's professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, that it's cause is a bad one”.

 

[Dropship]

Have you seen the movie about the Polish squadron? I forget what it was called lol. They kicked butt!

Yay..:)

 

[Jim B]

Paul disagrees with you:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

What do you think this means?

Jesus said to drink the wine and eat the bread to remember him. Again, There is no need to eat the bread and wine; by itself it accomplishes nothing.

What happens if you don't drink the wine and eat the bread?

 

[Philip James]

Perhaps there is a third possibility - that both Catholics and non-Catholics are already "born again

Hello RedFan,

Catholics recognize all the Baptized as born anew into the Kingdom, and rightly calls them brothers.

Pax et Bonum

 

[Jim B]

Hello RedFan,

Catholics recognize all the Baptized as born anew into the Kingdom, and rightly calls them brothers.

Pax et Bonum

Where does it say that baptism is "born anew into the Kingdom"? Doesn't belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior have anything to do with it?

 

[RedFan]

Where does it say that baptism is "born anew into the Kingdom"? Doesn't belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior have anything to do with it?

I've always thought that John 3:5's reference to "water" was actually a reference to baptism. Is that not correct?

 

[Jim B]

I've always thought that John 3:5's reference to "water" was actually a reference to baptism. Is that not correct?

No, I believe that it refers to natural birth. "Water" meaning amniotic fluid. Notice in the previous verse that... " Nicodemus asked, “How can a man be born again once he is old? Is it possible for him to enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

 

[Marymog]

What do you think this means?

Jesus said to drink the wine and eat the bread to remember him. Again, There is no need to eat the bread and wine; by itself it accomplishes nothing.

What happens if you don't drink the wine and eat the bread?

If you don’t drink the wine and eat the bread you are not doing what He told you to do. What do you think this means?

 

[Jim B]

If you don’t drink the wine and eat the bread you are not doing what He told you to do. What do you think this means?

It means that you're putting yourself under the law. There is no requirement to drink the wine and eat the bread; that is Catholic legalism. BTW, why isn't the bread and wine offered to everyone? Are your priests defying Jesus' command?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Perhaps there is a third possibility - that both Catholics and non-Catholics are already "born again" (although I'm not sure Catholics would use that exact phrase to express the notion) but Catholics regularly partake of the bread and wine in order to follow the admonishment of John 6:53-56, as a means of expressing their participation in the Body of Christ rather than as a means of being re-born again with each communion.

I think the point is Catholics think you can be cut off from Christ by the church if you don't take communion. Thus the term 'ex-communication', meaning that the church cuts you off from Christ by not allowing you to take communion. Which, of course, is complete nonsense. They assign the elements and themselves a power that neither bread and wine, nor the priest's ministry has. Paul made it clear that literal ceremonial foods do not have that power of life in them:

"But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." 1 Corinthians 8:8

"9 ...it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by foods of no value to those devoted to them. 10We have an altar from which those who serve at the tabernacle have no right to eat." Hebrews 13:9-10​

 

[Jim B]

I think the point is Catholics think you can be cut off from Christ by the church if you don't take communion. Thus the term 'ex-communication', meaning that the church cuts you off from Christ by not allowing you to take communion. Which, of course, is complete nonsense. They assign the elements and themselves a power that neither bread and wine, nor the priest's ministry has. Paul made it clear that literal ceremonial foods do not have that power of life in them:

"But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." 1 Corinthians 8:8

"9 ...it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by foods of no value to those devoted to them. 10We have an altar from which those who serve at the tabernacle have no right to eat." Hebrews 13:9-10​

Great post! Very true!