Communion vs Holy Communion

Marymog said:

Hi JIF,

Simple question: What is your historical evidence that the theory you hold, and that you have parroted from other men, is more than 500 years old?

Maybe it is your own theory? If so I apologize for suggesting you were parroting other men. If it is your own theory, why is it more valid than the one I have parroted?

If you can't answer or are to embarrassed to answer or have realized your answer would be deficient then I am willing to move on. Just let me know.

Mary

Click to expand...

Didn't I quoted Jesus of John 6:30-36? That's more than 500 years old. That's older than what the RCC is making of His other words which was not developed until after the N.T.

Do you see Eucharist in the N.T.? No. So how can you prove that the RCC is teaching what was taught in the N.T. when it never did?

JesusIsFaithful said:

Because this was before the Last Supper, right? For the RCC and you to take His words to the unbelieving Jews to mean to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they would have no concept of the bread and the wine to think any other way. That is why the unbelieving Jews and many of His disciples walked away because they took it literally as you are taking His words to mean BEFORE the Last Supper.

Click to expand...

Don't you actually READ the words of Scripture??
The Apostles had NO idea what Jesus was talking about - so why would they start eating Him right there??

When the first "Protestants" left Him in verse 66 - Jesus turned to the twelve and asked, "Do you ALSO want to leave." Peter said to Him, "To WHOM shall we go? YOU have the words of eternal life."

They were confused but they had faith to stick around and find out what He was talking about.
Too bad people like YOU don't have that kind of faith . . .

JesusIsFaithful said:

And yet you & the RCC are taking His words in John 6th chapter to mean it that way.

Click to expand...

And that is a LIE.
We consume His glorified Body.

JesusIsFaithful said:

An idol is something YOU make. Men make the Eucharist; an idol of bread rather than one of wood, tone, or precious metals. You imply His Presence is in the Eucharist.
Are you going to be held hostage if a maniac comes in during the Mass and hold a gun to your version of the Eucharist? If you consider that absurd, then so is your Eucharist. Are we stronger than the Lord? No.

Click to expand...

And this is just another ignorant statement.

Men don't make the Eucharist - GOD does.
Men make the bread that BECOMES the Eucharist - just like men made the bread that Jesus transformed into His flesh at the Last Supper.

JesusIsFaithful said:

Okay. So when someone does eat or drink in an unworthy manner, your church marched them up to that Eucharist and wine to have them apologize to those items, right? I don't see that happening.

In the local news, someone raided a Catholic church and threw the bread wafers out all over the church's lawn. The priest was seen carefully picking up the pieces of the bread wafers and suggested that Satanists were involved for how they treated the Eucharist. Are Satanists stronger than the Lord? No.

That's the point about idolatry. You can't do anything to the real Lord Jesus Christ but you can do anything to an idol.

Click to expand...

Are you really this dense and Scripturally-bankrupt - or is it just an act??
Don't you know that mere men put Jesus to DEATH on a cross?? What makes you think that they can't desecrate Him now??

Jesus said that WHATEVER we do to the least of his brothers - we do it to HIM (Matt. 25:40).
STUDY your Bible . . .[/QUOTE]

BreadOfLife said:

I've had some pretty inane conversations with certain people on this forum - but YOU take the cake.
Paul doesn't say that a man MUST run a good, married household.
He merely states that IF a man is married - he must run a tight ship.

This is getting ridiculous . . .

The Mass consists of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Two SEPARATE parts of the Mass.

The Eucharist IS the Lord. It is only under the appearance or "accidents" of brand and wine.
HOW is this "idolatry"??

Click to expand...

I cannot help nor convince you, brother. This discussion is more of an argument and so I withdraw from discussing this with you to admonish you since it is on God to minister in helping you to see your error. Bye brother.

JesusIsFaithful said:

I cannot help nor convince you, brother. This discussion is more of an argument and so I withdraw from discussing this with you to admonish you since it is on God to minister in helping you to see your error. Bye brother.

Click to expand...

This discussion was an argument from the very beginning.
I'm interested in what the Word of God has to say - not in the perverted cherry-picked version of it . . .

JesusIsFaithful said:

Didn't I quoted Jesus of John 6:30-36? That's more than 500 years old. That's older than what the RCC is making of His other words which was not developed until after the N.T.
Do you see Eucharist in the N.T.? No. So how can you prove that the RCC is teaching what was taught in the N.T. when it never did?

Click to expand...

Got it. It's your own translation of scripture. Just say/admit it.....It's not that hard to do.

So the question still remains: Why is your translation more valid than the 2,000 year teaching of The Church?

Mary

Marymog said:

Got it. It's your own translation of scripture. Just say/admit it.....It's not that hard to do.

So the question still remains: Why is your translation more valid than the 2,000 year teaching of The Church?

Mary

Click to expand...

Prove that the teaching of the Church is 2,000 years old.

Even Catholic Bible version do not teach plainly what the Church is teaching. You are not going to find Eucharist or the Mass in a Catholic Bible Version or any Bible version. So where did the Church get that which you claim was 2000 years old? Nowhere. They made up Catholicism as time went by.

Look at this Catholic web site depicting the history in the development of the Catholic church and the doctrines within.

A Timeline of Catholic Church History: 1 - 500 A.D.

"*c. 88 The reign of Pope St. Clement I (-97). During his pontificate, he issues a letter to the Corinthians, urging them to submit themselves to lawful religious authority. He writes "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." "

In that same letter, Clement sent men to collect from the church a portion from the bounty. That was why he was accusing the church at Corinth of jealousy because they were not giving any portion to a church at Rome just for the sake of respecting those in authority over them. The Catholic church today still expect each local Catholic church to give something to the hierarchy.

Then there is this vague reference ;

"*c. 100 Birth of St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), Church Father. He wrote two Apologies of the Faith, and A Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew. In his writings, he bears witness to a number of Catholic doctrines. In one famous passage, he describes the Order of the Mass."

But Ignatius was the first one to use the term Catholic.

"*c. 107-117 Martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch, apostolic Father and bishop. He was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. Theodoret, the Church historian says he was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, who was at first bishop of Antioch before going to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluble information about the early Church. He was the first to use the term "Catholic" to describe the Church."

Then we find this.

"*c. 305 The Council of Elvira, Spain approves the first canon imposing clerical celibacy."

It wasn't an apostle teaching to impose celibacy on priests.

So sometime along the way, Catholic priests are not allowed to marry when it is required for them to be celibate to perform the Mass. If they get married, they can only do communion. If you do not know this; then ask someone in Catholic authority for confirmation or clarification.

But false teachers had existed in the days of the apostles and when one deviates or teach something untaught by the apostles, you should suspect it as coming from false teachers.

JesusIsFaithful said:

Prove that the teaching of the Church is 2,000 years old.

Even Catholic Bible version do not teach plainly what the Church is teaching. You are not going to find Eucharist or the Mass in a Catholic Bible Version or any Bible version. So where did the Church get that which you claim was 2000 years old? Nowhere. They made up Catholicism as time went by.

Look at this Catholic web site depicting the history in the development of the Catholic church and the doctrines within.

A Timeline of Catholic Church History: 1 - 500 A.D.

"*c. 88 The reign of Pope St. Clement I (-97). During his pontificate, he issues a letter to the Corinthians, urging them to submit themselves to lawful religious authority. He writes "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." "

In that same letter, Clement sent men to collect from the church a portion from the bounty. That was why he was accusing the church at Corinth of jealousy because they were not giving any portion to a church at Rome just for the sake of respecting those in authority over them. The Catholic church today still expect each local Catholic church to give something to the hierarchy.

Then there is this vague reference ;

"*c. 100 Birth of St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), Church Father. He wrote two Apologies of the Faith, and A Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew. In his writings, he bears witness to a number of Catholic doctrines. In one famous passage, he describes the Order of the Mass."

But Ignatius was the first one to use the term Catholic.

"*c. 107-117 Martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch, apostolic Father and bishop. He was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. Theodoret, the Church historian says he was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, who was at first bishop of Antioch before going to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluble information about the early Church. He was the first to use the term "Catholic" to describe the Church."

Then we find this.

"*c. 305 The Council of Elvira, Spain approves the first canon imposing clerical celibacy."

It wasn't an apostle teaching to impose celibacy on priests.

So sometime along the way, Catholic priests are not allowed to marry when it is required for them to be celibate to perform the Mass. If they get married, they can only do communion. If you do not know this; then ask someone in Catholic authority for confirmation or clarification.

But false teachers had existed in the days of the apostles and when one deviates or teach something untaught by the apostles, you should suspect it as coming from false teachers.

Click to expand...

Hi,

You wrote almost 500 words but no where in it do I see an answer to my legitimate question: Why is your translation more valid than the 2,000 year teaching of The Church?

Mary

PS...That is not a official Catholic website. It is a website managed by some Catholics. But I suspect you already knew that since you are using it as a reference? Anything they put on that website should be checked against official Catholic teaching.

Marymog said:

Hi,

You wrote almost 500 words but no where in it do I see an answer to my legitimate question: Why is your translation more valid than the 2,000 year teaching of The Church?

Mary

PS...That is not a official Catholic website. It is a website managed by some Catholics. But I suspect you already knew that since you are using it as a reference? Anything they put on that website should be checked against official Catholic teaching.

Click to expand...

Jesus validated to me that the King James Version is keeping His words whereas the 2,000 year old teaching of the Church is not keeping His words, because His words in the KJV reproves such teachings of the Church as false. Happy?

JesusIsFaithful said:

Jesus validated to me that the King James Version is keeping His words whereas the 2,000 year old teaching of the Church is not keeping His words, because His words in the KJV reproves such teachings of the Church as false. Happy?

Click to expand...

I am always happy

Is that how easy it is? We can just say that Jesus validated something to us personally which may be opposite of 2,000 years of Church/Christian teaching and presto chango' IT'S TRUE?

Based on your theory I feel comfortable in saying that Jesus has validated to me that everything that you believe that is opposite of what I believe is not true....presto chango'.

Mary

Marymog said:

I am always happy

Is that how easy it is? We can just say that Jesus validated something to us personally which may be opposite of 2,000 years of Church/Christian teaching and presto chango' IT'S TRUE?

Based on your theory I feel comfortable in saying that Jesus has validated to me that everything that you believe that is opposite of what I believe is not true....presto chango'.

Mary

Click to expand...

The problem here is that Catholics have always stated that they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from those in Catholic authority as it is that same Catholic authority that claims they have the final authority on what the Bible says or meant.

That is why I am having a hard time believing you that you had really asked Him when you are toting 2,000 years of Church/Catholic ( NOT CHRISTIAN ) teaching over His very own words on how you are saved simply by believing in Him, and so I am asking you to ask Jesus Christ for confirmation.

JesusIsFaithful said:

The problem here is that Catholics have always stated that they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from those in Catholic authority as it is that same Catholic authority that claims they have the final authority on what the Bible says or meant.

That is why I am having a hard time believing you that you had really asked Him when you are toting 2,000 years of Church/Catholic ( NOT CHRISTIAN ) teaching over His very own words on how you are saved simply by believing in Him, and so I am asking you to ask Jesus Christ for confirmation.

Click to expand...

Hi,

I think the problem is that Protestants, for the last 500 years (compared to 2,000 years for Catholics), state that they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from those in authority in their church OR they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from themselves if they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them personally.

I am having a hard time believing you that you have really asked Him when you are toting 500 years of Protestant teaching over His very own words on how you are saved. For you see since the Reformation the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader. Which one are you following?

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

Mary

Marymog said:

Hi,

I think the problem is that Protestants, for the last 500 years (compared to 2,000 years for Catholics), state that they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from those in authority in their church OR they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from themselves if they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them personally.

I am having a hard time believing you that you have really asked Him when you are toting 500 years of Protestant teaching over His very own words on how you are saved. For you see since the Reformation the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader. Which one are you following?

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

Mary

Click to expand...

The difference here is your 2,000 year old teaching of the Church/Catholic runs contrary to the entirety of His words. It used to be that only the church had Bibles and it was a rarity for individual believers to have personal Bibles. When the authority of the Church/Catholic teaches believers to respect that they have the last authority of what the scripture says, it is no wonder when Protestant finally speak up because what He says and what the Church/Catholic says for supposedly as you claim 2,000 years doesn't hold line up, especially when you can't find such plain teaching of Catholicism in His words as the Church/Catholic claims that is in there.

Now for 2,000 years, in being the final authority for what scripture says, how is it that you never noticed that the Church/Catholic do not have an explanation for everything in scripture, especially when those scripture runs contrary to these supposed 2,000 year old teachings of the Church/Catholic??

So look at this list of the years in how each catholic doctrine were developed that formed catholicism today and you will see that many Catholic doctrines were not taught as 2,000 year old after all.

Timeline of Roman Catholicism

"

1. The Rosary – 1090 AD
   
   
2. Indulgences – 1190 AD
   
   
3. Transubstantiation (Innocent III) – 1215 AD
   
   
4. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest – 1215 AD
   
   
5. Adoration of the wafer (Host) – 1220 AD
   
   
6. Cup forbidden to the people at communion – 1414 AD
   
   
7. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma – 1439 AD
   
   
8. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed – 1439 AD
   
   
9. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent – 1545 AD"

I'll stop there, but as you can see..... the Church/Catholic did not always have their tradition as equal authority with the Bible for 2,000 years.

So... doctrines taught by the Church/Catholic.. not so 2,000 years old after all. And you wonder why there are Protestants.

I grant that in coming out of that Church/Catholic, they did not get rid of all things representative of catholicism like still using the terms sacraments and "holy" with communion, and some even still use the term Eucharist and believe that Christ's Presence is in the bread & the wine. That's all extra that the Bible never taught in the first place. The reformation needs to continue to reprove the works of darkness by His words with His help.

Marymog said:

Hi,

I think the problem is that Protestants, for the last 500 years (compared to 2,000 years for Catholics), state that they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from those in authority in their church OR they get their confirmation about the word of God and His meaning from themselves if they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them personally.

I am having a hard time believing you that you have really asked Him when you are toting 500 years of Protestant teaching over His very own words on how you are saved. For you see since the Reformation the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader. Which one are you following?

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

Mary

Click to expand...

"For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen." Matt 20:1-16

JesusIsFaithful said:

The difference here is your 2,000 year old teaching of the Church/Catholic runs contrary to the entirety of His words. It used to be that only the church had Bibles and it was a rarity for individual believers to have personal Bibles. When the authority of the Church/Catholic teaches believers to respect that they have the last authority of what the scripture says, it is no wonder when Protestant finally speak up because what He says and what the Church/Catholic says for supposedly as you claim 2,000 years doesn't hold line up, especially when you can't find such plain teaching of Catholicism in His words as the Church/Catholic claims that is in there.

Now for 2,000 years, in being the final authority for what scripture says, how is it that you never noticed that the Church/Catholic do not have an explanation for everything in scripture, especially when those scripture runs contrary to these supposed 2,000 year old teachings of the Church/Catholic??

So look at this list of the years in how each catholic doctrine were developed that formed catholicism today and you will see that many Catholic doctrines were not taught as 2,000 year old after all.

Timeline of Roman Catholicism

"

1. The Rosary – 1090 AD
   
   
2. Indulgences – 1190 AD
   
   
3. Transubstantiation (Innocent III) – 1215 AD
   
   
4. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest – 1215 AD
   
   
5. Adoration of the wafer (Host) – 1220 AD
   
   
6. Cup forbidden to the people at communion – 1414 AD
   
   
7. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma – 1439 AD
   
   
8. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed – 1439 AD
   
   
9. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent – 1545 AD"

I'll stop there, but as you can see..... the Church/Catholic did not always have their tradition as equal authority with the Bible for 2,000 years.

So... doctrines taught by the Church/Catholic.. not so 2,000 years old after all. And you wonder why there are Protestants.

I grant that in coming out of that Church/Catholic, they did not get rid of all things representative of catholicism like still using the terms sacraments and "holy" with communion, and some even still use the term Eucharist and believe that Christ's Presence is in the bread & the wine. That's all extra that the Bible never taught in the first place. The reformation needs to continue to reprove the works of darkness by His words with His help.

Click to expand...

Thank you JIF,

I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. I appreciate you articulating your thoughts in a respectful manner. Part of having a dialogue is responding to the other persons questions so that the questioner can clarify or clear up some concerns they may have. In my previous post I made a statement and asked a question following that statement Can you pleas answer that question?: For you see since the Reformation the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader. Which one are you following?

That FACTUAL statement, the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader, makes the Protestant churches no better than the Catholic church when it comes to creating doctrine. If your above stated theory were true then the Reformers, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would have started a new and perfect Church with perfect doctrine that could never and would never be changed. However the theories and dogmas and doctrines of the Reformers keep getting reformed again and again and again and have been getting reformed for the last 500 years. Tell me JIF. When is the Holy Spirit going to guide at least ONE of these Reformers to The Truth??

Can you more narrowly define the time frame that only the church had Bibles and it was a rarity for individual believers to have personal Bibles?

According to your theory once Jesus died The Church should have had all it's doctrines set in stone and written down. That is a very interesting theory. Do you know why The Church declared some of the things you listed as doctrine or dogma or infallible many years after the death of Jesus? Do some studying of Christian History and heretical uprisings and get back with me.

1. The rosary is not a doctrine or dogma. One can be Catholic and not ever say it. The timeline (1090AD) you presented is not accurate. If repeating words from scripture is bad, then call me bad.

2. Indulgences are based on what Jesus said in Matthew 18:18. The timeline (1190AD) you presented is not accurate.

3. Transubstantiation (Real Presence) has been practiced/believed/taught by Christians since Jesus said this in Luke 22:19 and Paul later re-affirmed it and taught this in 1 Cor. 11:16, 1 Cor. 11:23-29 and the earliest Chirstian Historical writings (around 70AD) show they agreed with Jesus and Paul when they taught this Didache. Do you know WHY The Church declared Transubstantiation as a Dogma when it did?

4. Confession to a priest, and the power to absolve sin or not, is based on John 20:23, however, according to early historical writings confessing your sins openly in Church was normal. I am unable to substantiate your 1215AD timeline however The Church did over time allow confession of sins in privacy. To the best of my knowledge this practice does not violate scripture unless you can show me where it does? Do you practice James 5:16?

Instead of debunking or correcting the rest of your stated falsehoods that you got from a website that considers the Catholic Church a false Church I will move on (you should do your own research instead of relying on anti-Catholic writers). I get the point you are trying to make. Catholic doctrine has evolved over time and it's doctrines/dogma is NOT 2,000 year old after all. Just because the doctrine was put on paper and officially declared 300 years or 1900 years after the death of Christ does not mean that it was not believed or practiced by The Church or all Christians. Can you tell me when the first official list of what books are considered canonical in the bible you quote from? When did the doctrine/teaching of The Trinity first begin? What is the history of the doctrines your church holds? Which Church is that?

I do wonder why there are Protestants. And there are protestants who wonder why other protestants....GASP.... disagree with THEM. They can understand them disagreeing with the Catholic/Orthodox Churches but not THEM since THEY are guided by the Holy Spirit in all that they do.

I also wonder why some protestant churches have doctrines that mirror Catholic doctrine but are oh so slightly different. The Catholic Church got all their doctrines right except for those very few? If they got some right, with guidance by the Holy Spirit, then why didn't they get all of them right? I also wonder if the Reformers allegedly got it right (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) then why did other men reform their doctrines? And then other men reformed the reformers of the original reformers etc. etc for the last 500 years until we get to the point that, according to some protestants, gay marriage is smiled upon by God. Everyone or every other Protestant Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in creating their beliefs/doctrines/teachings EXCEPT the Catholic Church. Hmmmmm.......now that is an interesting theory.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe "the reformation needs to continue to reprove the works of darkness by His words with His help"?? Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that for 500 years The Reformation has been going on and the protestants still haven't gotten it right????

Mary

Marymog said:

Thank you JIF,

I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. I appreciate you articulating your thoughts in a respectful manner. Part of having a dialogue is responding to the other persons questions so that the questioner can clarify or clear up some concerns they may have. In my previous post I made a statement and asked a question following that statement Can you pleas answer that question?: For you see since the Reformation the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader. Which one are you following?

That FACTUAL statement, the answer on "how you are saved" changes with the whim of every new church leader, makes the Protestant churches no better than the Catholic church when it comes to creating doctrine. If your above stated theory were true then the Reformers, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would have started a new and perfect Church with perfect doctrine that could never and would never be changed. However the theories and dogmas and doctrines of the Reformers keep getting reformed again and again and again and have been getting reformed for the last 500 years. Tell me JIF. When is the Holy Spirit going to guide at least ONE of these Reformers to The Truth??

Click to expand...

When will the Catholic? If the Catholic church were not adding works of darkness to "church doctrine" down through church history, there would have been no need for reformers.

As it is, the Reformers are still blind to some of those things carried over that are still Catholic, so yes, there will always be reformers to prune the works of darkness and even some of the new ones by supposedly Protestants that religious christians brings in.

Jesus said about His disciples in John 15th chapter that He will prune the fruitful disciples so that they may bear more fruit.

So I am not asking you to be a disciple of Protestant churches. I am asking you to be a disciple of Jesus Christ; not a disciple of the Catholic Church.

Can you more narrowly define the time frame that only the church had Bibles and it was a rarity for individual believers to have personal Bibles?

Click to expand...

No. I cannot. I have tried to find it on the internet, but that topic is not found on search engine any more... or maybe I am not a persistent searcher.

Okay. Found something; not what I had come across from before but a Catholic rebuttal for why Catholic Church had their Bibles chained up. My point can be seen as it does confirm that people usually do not have personal Bibles at that time before the printing press had come.

Did the Catholic Church Chain Up Bibles? - Fallible Blogma

According to your theory once Jesus died The Church should have had all it's doctrines set in stone and written down. That is a very interesting theory.

Click to expand...

If the N.T. was good enough for the N.T. churches, then why not Catholic churches?

Do you know why The Church declared some of the things you listed as doctrine or dogma or infallible many years after the death of Jesus?

Click to expand...

Do some studying of Christian History and heretical uprisings and get back with me.

Click to expand...

I am fully aware of false teachings that the "church" and not necessarily the Catholic church, had to put down, but that was done by the scripture already provided in the N.T. There was no Catholic doctrine that was the hero of the day.

1. The rosary is not a doctrine or dogma. One can be Catholic and not ever say it. The timeline (1090AD) you presented is not accurate. If repeating words from scripture is bad, then call me bad.

Click to expand...

Feel free to give the correct timeline then, but the fact remains, the Rosary is a vain prayer of repetition that was instituted NOT 2,000 years ago.

2. Indulgences are based on what Jesus said in Matthew 18:18. The timeline (1190AD) you presented is not accurate.

Click to expand...

Just saying so, does not make it so. If anything, it proves it was not 2,000 year old Catholic tradition.

3. Transubstantiation (Real Presence) has been practiced/believed/taught by Christians since Jesus said this in Luke 22:19 and Paul later re-affirmed it and taught this in 1 Cor. 11:16, 1 Cor. 11:23-29 and the earliest Chirstian Historical writings (around 70AD) show they agreed with Jesus and Paul when they taught this Didache. Do you know WHY The Church declared Transubstantiation as a Dogma when it did?

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think people read into scripture what Catholic wants them to read.

Okay then. Explain what an idol is. Explain why the Eucharist is not one when man made the bread, and somehow by a celibate priest, Christ's Presence is in the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 is Paul speaking against using the bread & the wine as idols as if Christ's Presence is in them. You don't see it, because Catholic beliefs prevents you to see it.

To be continued.. cue dramatic music...

Marymog said:

4. Confession to a priest, and the power to absolve sin or not, is based on John 20:23, however, according to early historical writings confessing your sins openly in Church was normal. I am unable to substantiate your 1215AD timeline however The Church did over time allow confession of sins in privacy. To the best of my knowledge this practice does not violate scripture unless you can show me where it does? Do you practice James 5:16?

Click to expand...

The necessity to confess your sins against God to a priest is just plain ..... ignorant. When you wrong someone, yes, scripture says to confess your sins one to another, and that is what is really meant in those passages, but to confess your sins against God, you go to Jesus Christ for that.

If you had verbally berated & belittled your children, confessing your sins to a priest is not going to cut it, sister. Your children needs your apology.

The same with God. If you sin against God, you confess your sins to God.

I read a local newspaper article about a young Catholic adult coming out of a bad car accident, pleading for someone to get the priest for his confessions before he goes into emergency surgery. None came in time. Fortunately, all went well in the surgery. Afterwards the young man voiced his fear that God would not have forgiven him because he had not confessed his sin to a priest. The priest replied that God would have heard him and forgiven him. To wit, I'd say if I was that young man that was frantic with worry in going into the E.R., " Why have I been going to you all these years then?!!!" So... I would say to you... go to Jesus at that throne of grace for forgiveness. Saves a lot of time and needless worry, sister.

Instead of debunking or correcting the rest of your stated falsehoods that you got from a website that considers the Catholic Church a false Church I will move on (you should do your own research instead of relying on anti-Catholic writers). I get the point you are trying to make. Catholic doctrine has evolved over time and it's doctrines/dogma is NOT 2,000 year old after all. Just because the doctrine was put on paper and officially declared 300 years or 1900 years after the death of Christ does not mean that it was not believed or practiced by The Church or all Christians. Can you tell me when the first official list of what books are considered canonical in the bible you quote from? When did the doctrine/teaching of The Trinity first begin? What is the history of the doctrines your church holds? Which Church is that?

I do wonder why there are Protestants. And there are protestants who wonder why other protestants....GASP.... disagree with THEM. They can understand them disagreeing with the Catholic/Orthodox Churches but not THEM since THEY are guided by the Holy Spirit in all that they do.

I also wonder why some protestant churches have doctrines that mirror Catholic doctrine but are oh so slightly different. The Catholic Church got all their doctrines right except for those very few? If they got some right, with guidance by the Holy Spirit, then why didn't they get all of them right? I also wonder if the Reformers allegedly got it right (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) then why did other men reform their doctrines? And then other men reformed the reformers of the original reformers etc. etc for the last 500 years until we get to the point that, according to some protestants, gay marriage is smiled upon by God. Everyone or every other Protestant Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in creating their beliefs/doctrines/teachings EXCEPT the Catholic Church. Hmmmmm.......now that is an interesting theory.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe "the reformation needs to continue to reprove the works of darkness by His words with His help"?? Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that for 500 years The Reformation has been going on and the protestants still haven't gotten it right????

Mary

Click to expand...

I can't point you to a Protestant church when Jesus had prophesied that faith will be hard to find in the latter days before He comes as the Bridegroom to judge the House of God first, that's Protestant & Catholics churches.

I am pointing you to go to Jesus Christ for life. All His invitations points to Himself for eternal life; not a church, not St. Peter, and not all the works of catholicism as necessary for salvation when Jesus nor His disciples ever taught that.

I dare say the Catholic Church is a thief that has stolen the joy of your salvation, and I can only hope Jesus will wake you up before He comes.

JesusIsFaithful said:

When will the Catholic? If the Catholic church were not adding works of darkness to "church doctrine" down through church history, there would have been no need for reformers.

As it is, the Reformers are still blind to some of those things carried over that are still Catholic, so yes, there will always be reformers to prune the works of darkness and even some of the new ones by supposedly Protestants that religious christians brings in.

Jesus said about His disciples in John 15th chapter that He will prune the fruitful disciples so that they may bear more fruit.

So I am not asking you to be a disciple of Protestant churches. I am asking you to be a disciple of Jesus Christ; not a disciple of the Catholic Church.

No. I cannot. I have tried to find it on the internet, but that topic is not found on search engine any more... or maybe I am not a persistent searcher.

Okay. Found something; not what I had come across from before but a Catholic rebuttal for why Catholic Church had their Bibles chained up. My point can be seen as it does confirm that people usually do not have personal Bibles at that time before the printing press had come.

Did the Catholic Church Chain Up Bibles? - Fallible Blogma

If the N.T. was good enough for the N.T. churches, then why not Catholic churches?

I am fully aware of false teachings that the "church" and not necessarily the Catholic church, had to put down, but that was done by the scripture already provided in the N.T. There was no Catholic doctrine that was the hero of the day.

Feel free to give the correct timeline then, but the fact remains, the Rosary is a vain prayer of repetition that was instituted NOT 2,000 years ago.

Just saying so, does not make it so. If anything, it proves it was not 2,000 year old Catholic tradition.

Sometimes I think people read into scripture what Catholic wants them to read.

Okay then. Explain what an idol is. Explain why the Eucharist is not one when man made the bread, and somehow by a celibate priest, Christ's Presence is in the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 is Paul speaking against using the bread & the wine as idols as if Christ's Presence is in them. You don't see it, because Catholic beliefs prevents you to see it.

To be continued.. cue dramatic music...

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Twice I have asked you which church you are following. For some reason you have failed to answer. I wonder why?

Your "there would have been no need for reformers" and "the Reformers are still blind to some of those things carried over that are still Catholic" and "there will always be reformers to prune the works of darkness and even some of the new ones by supposedly Protestants that religious Christians brings in" statements are very interesting. Since YOU have deemed that all the "darkness" has not been weeded out of the Christian Church then please do tell us what we are doing wrong? How do YOU know what is dark and what is light? Obviously you are one of the Reformers who aren't blind. Can YOU help the other Reformers see the errors of their ways? Furhtermor, there are MANY churches that teach completely OPPOSITE of what the Catholic Church teaches. Soooooo how are you Protestants still blind or still in the dark????? Your theory makes ZERO sense.

Maybe the pruning Jesus was talking about was you and your ilk with your 500 years of doctrine that changes with each new pastor? I will stick with my 2,000 years of teaching from the Catholic Church which was first spoken about in the year 110 by Ignatius of Antioch.

Whether I am a member (disciple) of the Catholic Church or a Protestant church I am still following Jesus and the doctrines of my church. If you are a church of one (a person who sits in their basement, eating Doritos, reading the bible and interpreting it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit so they must be right) you are still following Jesus and the doctrine you create for yourself in your own tiny head. So please spare me your "disciple of the Catholic Church" speech. It makes no sense and can be said of anyone.

I appreciate the link you provided. Here is a history lesson. At the end you get .25 credit hours in history from Harvard: Only the Church and rich people had bibles before the printing press because they were to expensive for the average person to afford. Why were they to expensive? Because the evil Catholic Church controlled all the ink in the world and they hiked the prices so high.........I'm just kidding of course. They were expensive because they were hand written and the material wasn't cheap. Furthermore, the average person couldn't read/write and was generally illiterate so why have something in your home you couldn't read or understand.

Your fascination with the Catholic Church changing NT teachings has fallen flat with me. Stop beating a dead horse. It makes no sense and the only changes that were made SINCE the NT teachings/times was the Reformation. So your theory is OPPOSITE of what you are actually preaching.

If it wasn't the Catholic Church who put down these false/heretical teachings, what church was it? Give me the earliest non-scriptural historically documented church fight against heresy that you can find and I will gladly discuss it with you.

The rosary a vain prayer? Do you think the people who have experienced miracles from those "vain prayers" would agree with you? Do you think God is mad at people who say the Our Father multiple times in a short period or repeat words from scripture? BTW....I don't know anyone that has ever said the rosary was implemented 2,000 years ago sooooo why do you keep repeating something no one has ever claimed?

Twist 1Corinthians all you want. The Christians of the NT believed and practiced the Real Presence. Jesus even said it was His body. That sounds pretty darn real to me. The historical writings of the Christians who lived in the 1st century believed it. The historical writings of the Christians who lived in the 2nd century, 3rd, 4th, 5th....all the way thru today believe it and practice it. Even some of your protestant friends. Even your own Reformers believed it. It was the reformers of the Reformers who changed all that. I wonder. Why did it take God so long to reveal this truth to the reformers of the Reformers? Was He busy doing something else? YOU think that we believe that the Eucharist is an idol. Just saying so, does not make it so.

I can hear that dramatic music.....

Love, Mary

JesusIsFaithful said:

The necessity to confess your sins against God to a priest is just plain ..... ignorant. When you wrong someone, yes, scripture says to confess your sins one to another, and that is what is really meant in those passages, but to confess your sins against God, you go to Jesus Christ for that.

If you had verbally berated & belittled your children, confessing your sins to a priest is not going to cut it, sister. Your children needs your apology.

The same with God. If you sin against God, you confess your sins to God.

I read a local newspaper article about a young Catholic adult coming out of a bad car accident, pleading for someone to get the priest for his confessions before he goes into emergency surgery. None came in time. Fortunately, all went well in the surgery. Afterwards the young man voiced his fear that God would not have forgiven him because he had not confessed his sin to a priest. The priest replied that God would have heard him and forgiven him. To wit, I'd say if I was that young man that was frantic with worry in going into the E.R., " Why have I been going to you all these years then?!!!" So... I would say to you... go to Jesus at that throne of grace for forgiveness. Saves a lot of time and needless worry, sister.

I can't point you to a Protestant church when Jesus had prophesied that faith will be hard to find in the latter days before He comes as the Bridegroom to judge the House of God first, that's Protestant & Catholics churches.

I am pointing you to go to Jesus Christ for life. All His invitations points to Himself for eternal life; not a church, not St. Peter, and not all the works of catholicism as necessary for salvation when Jesus nor His disciples ever taught that.

I dare say the Catholic Church is a thief that has stolen the joy of your salvation, and I can only hope Jesus will wake you up before He comes.

Click to expand...

Once again many questions no answers...just preaching.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe "the reformation needs to continue to reprove the works of darkness by His words with His help"?? Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that for 500 years The Reformation has been going on and the protestants still haven't gotten it right????

Can you tell me when the first official list of what books are considered canonical in the bible you quote from? When did the doctrine/teaching of The Trinity first begin? What is the history of the doctrines your church holds? Which Church is that?

When your ready to have a CONVERSATION instead of just preaching....get back with me kiddo'.

Mary

Marymog said:

Thank you.

Twice I have asked you which church you are following. For some reason you have failed to answer. I wonder why?

I can hear that dramatic music.....

Love, Mary

Click to expand...

Well, keep on hearing it then, sister, because ignoring my answers gets you no pass.

By the grace of God and His help, I follow Jesus Christ. He is my Good Shepherd as well as your Savior. Who are you following as your Good Shepherd? Oh, that's right. Not Jesus Christ, but an antichrist; as in a Church that takes the place of Jesus Christ as your Good Shepherd and your Savior.

Well, it does seem like you have made up your mind about this, sister. I reckon the Catholic church means more to you than Jesus Christ ever will. I mean, after all, Church traditions trumps His words. So how am I supposed to take that any other way?

But I am confident He will change that mentality of yours one day, sister, even if it means you get left behind for it. although I do so hope otherwise.

I have nothing more to share with you on the matter other than Jesus Christ came first and He is the Good News to man; not the Catholic Church.

Marymog said:

Once again many questions no answers...just preaching.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe "the reformation needs to continue to reprove the works of darkness by His words with His help"?? Are you being serious? Are you suggesting that for 500 years The Reformation has been going on and the protestants still haven't gotten it right????

Can you tell me when the first official list of what books are considered canonical in the bible you quote from? When did the doctrine/teaching of The Trinity first begin? What is the history of the doctrines your church holds? Which Church is that?

When your ready to have a CONVERSATION instead of just preaching....get back with me kiddo'.

Mary

Click to expand...

Not bothering any more, sister. You were not having a conversation with me at all, and you were doing it on purpose too.