Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[mikeuk]

No one even thought of the real physical presence in the elements before Constantine, and indeed until long after.

You live in a time warp. None of the earlier fathers referred to the supper as either a symbol or only spiritual. And these guys were hot on exposing "heresy" where they considered it so. When Jesus said "eat my body " "drink my blood" in John 6 the jewish audience roots considered it cannibalism and what did Jesus do to quell their fears? Nothing. He saw most of them depart, and even asked such as Peter if he would leave because of it. Peter would not he said "where would we go"
NOWHERE does he say - guys - don't you get it? This is just an allegory. Spiritual. He lets them believe he really did mean body and blood.

THAT is the basis of why Paul says failing to respect it would "eat judgement" - and why the early Church fathers said it was Body and Blood. Because Jesus had related it at Capernaum, the ordinance, turned into a sacrament at the last supper fulfilled in the passion.

The documents don't agree with you. Scripture does not agree with you. Tradition does not agree with you. None of the church fathers agree with you.

Believe what you will. Join the thousands of other protestants who make it up as they go along.

 

[Jeff_56]

so, you never read and understood Jesus WORD in John 6 ??

he clearly said he spoke spirit, life; not (ever) real presence of flesh or blood. simple and true.

the abomination changed it under hasatan's corruption.

 

[Jackson123]

Originally Posted by fordman

[/SIZE][/FONT]

cont.Herod wanted to destroy all the children, for the purpose of destroying the one who would be the Messiah (Mt. 2:16-17). She fled with Joseph to escape the wrath of King Herod based on the angel telling Joseph through a dream. Thus,actually there was something in Mary’s life that matches Revelation12. In Revelation 12, the dragon, or Satan, tried to destroy thechild Jesus when he became born (Rev. 12:2-5). They fled and stayedin Egypt (or the wilderness) until King Herod died and it became safe to return back to Israel. This matches the happenings as found in Matthew.

Jackson

[FONT=arial !important]6[/FONT]​

The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.[SUP]*[/SUP]


is historically. It was, however, no more than two years after Jesus was born, because Herod then tried to kill Jesus by slaying all of the baby boys who had been born in Bethlehem in the past two years, based on when the wise men told him they first saw the star. And since, according to the gospel of Luke, Jesus was born around the time of “the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,” his birth occurred some time between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C. (Even though A.D. dating is supposed to begin with the birth of Christ, it wasn’t quite calculated correctly in the first place and so it actually begins a little way into his lifetime.)
We have a better idea of when the sojourn in Egypt ended. The gospel of Matthew also tells us that “after Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.’” Herod died in 4 B.C. So depending on when Jesus was born, the journey to Egypt lasted no more than two years, and perhaps as little as a few weeks or months.
It seems to me that the most likely scenario is that Jesus was born around 6 B.C., the wise men (by their own account) arrived in Jerusalem two years later in 4 B.C., and in that same year Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt, Herod died, and they returned. So the length of their sojourn in Egypt was probably about a few months.

 

[valiant]

You live in a time warp.

you are right. my doctrine comes from 1st century AD

None of the earlier fathers referred to the supper as either a symbol or only spiritual.

None of them said it was physical. You got it wrong with the orthodox. You are wrong on all counts.

And these guys were hot on exposing "heresy" where they considered it so.

well your opinion of them is higher than mine. many of them indulged in heresy. that was at the root of the later need to sort out what to believe.

When Jesus said "eat my body " "drink my blood" in John 6 the jewish audience roots considered it cannibalism and what did Jesus do to quell their fears?

What utter nonsense. Do you really think that they thought that shortly they would be sharing His body between them and gorging on it? Roman Catholicism has made you mad.

Jews understood figures of speech. They used them constantly.

He referred them back to the Old Testament so that they would know what He meant.

Nothing.

I'm sorry but you are just absurd. In fact He had already made clear what He meant. 'He who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.' Hunger and thirst satisfied by coming to Him and believing on Him. Why should they want any extra?

He saw most of them depart,

Yes because they did not like His talk about dying. To them the Messiah was intended to live and gain victory, not die.

and even asked such as Peter if he would leave because of it. Peter would not he said "where would we go"

Actually Peter said 'to Whom shall we go?' His trust was in a person not a church with ridiculous notions. Peter did not understand His talk about dying, but he was prepared to trust Jesus because he knew that He had the secret of eternal life.
If they were about to eat Jesus He would not have been there anyway. Don't you see how ridiculous you are being?

NOWHERE does he say - guys - don't you get it? This is just an allegory. Spiritual.

He doesn't need to. He has already made that clear. 'The bread that I will give is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world.' It was crystal clear and they all knew what He meant. And so do we except for those deluded by Papa Pope.

He lets them believe he really did mean body and blood.

your view is so absurd that it is almost unbelievable that a fairly intelligent person could even think like this.

THAT is the basis of why Paul says failing to respect it would "eat judgement"

What he actually said was that those who partook thoughtlessly, or even drunkenly, would rightly come under judgment because partaking of the Lord's Supper is a serious matter.

- and why the early Church fathers said it was Body and Blood.

I say it is the body and blood of our Lord. So what's different? That is what it represents, and by partaking of it we reunite ourselves with Him in the covenant.

Because Jesus had related it at Capernaum, the ordinance, turned into a sacrament at the last supper fulfilled in the passion.

At Capernaum it wasn't an ordinance. It was a direct confrontation with the murderous purposes of the Pharisees.


At the Last Supper it could not have been taken as signifying physical body and blood because He was in front of them IN HIS BODY and with His blood and being intelligent they therefore recognised that He did not mean it literally. They had no Pope to delude them.

The documents don't agree with you. Scripture does not agree with you. Tradition does not agree with you. None of the church fathers agree with you.

LOL what you mean is YOU don't agree with me.

Believe what you will. Join the thousands of other protestants who make it up as they go along.

You mean the one's who use their intelligence? What you mean is work it out as they go along.

 

[mikeuk]

What you mean is work it out as they go along.

You are all pretty bad at working it out because you all come to 10000 different answers. As luther said as "many doctrines as heads"

And even the bible tells you not to do it! Private interpretation is specifically deprecated in proverbs 3


Believe what you will.

 

[ThomistColin]

Actually the Orthodox and Lutherans do believe in the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They don't believe in transubstantiation. Luther called in consubstantiation, and the Orthodox view is fairly similar. That it remains bread and wine in essence but also is the flesh and blood of Christ simultaeniously. The Coptics also agree with this, as do many Anglicans.

You said the Orthodox do not separate the spiritual from the physical. There you are right. They don't. They see it as an unexplainable mystery.

 

[Jeff_56]

so, you never read and understood Jesus WORD in John 6 ??

he clearly said he spoke spirit, life; not (ever) real presence of flesh or blood. simple and true.

the abomination changed it under hasatan's corruption.

[h=1]John 6:57-67King James Version (KJV)[/h] [SUP]57 [/SUP]As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

[SUP]58 [/SUP]This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
[SUP]59 [/SUP]These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
[SUP]60 [/SUP]Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
[SUP]61 [/SUP]When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

[SUP]62 [/SUP]What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
[SUP]63 [/SUP]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[valiant]

Actually the Orthodox and Lutherans do believe in the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They don't believe in transubstantiation. Luther called in consubstantiation, and the Orthodox view is fairly similar.

of course it all depends on what you mean by literal. if you mean real physical presence you are wrong. if you mean real spiritual presence you are right. that is why it was called consubstantiation.

That it remains bread and wine in essence but also is the flesh and blood of Christ simultaeniously. The Coptics also agree with this, as do many Anglicans.

see above.

You said the Orthodox do not separate the spiritual from the physical. There you are right. They don't. They see it as an unexplainable mystery.

well to some extent they do distinguish. that is why they call it consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. they do not accept the real physical presence by the back door but do not like to be otherwise dogmatic.

 

[KenAllan]

Romans 8:14
[SUP]14 [/SUP] For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Only those who are led by the Holy Spirit can be called True Christians. If you do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit you are not a True Christian!

Romans 8:16-17
[SUP]16 [/SUP] The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
[SUP]17 [/SUP] and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ

I know for a fact that I AM a True Christian because the Holy Spirit tells me so! Can you corrupted Catholics say the same? NO!

Romans 8:9 (ESV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

I know for a fact that many Catholics do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You can tell by their teachings about Mary that they have not received Salvation and have not received the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore most Catholics will never enter into Heaven because they are not the Children of God.

You Catholics need to Repent! You need to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior! Because with Salvation comes the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit!

The Catholics cannot understand the Truths in the Scriptures because they have not received the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Even Paul says "IF" the Holy Spirit dwells in you proves that many who claim to be a True Christian do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Even Matthew says those who do not have the Indwelling of the Spirit cannot enter into Heaven!

Matthew 7:13-14 (NKJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Very few people enter by the narrow gate. Unfortunately most Catholics travel down the broad and wide way instead of the narrow way that leads to Jesus Christ!

We are to listen to what the Holy Spirit teaches us in the Scriptures and reject all teachings from the Catholic Church that oppose what the Holy Spirit says! You cannot quote what the Catholic Church says because the Catholic Church today is a Cult! You need to quote only from the Scriptures because the Scriptures have more Authority on the Truth than your Church!

Only the Scriptures, only the Holy Spirit has all the Truths! There are no Truths in the Catholic Church today! To say the Catholic Church has Truths that are not in the Scriptures and not from the Holy Spirit proves the Catholic Church is a Cult and is NOT the True Church that Jesus built!

 

[mikeuk]

of course it all depends on what you mean by literal. if you mean real physical presence you are wrong. if you mean real spiritual presence you are right. that is why it was called consubstantiation.



see above.



well to some extent they do distinguish. that is why they call it consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. they do not accept the real physical presence by the back door but do not like to be otherwise dogmatic.

All presume and state that body and blood are really present. That is what they say and mean. None say " only spiritual" or " only symbolic" , nor do the church fathers so you are wrong.

The question they beg is whether bread and wine remain after blessing and so coexist with body and blood, ( the con in co substantiation) not whether body and blood are really present. The eastern prefer not to analyze that deeper, retaining the mystery of how, but I recollect at least some orthodox writers have used the word transubstantiation in the past, and more importantly they did not see this as a barrier to joining back the schism after the fourth Lateran council, a division over Filioque not this, although the opportunity to join back up ultimately was missed.

 

[valiant]

All presume and state that body and blood are really present. That is what they say and mean. None say " only spiritual" or " only symbolic" , nor do the church fathers so you are wrong.

listen folk. pope mike says so. do not think folk just believe what he says or he will excommunicate you. everyone obey.

Your problem is that if they did believe what you say then they would believe in transubstantiation. they would have no reason not to. it is only when arguing with people like you that we have to use such words. but orthodox believers have certainly told me that they believe in the spiritual presence. so your dogmatism (typical of the Roman Catholic church) is unwarranted.

I do not see the church fathers talking about the real physical presence. They simply express their belief that Jesus Christ 'feeds us' on His body and blood, just as He said He would. But when He said it, it was figurative as I have demonstrated. They simply copied His words. On the whole they were not first class minds and they were combating Gnosticism which denied the body and blood of the Christ. They never dreamed that people like you would take their words and twist them..

The question they beg is whether bread and wine remain after blessing and so coexist with body and blood, ( the con in co substantiation) not whether body and blood are really present.

That is your biased slant, not their's. They KNOW that the bread and wine remain. They can see it and analyse it using unbiased experts. Their question is how far His flesh and blood are spiritually present.

The eastern prefer not to analyze that deeper, retaining the mystery of how,

if they do not know how why are you pretending that they do?

but I recollect at least some orthodox writers have used the word transubstantiation in the past,

there are always odd bods in every religion. there are some in the Anglican church. but no one listens to them.

and more importantly they did not see this as a barrier to joining back the schism after the fourth Lateran council, a division over Filioque not this, although the opportunity to join back up ultimately was missed.

there was and is no schism. once the roman catholic church had been founded and demanded all come under their aegis the eastern churches rejected them. they were never genuinely one church. the one church ceased when hierarchies took over. the question was never dealt with because for other reasons the eastern churches rejected the western church approach.

the roman church are the schismatics

 

[KenAllan]

It does not matter if the Eucharist is just a wafer or the body of Christ! You peoples need to move on! The Eucharist is NOT the focus! Its Jesus Christ that is the focus!

We are to look PAST the Eucharist and focus on Jesus Christ! Its Jesus Christ that counts, not a wafer!

When we do the Eucharist we are to look to Jesus Christ and Worship Him as our Lord and Savior. Jesus never wanted us arguing over the wafer! He wants us to Worship and follow Him.

There are bigger issues with the Catholics other then the Eucharist.

We need to focus on the different Gospel the Catholics are teaching! The Gospel that Pope Francis is teaching that everybody can enter into Heaven as long as they are in the Catholic Church! The Gospel that even those who reject Jesus CAN enter into Heaven as long as they are members of the Catholic Church! This is what we need to focus on!

 

[valiant]

It does not matter if the Eucharist is just a wafer or the body of Christ! You peoples need to move on! The Eucharist is NOT the focus! Its Jesus Christ that is the focus!

We are to look PAST the Eucharist and focus on Jesus Christ! Its Jesus Christ that counts, not a wafer!

When we do the Eucharist we are to look to Jesus Christ and Worship Him as our Lord and Savior. Jesus never wanted us arguing over the wafer! He wants us to Worship and follow Him.

There are bigger issues with the Catholics other then the Eucharist.

We need to focus on the different Gospel the Catholics are teaching! The Gospel that Pope Francis is teaching that everybody can enter into Heaven as long as they are in the Catholic Church! The Gospel that even those who reject Jesus CAN enter into Heaven as long as they are members of the Catholic Church! This is what we need to focus on!

That is true. Nevertheless some come on to read these posts and it is important that they are not led astray. False doctrine has to be combatted.

 

[notuptome]

All presume and state that body and blood are really present. That is what they say and mean. None say " only spiritual" or " only symbolic" , nor do the church fathers so you are wrong.

The question they beg is whether bread and wine remain after blessing and so coexist with body and blood, ( the con in co substantiation) not whether body and blood are really present. The eastern prefer not to analyze that deeper, retaining the mystery of how, but I recollect at least some orthodox writers have used the word transubstantiation in the past, and more importantly they did not see this as a barrier to joining back the schism after the fourth Lateran council, a division over Filioque not this, although the opportunity to join back up ultimately was missed.

How can any of them be trusted if they never write a testimony that they even know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior?

Paul tells us that they will see the preaching of the cross as foolishness if they are not Christians according to the words of Jesus.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[valiant]

How can any of them be trusted if they never write a testimony that they even know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior?

Paul tells us that they will see the preaching of the cross as foolishness if they are not Christians according to the words of Jesus.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I suspect that Mike has been 'religious' all his life and has no conception of a personal response to Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. He looks to the church to be his savior. And he changed churches because he thought the RC church would carry more weight with God. So now he is hooked.

 

[ThomistColin]

Funny...you attack a man becoming Catholic, because he thought it "would carry more weight with God", but then tell us to leave the Catholic Church because Protestantism would carry more weight with God. You can't have it both ways.

Also, you are attacking someone with comments like "I suspect". Well hello Mr. Pharisee, how are you? You are now claiming a negative against someone by sheer supposition and speculation. Nice to see bigotry is not dead.

 

[valiant]

Funny...you attack a man becoming Catholic, because he thought it "would carry more weight with God", but then tell us to leave the Catholic Church because Protestantism would carry more weight with God. You can't have it both ways.

Neither Roman Catholicism nor Protestantism carries weight with God. The only thing that carries weight with God is that we personally come to Him through Jesus Christ and what He has wrought for us through the cross and resurrection. Anyone who is trusting in religious ritual for salvation is without hope.

But your logic is astray as usual. What Mike thinks is simply an opinion. I am not saying it is true. In fact I will now say that it is not true. Thus there is no contradiction. It is all in your mind

Also, you are attacking someone with comments like "I suspect".

Why should you see it as an attack? I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not attack people (or burn them). Just because YOU attack people don't think that all are like you. I am stating what I see as his position. It is open to him to deny it.

Well hello Mr. Pharisee, how are you?

Very well thank you Christian burner.

You are now claiming a negative against someone by sheer supposition and speculation. Nice to see bigotry is not dead.

you should know all about bigotry. you belong to a church full of bigotry. I claimed nothing against him. I realise your English may be a little lacking but 'I suspect' means that that is my view. Nothing more. I await his reply with interest. Bigotry will never be dead while your church exists.

 

[notuptome]

Funny...you attack a man becoming Catholic, because he thought it "would carry more weight with God", but then tell us to leave the Catholic Church because Protestantism would carry more weight with God. You can't have it both ways.

Also, you are attacking someone with comments like "I suspect". Well hello Mr. Pharisee, how are you? You are now claiming a negative against someone by sheer supposition and speculation. Nice to see bigotry is not dead.

Well this time of the year all the nut jobs come out and nail themselves to crosses, crawl across broken glass on their hand and knees to show their sincere devotion to their religions. These are by all accounts the religious practices that the pagans demonstrated over the centuries. None of them would be able to give a testimony of how and when they got saved. One's level of sincerity is not the indicator of the virtue of their devotion.

One must worship and serve God as God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jeff_56]

it is not bigotry in any sense of truth to call and remind and exhort rcc members the need to repent of their lies and place their faith solely and completely in GOD through grace in JESUS CHRIST, and not through any flesh or heresy.

no argument from the rcc , nor from the rcc archives (54 miles of shelves they have), nor from ANY history nor from ANY source,

no, no argument, no evidence, no testimony of anyone nor of anything can redeem rcc doctrines and practices --- they are all by GOD'S DECREE condemned without mercy (the doctrines and practices, not the persons, some of whom might be eventually saved - IF they repent so they don't perish with the rest of those who trust the heresy).

no discussion can help nor cure nor re-mediate the rcc doctrines and practices with TRUTH.

there is no truth in the rcc hierarchy. no. none at all. and NO ABILITY TO SAVE ANYONE - only to damn.

 

[KenAllan]

What is interesting is the Catholics will spend hours walking on their knees across broken glass to appease Mary. They also spend hours of praying the Rosary trying to get Mary to pay attention to them.

Its a shame the Catholics pray to Mary through the Rosary Worshiping Mary as their God. We are ONLY to pray to God! Praying to Mary shows how corrupted the Catholics are today, how Paganism has crept into the Catholic Church today. Mary can do nothing for you Catholics because Mary was a human and a sinner who is dead and in the grave. She cannot hear your prayers nor can she answer your prayers. Only God has the Power and Authority to hear and answer our prayers!

Matthew 4:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

We are to Worship and Serve God ONLY!

To Worship and Serve Mary will keep you Catholics out of Heaven. Every Catholic who prays the Rosary will never enter into Heaven. Is this what you Catholics really want? Eternity in Hell just to appease you god Mary?