1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

2. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

3. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

4. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.

5. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

6. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

7. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

8. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

9. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

10. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

11. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

12. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

13. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

14. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

15. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone ". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law ". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

16. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

17. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter , 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

18. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

19. If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

20. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

21. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

22. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

23. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

24. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)

25. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)

26. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)

27. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

28. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

By Steve Rudd

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 09, 2004

Answers

bump...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 09, 2004.

If Protestantism is a gauge of anything Catholic, why would the Protestants accept the Scriptures that the Catholic Church handed to them? Maybe, just maybe, there is some truth.

Kevin. All denominations must be flawed.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 09, 2004.

1. The fact that certain books were questioned was the reason the Council was called in the first place. Once the Canon was formally defined by the Council, it was binding on the universal Church, and not open to further discussion. Any doctrinal issue can be discussed and debated until such time as the Church infallibly proclaims the truth of the matter. The Church did not accept any Scriptures which it later rejected. If you are referring to Scriptures later rejected by Protestants, that is irrelevant. The very existence of Protestantism, let alone their scriptural interpretations, is contary to the stated will of God.

2. They did not. Once the Canon of Scripture was formally defined, it was binding on all Christians. No other canon thereafter had any authority whatsoever.

3. Both Councils were convened at the directive of the Pope, and involved representatives of the entire universal Church of the time. North Africa was merely the selected location.

4. "Rome" did not determine the Canon. If the matter was going to be determined by "Rome", no Council would have been necessary. "Rome" convened the Council which determined the Canon in obedience to the directive of "Rome". The determinations of any Council must however be confirmed by "Rome" before they become binding on the universal Church, which is why "Rome" had to be consulted for confirmation.

5. The areas in question then comprised and still comprise the Eastern Rites of the Holy Catholic Church. The fact that a separate schismatic church later grew up in the same area is irrelevant. At the time of the determination of the Canon and for 700 years afterwards, all Christians were members of the Catholic Church, subject to the Pope, regardless of which rite they belonged to. A church which came into existence in the 11th century obviously played no role in the determination of the Canon.

6. You are misinformed. The original Canon of 73 inspired books was finalized at Carthage, and Trent reaffirmed the Canon precisely as Carthage had defined it. Not a single word was added or changed by Trent. The complete Bible contains no "Apocrypha", just 46 inspired Old Testament books and 27 inspired New Testament books. The Council of Carthage separated these 73 inspired books from all of the apocryphal writings of the time.

7. It doesn't take a rocket theologian to determine that the Canon could not have been determined by a church which didn't exist until 700 years later. All churches but the True Church which defined The Bible have different books in their "bibles". So what? As separate entities they are free to do as they please. Their "bibles" are as unauthorized and unauthoritative as the churches which produced them.

8. A number of doctrinal issues are unmentioned or barely alluded to in the few known writings of the Apostles (presumably because they were universally accepted and therefore in no need of explanation or defense), yet are clearly described in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (the second generation Catholic bishops who were catechized and ordained directly by the Apostles) and other early Church leaders. While not as authoritative as Scripture, their writings clearly demonstrate what they knew to be the truth as a result of their catachesis - directly from the Apostles. Such issues include for example the perpetual virginity of Mary and the intercession of the saints. No Christians ever questioned such truths until a few hundred years ago.

9. By "differed from" do you mean "conflicted with"? If so, there are no such examples. The Word of God cannot conflict with itself. Oral Tradition is the form in which the Word of God was given to the Church. It was the Word of God as soon as Jesus spoke it, since He was and is God. Years later, parts of this Oral Tradition were committed to writing; however, writing down these various portions of God's Word didn't make it any more authoritative. God's Word is God's Word whether it was ever written doen or not. Whether some of these writings were ever gathered into a book or not.

10. There is only one Church to which Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing. Only one Church to which He guaranteed the Holy Spirit's guidance and the fullness of truth. Only one Church to which He said "he who hears you hears Me". And that one Church is the Church that can be shown historically to have existed in the 8th century - the 5th - the 2nd - the 1st; in other words, the only Church which can trace its history directly back to the Apostles, and to Christ Himself. The Catholic Church. Futher, it isn't a matter of being "permitted" to privately interpret the Scriptures. It is a matter of being capable of doing so. In every church which "permits" such a practice, its members invariably demonstrate that they are utterly incapable of doing so, and promptly begin fragmenting into conflicting sects over interpretational arguments.

11. He didn't. God had revealed to the Jews just which writings constituted their Scriptures; and the Catholic Church infallibly confirmed those Scriptures as valid when it accepted them into the Christian Bible.

12. By direct revelation from God, and Divinely ordained Tradition.

13. I can't speak for any church which has separated itself from the True Church of Jesus Christ. The Protestant churches are not in communion with the True Church - why would the Orthodox be? Both abandoned the True Church, though through different circumstances. No Pope has ever taught a theological error as official doctrine binding on the Universal Church. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. If it happened, Jesus Himself would be revealed as a liar, and Christianity as a false theology, for it was He Himself Who guaranteed that everything declared binding by His Church would be binding in heaven; and nothing untrue can be binding in heaven.

14. Obviously, they don't. Only the One Church with a divine assurance of doctrinal truth has any basis for claiming perfect faithfulness to the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ. A church founded a thousand years later has no such assurance.

15. This question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of "Oral Tradition", more accurately called "Apostolic Tradition", and always spelled with a capital "T". NONE of the things you listed here have anything whatsoever to do with Apostolic Tradition. The things you listed are merely "traditions" (small "t"), ways of doing things, which every church has and which every church changes as needs change over time. Apostolic Tradition on the other hand, is doctrinal truth, given to the Apostles by Jesus Christ and passed on to successive generations of the Church by oral teaching. It is The Word of God.

16. Ephesus was part of the One True Church founded by Christ, and remains today part of the Eastern Rite of the Holy Catholic Church (though obviously not under the name "Ephesus"). The fact that a separate schismatic church is also present there is irrelevant. That church does not exist through succession, but through secession, and as such are free to do and teach whatever they want to do and teach. incidentally, you missed the Scriptures most clearly supporting Oral tradition - 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6.

17. We don't assume any such thing. We are well aware that the Bible is simply Oral Tradition committed to paper. There is simply the Word of God - the written part and also the totality of the Church's teaching. One cannot take precedence over the other, for they are one and the same thing, and therefore carry the same authority, as stated in 2 Thes 15.

18. The Church Fathers understood Scripture only as members of the Universal Church. They were of course theologians, and therefore raised important issues for the Church and sometimes new insights, which the Church over time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave serious consideration to, finally either accepting such ideas or rejecting them. No-one was ever declared a heretic for disagreeing with a Church Father's interpretations of doctrine or Scripture, for the Church itself often rejected their ideas. Heresy means willful rejection of defined doctrinal truth which the Church, and therefore heaven, has declared universally binding. Some of those ideas (not the doctrines themselves, but specific insights on doctrinal issues) may well have originated with a Father of the Church or a Doctor of the Church. But they were not binding until accepted by the Church and promulgated as doctrinal truth - at which time they became binding on all members of the Church, including the Church Fathers. The Fathers offered ideas based on their interpretation of God's Word, and then submitted to the authority of the Magisterium, because they knew the Magisterium of the Church, and not themselves personally, had the untimate power to interpret accurately, and the divine assurance of truth.

19. Illiterate Catholics can know the fullness of truth exactly the way early Christians did, when there was nothing to read, and right up through the Middle Ages when more than 90% of the population was illiterate - by the preaching and teaching of God's Church. The Scriptures ARE read to them, and to all of us. Every Sunday Mass in every Catholic Church includes a psalm; an Old Testament passage; a reading from an epistle; a gospel passage; and several prayers, including the words of Eucharistic Consecration, which are taken directly from Scripture. After all, the Catholic Church compiled the book. Why wouldn't they use it constantly? Incidentally, Catholics don't have the Catechism read to them. It is simply a reference book.

20. The teaching of the Pope is simply the teaching of Christ. Catholics are raised knowing the Word of God through the Church, under the guidance of the Pope. Obviously any new insights that the faithful should know would have taken longer to promulgate before the time of modern communications. But the Apostles did a pretty fair job of disseminating the Word of God during their brief lifetimes, as did their successors in every generation.

21. The ability to read is not an esssential pre-condition to sola scriptura. A Protestant who can't read simply listens to what his pastor preaches, decides if he agrees with it or not, and if not he either moves to a different church where the preacher has different ideas, or starts a new denomination of his own. Catholics do not know the truth simply by having the Bible or Catechism read to us, or by reading them ourselves, but by having those documents authoritatively and accurately explained to us by a Church with the divine guarantee of truth - which is the only way fullness of truth and unity of belief can be experienced.

22. An ordinary Christian would be unable to assess the faithfulness of a preacher or teacher's words without reading the documents, and would be equally unable to make such an assessment by simply reading the documents and guessing what they might mean. A priest's teaching can be assessed only by comparing his words to the official teaching of God's Church, for it is the Church, not the individual priest or other teacher, which holds God's promise of the fullness of truth.

23. I don't know how an Orthodox "commoner" would determine that; but a Catholic "commoner" can rely on the Bible, where God has guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide His Own Church to all truth. God's Word, which describes His Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth". Catholics can rely on that clear analogy. As long as the pillars and foundation are in place, the structure, in this case the truth, remains strong, rigid, and reliable. Take away the pillars and foundation and the truth will inevitably collapse into denominational chaos.

24. It doesn't. Some scriptural scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, question the human authorship of certain books; but the Church takes no such position. Like the Church Fathers, such scholars are free to present ideas, and the Church considers them, but so far has accepted no such propositions. In any case, the human authorship of a book is not really that important. Regardless of who actually penned the words, it was God who inspired the writing, and it was God who inspired the Church to include that text in the Bible.

25. That would be a challenge, given that the orthodox Church was founded more than 1,000 years after Christ.

26. There are many ways, but the most obvious one is that the Catholic Church alone existed in every century between the time of Christ and the present, as shown by writings both of the Catholic Church and about the Catholic Church in every age.

27. It is not the "method" which results in fullness of truth, but the direct promise of God to His Own Church to guide it through that method. If a church doesn't possess that divine promise, no method of exegesis can result in fullness of truth. Further, the Catholic Church is not a "denomination". A denomination is, by definition, a body that has disassociated itself from a body it was formerly part of. "Denomination" comes from the Latin "de nomina", meaning "out of the name" or "away from the name". It means "we are no longer calling ourselves what we once were". Since the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the Apostles, and did not come into existence by secession from any pre-existing body, it is not a denomination.

28. The Catholic Church is not "divided against itself". The Orthodox Church is an entirely separate and distinct entity - a fact you don't seem to appreciate. Orthodox Christians are not Catholic, and anything their church decides to do or teach is their business, and has no bearing on the practices and teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. What is significant however, is that neither church has fragmented into thousands of conflicting bodies, the predictable result of trying to find the truth through sola scriptura.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2004.

Wow, Paul, terrific response!

I read through this list of questions Saturday and found that the questions themselves were based on such falty premises, I wondered how anyone could aptly respond! You, Paul, are very skilled at defending our faith. Thank you!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 11, 2004.

Orthodox Christians are Catholic, Paul. Just ask Max.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 11, 2004.

Elpidio

they are schismatic. they are no longer Catholic. they are outside the Catholic Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

Does the Orthodox church have a hierarchy? Do they have a "pope" so to speak. Or did they choose to have the state be their spiritual leader. I can't remember. It also seems that when Protestantism was born during the reformation that they chose the "state" to be their head. Do I have that right?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 12, 2004.

the Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, are organised by region, each headed by a Patriarch. so they argue that the Pope is just another Patriarch, the Patriarch of Rome.

there is some viewpoint that the Pope enjoys a special role though, as the **senior** Patriarch if you like -- but on the basis he is "primus inter pares" as opposed to Supreme Pontiff. that's where we all fall out. the Orthodox would therefore deny papal infallibility and the Pope's supreme teaching authority, and would prefer to see the consensual teaching of Patriarch's.

having said that, the Orthodox Church has shown little but hostility toward Rome for a long time now, so i wonder if they still even accept that the Holy Father is "primus inter pares".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

The Copts have a Pope, Gail. Does that make them better?

The Syrians not only claim Peter, they have the keys, and they Biblically can be shown to have Peter there as opposed to Rome. So does that make them better?

Paul preached to the Greeks before Rome. Does that make them better?

Maybe that answers also your question , Ian. Maybe th roman Catholic Church is the schismatic one. They are the true catholics.

The Christan Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.

Wow, Elpidio, I'm not sure how to take your post. It seems rather sarcastic. "Better," in what way?

You see, when I look at the faith of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Athanasius, Augustine, etc., I recognize them as "brothers-in- Christ." I recognize their "Christ." We worship the "same Jesus," the one depicted in the gospels, the one depicted in the Creeds. You seem to think these men (the Fathers of our Faith), and their gospels, were all part of some sort of "grand illusion," the "Conspiracy-theory-of-all-conspiracy-theories," one in which the man-Jesus was falsely elevated to Jesus the God-man.

I can read the writings of Augustine (and others) where he sets forth apostolic succession directly back to the apostles, and I trust Augustine because I know "his Jesus."

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 12, 2004.

Well, Gail,

if your Jesus, the Jesus of Augustine also never taught these commands, which I accept, then your Jesus is not my Jesus.

http://www.christadelphia.org/command. Jesus Commands

Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you (Matt. 5:44). Resist not evil: if a man smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also (Matt. 5:30-40). Avenge not yourselves: rather give place unto wrath: and suffer yourselves to be defrauded (Rom. 12:18, 19). If a man take away thy goods, ask them not again (Luke 6:29, 30). Agree with your adversary quickly, submitting even to wrong for the sake of peace (Matt. 5:25; 1 Cor. 6:7). Labor not to be rich: be ready to every good work, give to those who ask; relieve the afflicted (1 Tim. 6:8; Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:16; James 1:27).

......

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.

Elpidio

the Eastern Schism agrees with Gail and they had little or no exposure to St Augustine.

you MUST accept that one of the Catholic or Eastern or Oriental Churches is the one founded by Our Lord - and aren't they all Trinitarian?!?

you are more Jewish than Christian.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

"All denominations must be flawed."

Exactly...

This includes the Catholic Church from which all denominations owe their beginning...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

thanks Kevin.

more pro-Catholic rhetoric.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

"3. Both Councils were convened at the directive of the Pope, and involved representatives of the entire universal Church of the time."

Which Pope convened these councils?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

"Exactly...

This includes the Catholic Church from which all denominations owe their beginning... "

Whoa! So, this puts Christianity on the wrong path?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.

Well, Ian, Jesus was aJewish man on earth.

So were his disciples.

What makes me a Christian is my belief in his message of salvationJesus commands.

Believing Jesus is God Yahweh came later. It wasn't an original belief. The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. A denomination, by definition, is a body that separated from a pre-existing body, renouncing their affiliation with it. That's what the word means. "Denomination" is from the Latin "de nomina", meaning "out of the name" or "away from the name". It refers to a body which takes on a new identity after renouncing the name of the body they formerly were part of. Since the Catholic Church was directly founded by Jesus Christ, and did not come into existence by breaking away from any pre-existing body, it is not a denomination. Christian denominations did not exist before the 16th century. The reason all denominations are flawed is that all denominations reject at least part of the fullness of truth which Jesus guaranteed to the Church He founded; and partial truth is flawed truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2004.

Kevin

you need to distinguish between synods (local) and councils (universal).

393 and 397 were African synods.

the latter had as a condition its approval by Rome. does that answer your question?

there is little doubt that the kind of in-fighting and back-biting that exploded with the so-called reformation was ever in the Church, but the Church in those days, despite its human weaknesses, had a real sense for the importance of unity.

would that the heretic Luther had any such sense.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

Hi Kevin, that would have been Pope Damasus, and here is his decree:

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384), Decree of, Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 12, 2004.

Elpidio

i am not accusimng you of being un-Christian or "not a Christian". the requirement is to be Catholic. and the labels are irrelevant. i have learned that much.

all i am saying is the you need be careful what you rake. if you are using Church history to prove a point, remember that its proves a more fundamental point, that of the Blessed Trinity. that's what almost all the early heresies were about. even the protestants generally accept the Trinity. even some Jews are open to the idea.

Our Lord was man AND God.

call yourself a Christian if you will. i take no issue.

but the real question is: are you Catholic?

the answer: No. but you used to be.

what happened?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

"Whoa! So, this puts Christianity on the wrong path?"

Actually this puts those who "claim" to be Christians and are not on the wrong path...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

Paul,

Please forgive me, I didn't mean to insinuate that the Catholic Church was a denomination.

Ian and Gail, Thanks for your responses!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 12, 2004.

Well, Ian, just like the apostle Paul hit the ground after the horse was probably stung by a bee, and in that unconcious state he heard a voice saying: Saul, Saul,why do you persecute me....changing his life as an Orthodox Jew forever, ...into one for whom no longer circumcision was of extreme importance...

in like manner happened to me.

The dream of July 23, 2000 was the answer to my questions I asked God in 1979. It was my birtday. I was born around 10:00 pm. So around that time I asked:

If you exist, let me know.

If you are Jesus, let me know.

What is your real name?

Does Hell exist?

Does Heaven exist?

What happens when we die?

....

I was 17. I waited almost 21 years for an aswer.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

PS: On July 2002 I was told of the end of the Catholic Church as we know it. I tried to prevent it. I failed.

Just in Boston, many church buildings will be sold to pay for the molestation charges. In my dream I saw the church buildings being used for other purposes.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.

Elpidio

the Church is likely to undergo radical change in the coming decades, not due to molestation claims, but due to the fall in vocations. dioceses are going to have to combine and the smaller Churches may struggle to find a priest to perform the Consecration.

that's been on the cards for a while.

anyways, who needs buildings?!?! you can say Mass in a field or a wood. that's what priests in England and Ireland did when they were being hunted down like dogs during the English reformation. those Masses were as valid as anything done in St Peter's in Rome.

we need priests more than we need buildings.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

Very good points Ian!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 13, 2004.

Also, many new churches are being built in many dioceses, and many religious orders, especially the completely orthodox ones, are experiencing a great surge in vocations. Also, vocations are at an all time high in other parts of the world, especially Africa, and priests from those areas are already being sent to the United States to help alleviate the current shortage. That's the beauty of a universal Church. It isn't every diocese for itself or every country for itself. It is the Church meeting the needs of the Church. Priestly shortages have occured in many times and places, yet the Church has continued to grow throughout the world.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2004.

The Catholic chhurch , as it is today is possibly not the true catholic church. Why do I say that? Well for one reason they changed the form of every sacrament,the consecration at Mass and many other things. The pedophiles are not the reason for the trouble as that is just an outward symptom of the loss of faith.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 19, 2004.

Welcome "new seer."

The pedophiles are not the reason for the trouble as that is just an outward symptom of the loss of faith.

Very good point, I totally agree.

But were you also saying that the cause of the loss of faith was changing the form of the sacraments and the consecration along with "other things"?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.

The problem Ian, Andy , and Paul M. is that priests are still forced to become celibate to officiate.

It never was a commandment from either Paul the apsotle, Peter, or James, Jesus brother.

Jesus disciples were married. Jeish priests from the order of Aaaron were married. Even the High Priest was married.

Many Popes were married.

How long are we going to tolerate a situation when people are forced to become celibate to be priests?

That's not God Yahweh's calling. That is not Jesus calling. I assure you: the moment this restriction is lifted, capable people like John Placette,...and others will join the priesthood.

Also, cut the number of years to be priests. In my opinion, a doctoral degree at most should suffice. Even a master's at least.

Peter, John,....they were not priests. Even they did not have to get degrees to teach about Jesus.

The Catholic Church (Roman) is shooting itself on the foot for so long.

Paraphrasing the ords of Tyndale (open the eyes of the King of England when it came to the Bible):

Yahweh, in the name of your son Jesus, open the eyes of the Pope!!!!

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

"The problem Ian, Andy , and Paul M. is that priests are still forced to become celibate to officiate."

In fact, every person who is called to ANY vocation other than marriage - single lay men and women, religious brothers and sisters, and priests are "forced" to remain (not become) celibate, and those who are called to such vocations and who respond to God's call do not typically see the requirements of those vocations which they have freely chosen as a burden, but as a means of spiritual growth. If lay people who are called to the single life can live without sexual relationships, if religious briothers and sisters can do so, then why shouldn't a priest be able to do the same?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2004.

Yes: I am saying that changing the form of thhe sacraments has made some of them questionable. Just one instance I can relate. In the old rite of ordaining a priest he was specifically given thje right or power to forgive sins. In the new rite that is left out entirely.

I did not know this for the time that I was going to confession. Someone more knowledgable than me pointed that out one day and gave me some literature on it. Sure enough he was correct. Now I do not know if my sins were forgiven by such a priest. I would now go to some older priest that was ordained before this new rite. To a Catholic this is much too important to leave to chance.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 19, 2004.

Now I do not know if my sins were forgiven by such a priest. I would now go to some older priest that was ordained before this new rite. To a Catholic this is much too important to leave to chance.

You are quite correct in saying that it is far too important a matter to be left to chance, and we can't knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. That being said, I don't think you have anything to worry about with respect to your prior confessions. While clearly there are defects in the new rite of ordination as compared to the old, those defects don't per se invalidate the whole Novus Ordo priesthood. This is evident in light of the fact that Traditional Catholic organizations such as the Society of St. Pius X do not conditionally re-ordain priests who abandon the Novus Ordo to work with the Society & confer sacraments exclusively in the preconciliar rites, unless that priest requests it due to some doubt (that's what conditional sacraments are for). You can read this for more information. May I strongly suggest you look into making a 5-day Ignatian retreat (see the "retreats" link from the SSPX home page I've linked to above.

If you still have any questions, I'd be happy to try & answer them for you.

-- jake (j@k.e), October 20, 2004.

The bishop, with his miter on, seats himself. The newly ordained come up and kneel before him; he lays his hands on each one and says:

Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained

These are the words totally eliminated in the new rite of priesthood. They must have a reason for this, and I believe that it is not a good reason.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 20, 2004.

Dear Maxie

help me out here.

i worry about *ecumenism* - it seems to me to contravene THREE infallible teachings of the Church on EENS.

however, NO Pope can set the liturgy of the Church for ever. so, though i prefer -- by several light years - the Latin liturgy, i see it as that: my choice.

do you see the point?

V-II did nothing **wrong** [apart from EENS] in the sense that it has never been a matter of faith and morals that the Mass be said in the vernacular. granted, the Latin Rite is unquestionably more reverential and humble than the New Rite -- but that is, ultimately, a matter of opinion.

tell me -- to which particular parts of the Catechism do you now object???

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 20, 2004.

Jake,

Let me get this straight - We know that ordination of priests by the HJoly Catholic Church is valid because it is recognized by a schismatic sect which doesn't illicitly "re-ordain" those priests who fall into schism? What kind of logic is that??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.

if religious brothers and sisters can do so, then why shouldn't a priest be able to do the same?

Because Paum M., the Church is putting a yoke on people who neither Jesus or his disciples evr commanded. This is not a commandment: be celibate to be a priest. You know that what iam saying is true.

People who choose to be like Paul, then could beco,me monks,... but the people who serve God Yahweh directly were never commanded to be celibate.

The Pope know that. Every Protestant knows that. Every Catholic that has read the Bible knows that. God Yahweh knows that too.

God Yahweh's first commandment was : Be fruitful and multiply.

I will never subject the members of my church, The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus to be celibate to officiate. I am married.

The Christian Yahwsit

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

We know that ordination of priests by the HJoly Catholic Church is valid because it is recognized by a schismatic sect which doesn't illicitly "re-ordain" those priests who fall into schism? What kind of logic is that??

First, the characterization of the Society of St Pius X as a "schismatic sect" is a tired, old falsehood. You're simply going to have to give it up. I'm not sure if you want to hash it our here in front of all these Protestants, but you're welcome to take a stab at making your case for schism. I don't know how fruitful it will all be in front of all these Protestants, however. I posted a couple of links, and the others can read them (or not) at their leisure, and come to their own conclusions sans your editorials. br>
That said, it's yet another misrepresentation to say (whether directly or not) that I claimed it was the SSPX's recognition of Novus Ordo Orders that makes them valid. Utter nonsense. If you're approaching the whole question from a dishonest and uncharitable standpoint, I would say you should re-examine your position.

-- jake (j@k.e), October 20, 2004.

I just located this article that clearly shows that the priest in the new rite is doubtful, and perhaps worse, the bishop may not be a bishop, but he (belatedly) receives the power to forgive sins. Why this hodge podge of words, when the old rites were as clear as a bell?

receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass for the living as well as for the dead. In the name of the Lord. R/ Amen.? Nowhere in the Novus Ordo rite is there any place where it says: Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass. According to the new Missal he is one who presides over them and acts in the person of Christ. The next defect in the Novus Ordo rite is the absence of any statement that the newly ordained priest has the power to forgive sins. In the Catholic Apostolic rite, towards the end of the Mass the bishop lays his hands on the head of the newly ordained priest and says:

?Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.? If the Catholic Apostolic rite were given completely, with only the above two elements missing from the rite, We would have to declare in union with Pope Leo XIII the following: ?So with this inherent defect of form (bolstered by the total rite) is joined the defect of intention...? and therefore, ?invalid and entirely void...? Denz. 1966 again. The question is proposed whether the Novus Ordo rite makes a true bishop according the Catholic Apostolic rite. Again the answer is no. Here is the reason. Nowhere in the Novus Ordo rite is there anything mentioned that the bishop is to consecrate and ordain. The preface itself after the imposition of hands need not express all these elements, but it is necessary that they come forward very clearly somewhere in the total rite.

In the Catholic Apostolic rite the bishop addresses the priest to become a bishop in the following words:

?A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms.? Once again, even if this short enumeration were forgotten in the Catholic Apostolic rite there would be no valid consecration. Since it was deliberately withheld in the Novus Ordo rite the condemnation of Pope Leo XIII applies again. The Novus Ordo rite is null and void. It is invalid. There is a further anomaly in the Novus Ordo rites. As was pointed out above, in the ordination of the priest no mention is made that he has the power to forgive sins. That necessary part of the rite has been removed. However, right in the preface for the making of the Novus Ordo bishop it says: (page 90)

?Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded...? In the Catholic Apostolic rites the power to forgive sins is given in the priesthood rite, and it is naturally presumed present already in the candidate for consecration to the bishopric rite, and therefore it is not even mentioned. We need not make an issue of the Novus Ordo priests not having the power to forgive sin because that power was not mentioned in the rite of ordination. He is not a priest, and therefore he cannot consecrate at a ?Mass,? and he cannot give forgiveness of sins in an attempt to administer the sacrament of penance. He is a layman.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 20, 2004.

jake--

You crack me up!!

I think I am about the only Protestant here--maybe Zarove too.

Everyone else is a Catholic.

For some reason--David's board has been taken over by ya' all.

Not that I mind too much--I get bored when everyone agrees anyway.

I love to kick back and watch the Catholic unity....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 20, 2004.

Do you mean the Greenspun board? David is only a caretaker.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

"For some reason--David's board has been taken over by ya' all."---Faith.

I do not believe it has been taken over by the Catholics. You haven't been banned yet. "LOL". What I do know is that the majority of posters range from entry-level to real Catholics. Let's not forget that we do have some ex-Catholics who post here. It also seems like we may have one possible convert to Catholicism. But, taking over? Nah!

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

"Maybe Zarove"??? Did I all of the sudden become Mormon???Yes Faith, I too am Protestant...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 20, 2004.

Faith, did you really say "I love to kick back and watch the Catholic unity.... " Ahhh, how you and Satan must get a little kick of disunity!

What is interesting to me, Faith, is that every anti-Catholic I know seems to be controlled by some-otherly being, and I don't mean the Holy Spirit. There is a sort of diabolical pleasure in hurling insults and slander -- I have seen normally serene faces become enraged and contorted as evil spews out of their mouths like putrid pools of projectile vomit emits from their jaws! It really is a phenomena!

Do I think it's funny when I see such sinister spectacles coming from people who 'claim' to know Jesus? No, it is not funny, NOT AT ALL . . . AT ALL!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 20, 2004.

Hi Gail.

I never dreamt I would be displaying this side of me in a public forum, until these episodes. You do remember my mild mannered character early on in these forums. I guess enough is enough with taking it on the chin from these blasted bad-mouthing mud slingers. No more Mr. Nice guy.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

Yes, Rod, I do remember your mild manner, and even now, you are still quite the gentlemen. I don't know how you've taken it for so long! The insults, the sarcasms -- you are truly a patient, patient man!

Gail

P.S. BTW, it doesn't matter what facts we present on this forum, Kevin and Faith will ignore those, but cling to every bit of bile they can find, and then sling it with all their might! Bile slingers! And you know what, you can't sling bile without soiling your own clothes! (Not that I've ever tried it myself, mind you.)

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 20, 2004.

This is the sort of confrontation I was tryign to avoid... can we all simpley be at peace even if we disagree?

Remember, even if oen of us comes in with hatred and emnity, we ought be at peace with htem, as christ woudl have us be.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 21, 2004.

>evil spews out of their mouths like putrid pools of projectile vomit emits from their jaws! It really is a phenomena! <

Huh? Is this typical or are you just trying to be colorful?

The real schismatics are those who added to the Creed (and the Son) without consulting with the rest of the Catholic Church.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

Try to stay with us on this one,Max. I have had it with Faith's tactics. You obviously are not affected by her wit and charm. You know, birds of a feather and all that.

It is interesting to note your comment about "adding", yet the Protestants do recite the "Our Father" quite inaccurately as a result of one monk's/scribe's copying errors. It would seem that the Protestants are perpetuating a snafu.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

No, they dont. check most Protestant Bibles... they are missing he doxology. Likwise, th doxology was not a mistakee. Soem authorities beelive it was origionally preasant, while the majorital opinion is that it is a standard litelrgical addition, appendixed to show reference in the standard Chruch tradition of the day.

Indeed, Catholics of to-day have added slightly more to the Lords Prayer, which is acceptable if doen moderately.

However, unles you are usign a Majority text Translation, such as the KJV, or NKJV, you will not find the Doxa. The NIVm the most common Bible of to-day, for instance, gives the Lords Prayer as follows.

Mathew chapter 6, NIV UK

9-'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

11 Give us today our daily bread.

12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

Most Proestant Bibls omit the doxa these days...

Also, I do not think Max is a Protestant.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 21, 2004.

"The real schismatics are those who added to the Creed (and the Son) without consulting with the rest of the Catholic Church"

Max,

one KEY factor in this was the language differences. the Greeks could not understand the Latins and vice versa.

add to that a whole series of minor bust-up's that festered for centuries, and the fact that Greek congregations would trust their Patriarch over the **foreign Pope** and you have a lot of problems.

to pin it on any one piece of dogma is wrong. human error, i'd say.

remember, the Eastern Church has spawned more heresy and schism than you might think - and each time it has been saved by Rome. Arianism, Nestorianism,....., all Eastern heresies.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.

You people know each other quite well and get along quite well, all considered.

Sure Catholics argue with each other but so do Protestants and Jews etc.

Many of us Catholics are getting to feeling that our Church has been taken over by freemasons. They are the first, but the Protestants are not far behind.

While we argue with each other these skunks, (enemies of all Christianity) are doing their dirty work.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 21, 2004.

No, "many" of us Catholics are not " getting to feeling that our Church has been taken over by freemasons". "MOST" of us Catholics rely solidly on the promises of Christ to our Church -

"whatsoever you bind upon earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose upon earth shall have been loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me" (Luke 10:16)

"when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)

"upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hells will not overpower it. (Matthew 16:18)

"I am with you always, even to the end of time." (Matthew 28:20)

A handful of nominal Catholics subscribe to the idea that "our Church has been taken over by freemasons"; but many of these individuals have rejected Christ (since they have rejected the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium - See Luke 10:16 above) and therefore are not actually Catholics.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 21, 2004.

"Let them that have eyes see"... If there are still Catholics around that do not see the sinking ship, that is sad indeed. They grasp at straws while Europe,Northh America, and The other continents go the way of all flesh. They take comfort in pointing to Africa as a beacon of hope.

Perhaps the bluntest admission of the arrival of a new religion was made by John Paul II as Cardinal Karol Wojtyla in his 1977 book Sign of Contradiction: "The Church of our day has become particularly conscious of this truth; and it was in the light of this truth that the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature" [Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction (New York, NY: Seabury Press, 1979), p. 17].

This is absolute heresy. The Church cannot redefine her nature because it does not change because the Church is what she is. "Nature" denotes what something is, and what the Church is doesn't change in the 1960's. We are supposed to believe here, however, that for 1900 years the Church's definition of her own nature was defective or a mere reflection of the times. But see, now that the "glorious" 1960's had arrived, finally came the great "enlightenment"!

Note how Wojtyla uses the term "Church of our day," a notion so tenuous and flimsy that I am reminded of my favorite restaurant's "soup of the day." One thing about the "soup of the day" is certain: it won't be the same tomorrow.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 21, 2004.

Why is everyone so testy??

I was just making a very big point.

I am tired of all the claim to unity within Catholicism--when I can see first hand that you are not united any more than any other religion.

We are all a part of the disunity in religion that can be easily traced back to Paul's day. Jesus never meant unity in earthly religion. If he did--9it failed miserably--and I don't think God could be wrong.

So what's the answer then? Obviously God's church is not what you claim it is.

If that makes me *anti-Catholic* then have your way about that. But it is a tired old saying that you thrash about just because I disagree with Catholicism and see the error of its ways.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 21, 2004.

I was just making a very big point.

Were you? No one seems to have been listening.

-- jake (j@k.e), October 21, 2004.

[yawn]

"LOL".

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

>Try to stay with us on this one,Max. I have had it with Faith's tactics.<

The best way to deal with someone who annoys you is to either ignore them or spend extra time with them. Hating them doesn't profit anyone.

>you obviously are not affected by her wit and charm. You know, birds of a feather and all that.<

I don't get it. Sorry.

>It is interesting to note your comment about "adding", yet the Protestants do recite the "Our Father" quite inaccurately as a result of one monk's/scribe's copying errors. It would seem that the Protestants are perpetuating a snafu.<

I was speaking about the Roman Church adding to the ancient Creed unilaterally without calling a council. Even Roman Catholics admit this was not lawful under canon law.

>one KEY factor in this was the language differences. the Greeks could not understand the Latins and vice versa.<

No, adding to the Creed was not a matter of misunderstanding language. It was a matter of adding to a Holy Creed words (whatever language you use) that were not there for a long time. If the Creed is a symbol of unity among the Churches and one Patriarchate decides to change it, then that Patriarchate is not promoting unity at all. In fact, the Roman Bishop rejected the addition at first...

>dd to that a whole series of minor bust-up's that festered for centuries, and the fact that Greek congregations would trust their Patriarch over the **foreign Pope** and you have a lot of problems.<

Yes, there were many reasons for the schism. I was only referring to the Romans adding to the Universal without a council of the Universal Church. Adding to the Universal Creed without the Universal Church weighing in is a schismatic activity.

>to pin it on any one piece of dogma is wrong. human error, i'd say.<

I didn't. But, it was a major unlawful action by the Roman Pope... fiddling with the ancient Universal Creed without having a council.

>remember, the Eastern Church has spawned more heresy and schism than you might think - and each time it has been saved by Rome.<

Perhaps the East will save Rome next and bring her back into communion and help her shed many of her false doctrines. ;) Even if Rome helped defend Truth against heretics, that does not give Rome the right to unlawfully change the Universal Creed. One cannot simply change the Creed whenever one feels something ought to be added. That's a very bad precendent and militates against the whole reason for ever having Universal councils in the first place to define the Creed.

>Arianism, Nestorianism,....., all Eastern heresies.<

Some heresies came from the East and there were Eastern Bishops who fought it (Athanasius) but that doesn't mean the East is somehow more prone to heresy as you are insinuating. The first council dealt with problems originating in the East. Does that mean the East needed Western Rome to play protector? No. Rome was barely even planted at the time.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

well Faith .

are we experiencing a "reformation"?

has some troublesome monk gone and posted some ludicrous demands to the door of a church?

answer: NO

the Ark of Salvation sails in some very choppy seas.

surreounded by sharks.

but it will find its way.

Our Lord promised us that it would. Amen. Amen.

ALL Catholics know that.

you and all your little friends can merrily carry on with "row, row the boat, gently down the stream,...."

because

"...life is but a dream."

each of you in a row boat rowing hither and thither hurling as much abuse at each other as you do at the Ark.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.

>has some troublesome monk gone and posted some ludicrous demands to the door of a church?<

How can anybody truly defend Indulgences? Seriously.... buying a pardon from God (through the Roman Bishop) with money... horrible heresy. Luther was right (not troublesome) to stand up against this heresy in Rome.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

The sale of indulgences was a horrible abuse and was contrary to Church teaching, even in those days. The Council of Trent fixed those abuses, to my understanding.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

The sale of indulgences is certainly not defensible.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

Catholics have been criticized for having to "check our intellect at the door" by some Protestants. However, I think our discussions here show that the opposite is actually the truth. I think we are expected to use our intellect to better understand our faith. Church saints such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine are great models of this.

Having said that, there are bound to be disagreements about the finer points of doctrine that have not been defined yet by the Church. I think such discussion is not only healthy, but allows the Spirit to work so that the truth may be revealed.

Such discussions can appear to be "dividing" rather than "unifying." It might help to define exactly what we mean by "unity."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

That is correct Andy, especially in these times. Protestants are so divided that each person is his own pope.

I only hope that God's mercy is greater than His justice, or we are all in trouble.

-- JLC (Trespasser 12@aol.com), October 21, 2004.

But there is one thing that will unify everyone faster than a cat-can- wink-it's-eye -- PERSECUTION! Major persecution!! Do you think the Christian's in China have time to argue with one another about methods of baptism, speaking in tongues, once-saved-always-saved? Don't think so. FIRE PURIFIES! And Christians around the world have been in the fire pot for a long long time.

Did anyone read that thread I posted concerning the "VeriChip". Seems some Senator Dryer has penned a bill that would make it MANDATORY FOR ALL U.S. CITIZENS TO RECEIVE THE CHIP, or else . . . guess what? EMPLOYMENT DENIED!

It didn't pass YET. Read the article and the other links. Pretty scary stuff! And IT IS HAPPENING NOW!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 21, 2004.

But there is one thing that will unify everyone faster than a cat- can- wink-it's-eye -- PERSECUTION! Major persecution!! Do you think the Christian's in China have time to argue with one another about methods of baptism, speaking in tongues, once-saved-always-saved? Don't think so. FIRE PURIFIES! And Christians around the world have been in the fire pot for a long long time.

Very good point Gail.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

Whoops, I meant "carry the strip" not "get the chip." The chip has already been approved but the bill that the Senator introduced has to do with the I.D. strip or card, not the chip . . . yet!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 21, 2004.

QUESTION

25. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)

Apostolic succession and faithfulness to the Universal councils. Roman Catholics have Apostolic succession, but they violated canon law and, among other violations against the Universal Church, they added to the Universal Creed without consulting the entire Universal Church. Thus, they left the original Universal Church.

QUESTION

27. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine?

ANSWER

Roman Catholics decided not to stick with Universal Church tradition, thus they violated the conditions you just set down. Orthodoxy stuck with those conditions.

Roman Catholics violated the ancient Universal councils by unilaterally adding to the Universal Creed according to their own ideas. The Creed was agreed upon many years prior at a Universal council, but Rome decided to add to it without consulting the rest of the Universal Church.

Orthodoxy retains the original Creed unaltered. Interestingly, most Protestants have adopted the Roman version of the Creed.

Rome decided to leave the Universal Church by rejecting Canon Law and tradition and by ignoring the other 4 Patriarchates in the East.

QUESTION

28. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

ANSWER

Rome left the Universal Church. Rome can still go back to the Universal Church and submit to traditions and seek union with the other Patriarchates, but she probably won't. Some believe she's the original Whore church (unfaithful), the mother of harlots.

SOMEONE WROTE:

>That would be a challenge, given that the orthodox Church was founded more than 1,000 years after Christ.<

Actually, the Orthodox Church could be more strongly argued to be the Original Universal Church and that the Roman Church and all her "harlots" that follow after her left the Universal communion around 1054.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.

Max,

Rome left the Universal Church. Rome can still go back to the Universal Church and submit to traditions and seek union with the other Patriarchates, but she probably won't.

What would the Roman Catholic Church have to do to be in union with the Patrarchites again? What would she have to submit to to make this possible? Is the list long, or can it be dwindled down to ten points or so? I'm serious. I have heard the Eastern Church called by Pope John Paul II the "other lung" of Christainity.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

The "other lung" comment is actually a reference by the Pope that the Church needs to "breathe with both lungs". It referred to the Eastern churches, including both the Orthodox and those Eastern churches in communion with Rome (at least that's my understanding).

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

One MAJOR question that has to be answered before Rome could ever be re-admitted back into communion with the Universal Church would be: What authority does the Roman Pope have?

Orthodoxy totally rejects the innovation that the Roman Pope has authority over all churches. Rome began claiming power that it did not have and this is what finally brought the split. There was a time when all the Bishops were equal and Rome was highly respected among all those equals. When Rome started assuming power and inventing dogmas to back that power, that's what caused the rift.

Indulgences are just one horrible heretical example of a major error brought about by the Roman Pope thinking he has special power over all the Churches - a heresy that caused churches in Europe to finally wake up and reject the dogma of Roman Supremacy in the 1500's.

Rome ought to let go of dogmas that are contrary to Orthodox beliefs and practice in order to be re-admitted... The first step would be to let go of the idea of Roman Supremacy and recognize it was an error from the start. Then, let go of all the dogmas that do not agree with the Universal Church... including the addition of the Filioque to the Universal Creed.

It isn't going to happen. If anything happens, it'll be some psuedo- union that the Russian Orthodox and others will absolutely reject.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.

Max, you said:

"Some believe she's the original Whore church (unfaithful), the mother of harlots."

This kind of inciteful rhetoric is uncalled for, unfounded, and provacative. It is these kinds of statements from Faith, Kevin and now YOU, of which I refer, when I say "putrid pools of projectile vomit." It's garbage, Max, pure and simple.

Why do those outside of the Church find it so necessary to hurl insults at her? Why? Because she is who she says she is, and you cannot prove otherwise, and you must find some way to authenticate your existence outside of her!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 22, 2004.

Then, let go of all the dogmas that do not agree with the Universal Church...

Like what Max? Is the list too long to post here? If so, is there a reputable web site you could point me to?

I have a lot of respect for the traditions and teachings of the Orthodox Church, though as a Roman Catholic I may disagree with some of them. I see our ideas of essentials like the Eucharist, church hierarchy, and other sacraments as being closer than other Christians. But that may just be because I don't know enough about Orthodox teachings.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

I think that possibly the daughters of the Harlot could be those protestant denominations that have not totally left Catholicism behind., those who still practice some paganism....

Luther was unable to shake free from much of his Roman Catholicism (infant baptism, etc..) Even their beliefs about communion are much the same as the doctrine of transubstantiation--even thogh they would deny that.

I would consider the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons to be more like daughters though...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

I would consider the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons to be more like daughters though...

Why Faith? Many of their beliefs are contrary to Catholicism. The biggest one is that Jesus is not divine and that there are not three persons in one God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

Yes..,I know,

But these religions also share much with Catholicism--More than likely--they were spawned by men rejecting their own up-bringing as Catholics...either directly--or they were redevising another so- called denomination. For example--I know the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr..was part of a family who had joined the Presbyterian church in New York--but he (Joseph jr...did not agree.

They each (Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses) also have a works=salvation theology.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Not all Protestants, but some on this thread seem to have an anger towads the Catholic church. Why be angry? If you are so sure that you are correct you should be smug rather than angry.

You point out the defectsof the Church. This is the defecs of men, not the Church. If this Church ws not divine, could it have lasted 1900 yyears? No way! It lasted in spite of corrupt men, not because of them.

It is only when the traitors of Vatican II, taking their cue from six Protestant "advisors", took charge and gave the Church away, that the decay started. Even with that the faith still lives in the misnomered name of "traditional Catholics, that the faith lives on. They should jus be called Catholics, because they are the only ones left wth the true faith.

-- A New Seer (Maxie@2345qw.com), October 22, 2004.

Faith,

They each (Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses) also have a works=salvation theology

For Catholics the equation is faith + works (in Christ) = salvation.

I'm not so sure that if a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon were here to defend their theology that they wouldn't say that you got them wrong. It sounds too simplistic and easy to categorize JW's and Mormons as believing in works = salvation. But then, I admit I don't know much about either of their theologies.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

Well Andy...,

I can tell you that I know the jehovah Witnesses very well. I studied with two ladies who came knocking on my door last year. Of course--we were each trying to convert the other--unbeknownst to them.

Those same ladies had successfully recruited a woman in my neighborhood--many years earlier. I have had this neighbor/friend on my heart for a long time. She is the mother of my son's friend--and I had lots of chances to slowly minister to her. I had to learn as much as possible about that cult--in order to be able to handle everything that this neighbor/friend would throw up against me.

I am happy to say that this friend now attends my church--though she has not actually made a faith committment to Jesus yet. I am sure she has some left-over nonsense that prevents her from completely grasping just who Jesus is--yet. But we are working diligently with her. Her biggest red-flag sign to me that she doesn't quite understand about forgiveness is that she is unable to forgive her husband for an infidelity. She thinks she has forgiven him--yet she throws it at him all the time and it is truly eating her up inside.

Anyway--that's another topic. Forgiveness is complete and when we forgive--we wipe that slate clean. We can no longer hold it against that person--if we have truly forgiven and--cancelled--that debt.

She spent untold hours walking the streets going door to door--and told me that you have to put in a certain amount of hours every week in order to be saved. That's a works theology if I ever saw one!

The Mormons also believe that you must do sacraments and obey the gospel in order to be saved., while the Bible reveals that you are only capable of obeying the gospel once you are saved--and free to do so. Only Jesus can set us free....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Faith,

Sounds like you have a lot more experience with Jehovah's Witnesses than me. I do pray your friend finds it in her heart to truly forgive and allow Christ's grace to heal her.

I wonder if you judge others as following "works theology" too easily just because they want to do good works. The reason behind any real good work is faith. As Christians we believe that faith is in Jesus Christ. What's wrong with good works and obeying the gospel if we are motivated by faith and love for God? Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons probably do good works because of their faith. I'm not sure they would walk door to door for hours for any other reason. I think that their faith is misplaced though.

My idea of "works theology" is one who believes that if they do certain things, regardless of their faith or love, that they will earn some reward because they are owed it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.

My idea of "works theology" is one who believes that if they do certain things, regardless of their faith or love, that they will earn some reward because they are owed it.

Interesting Andy..

I always thought of the "works theology" as being where a person believes that if they are good and do lots of good things and especially if they follow church rules and do all the sacraments exactly right and follow Jesus as best as possible--then maybe--if they did it all good enough (whatever good enough is--who knows) then perhaps they will be saved in the end.

This is common among people who claim to have faith in God...they still think they have to do something in order to deserve salvation.., as though salvation itself were the ultimate goal..

But the Bible tells us that salvation leads to eternal life. The Bible also tells us that salvation comes to those who put their faith in Jesus to save them. Once saved--or freed from the power of sin...then and only then can we follow Jesus and obey Him. Our works are the fruit of the Spirit--they are not something we do to *get saved*--but we gladly do them because we *are saved.* We are now freed from the power of sin--which prevents us from being able to follow Jesus in the first place. It is definately a faith thing....because nothing we could *do* is the reason for our salvation.

Salvation is a gift. Obedience is the response...Eternal life is the resulting blessing..

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

I always thought of the "works theology" as being where a person believes that if they are good and do lots of good things and especially if they follow church rules and do all the sacraments exactly right and follow Jesus as best as possible-- then maybe--if they did it all good enough (whatever good enough is-- who knows) then perhaps they will be saved in the end.

Does this person in your example do "lots of good things" because of their faith in and love for Jesus?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 23, 2004.

>This kind of inciteful rhetoric is uncalled for, unfounded, and provacative. <

It wasn't meant to be inciteful. You have to consider the possibility, though.... especially after the Roman Pope kisses the Koran. You can't defend that act, no matter how devoted you are to the Roman Bishop.

>It is these kinds of statements from Faith, Kevin and now YOU, of which I refer, when I say "putrid pools of projectile vomit." It's garbage, Max, pure and simple. <

You can use all the emotional and "poetic" alliterative strings of condemnations your imagination can come up with, but that doesn't make your position right. It just makes it appear as if you can't handle the reasoning behind the position.

>Why do those outside of the Church find it so necessary to hurl insults at her? Why?<

It's not meant as an insult. It's meant as a description that seems to square with history and the description of a powerful unfaithful religious organization. That's all.

>Because she is who she says she is, and you cannot prove otherwise, and you must find some way to authenticate your existence outside of her!<

I think a good case that Rome is unfaithful has already been well- expressed here, but there has been no real reasonable defense so far - just emotional outbursts.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

No--

It's for God...she always says God. She used to say Jehovah...but now it's God.

I am not quite sure what she has done with Jesus so far. But I don't want to push her away by forcing Him on her. She was raised Catholic, so I know she is not in the dark abut what I believe--and what my church believes about Jesus' divinity.

I think we need to give her more time. It's an amazing thing that she has stepped foot into a church.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Hey Max--

We agree : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

>Luther was unable to shake free from much of his Roman Catholicism (infant baptism, etc..)<

Well, that's because infant baptism was an Apostolic practice from the beginning and Luther was learned enough to recognize that fact. Even Judaism (which Jesus taught as a Rabbi) immerses infants. Surely the traditional conversion practice of immersing infants was tranferred to Christianity.

>Even their beliefs about communion are much the same as the doctrine of transubstantiation--even thogh they would deny that. <

I used to deny the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, too. You have no idea how hard it was to "shake free" from my Baptist/Pentecostal background, but I guess it just takes a little bit of courage to dig into the early church fathers to consider what they believed and not bow to the traditional ideas of sects that have only been around for a few hundred years - if even that long.

The Lord was gracious enough to let me see how it's not so far- fetched to believe the bread and wine are His Body and Blood. Listne: If Christ can claim YOUR PHYSICAL BODY as part of His Body, why is it so hard to accept that the wine and bread that enters your body is also part of His Body? especially when His literal words express that fact, St. Paul expresses that fact, and the earliest church fathers confess that fact.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

Surely the traditional conversion practice of immersing infants was tranferred to Christianity.

Can you show me even one example where the apostles baptised an infant--from the Scriptures??

especially when His literal words express that fact, St. Paul expresses that fact, and the earliest church fathers confess that fact.

If you like absurd literalism--then I suppose you are right. But then you might as well insidt that Jesus is a literal vine, lampstand, and door. And not only that--but then Jesus is also a good shepherd and only sheep are saved.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

I always like to say this:

We're justified by an active faith, not an act of faith, nor just mere mental assent.

An active faith can be seen by God in the heart even before a person outwardly manifests it by works. Remember, "Abraham believed God and was considered righteous." Later, Abraham proved that active faith by offering his son.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

Yes max--

But his act of obedience was merely the outward evidence of his faith- -and it was because of his faith that he was deemed righteous.

It was his faith in God and what God had promised--which was Jesus Christ--that saved him.., not his act of obedience. His faith came first--

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

First, I just wanna say it's nice discussing things with you, Faith.

>Can you show me even one example where the apostles baptised an infant--from the Scriptures??<

Can you show me one example where the Apostles baptized an 80-year- old -- from Scripture?

If you won't show me where the Apostles baptized an 80-year-old, I won't show you where they Baptized a 8-day-old.

>If you like absurd literalism--then I suppose you are right. But then you might as well insidt that Jesus is a literal vine, lampstand, and door. And not only that--but then Jesus is also a good shepherd and only sheep are saved. <

Your problem is you're assuming it's absurd to believe the bread and wine are part of Christ's Body and Blood.

When you eat bread, when does it become part of your body?

Are you part of Christ's physical Body?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

Yes max-- >But his act of obedience was merely the outward evidence of his faith- -and it was because of his faith that he was deemed righteous.<

I agree 100%.

>It was his faith in God and what God had promised--which was Jesus Christ--that saved him.., not his act of obedience. His faith came first--<

I agree. But, it's also interesting to note that, if Abraham wasn't obedient enough to pass the test, Christ wouldn't have have come into the world as planned. Of course, it was preplanned by God to choose the guy who would believe enough to pass the test.

Do we believe enough?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

I can show you many instances where adults recognize Jesus and receive Him into their hearts--wanting right away to be baptised as to show their faith and proclaim the name of Jesus. It is alway a conscious choice. How can a baby make such a descision?

And about all the symbolic language in John...

If you are going to take John 6 literally to that extent and believe that he is literally bread and wine--then you must follow through with that samer absurdity throughout his gospel.

Jesus also says He is a vine. He also says He is a lampstand. He says He is a door. He says He is a Shepherd and that he came to save sheep. Why aren't you taking that literally as well?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Faith;

If Our Lord did not mean that His flesh was literal, why did he let the crowd walk away. They said that this was too hard a saying, just as you are now doing. He threw away three years of work on one remark, but all He said to the few remaining was "Are you also going to leave"? HJe could have clarified that it wa only a metaphor... but He did not.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345rw.com), October 23, 2004.

>I can show you many instances where adults recognize Jesus and receive Him into their hearts--wanting right away to be baptised as to show their faith and proclaim the name of Jesus.<

Show me two instances where all the conditions you just listed are true.

1. Adult. (tell me their age) 2. They literally ask Jesus into their heart. 3. They clearly express their desire for baptism in order to show their faith and proclaim the name of Jesus.

You said you can show me many instances of this. Show me two.

>It is alway a conscious choice. How can a baby make such a descision? <

Show me scripture that says one must be a a fully developed human being (adult) in order to qualify for entrance into Christ's Church.

I used the example of an 80-year-old because you are trying to limit baptism to certain age groups. Would you refuse baptism to an invalid blind and deaf 80-year-old 200 years ago? In other words, would you refuse to accept such a helpless person as a member of Christ's Body?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

>If you are going to take John 6 literally to that extent and believe that he is literally bread and wine--then you must follow through with that samer absurdity throughout his gospel. <

I'm not talking about John 6. I'm talking about the moment Jesus instituted the Eucharist. It was an extremely sober and solemn occasion. Jesus literally said that the bread IS His Body. He could have used a different word so as to not confuse his followers. But, He used the words: This IS my Body.

Now, the disciples were there and they didn't automatically conclude that Jesus was speaking in figurative language. Later, St. Paul says that eating the bread is literally a participation in the body of Christ - not merely symbolic. The earliest church fathers, direct disciples of the Apostles, confessed that the bread is the literal body of Christ and that unbelievers can't accept this humble truth and so they stay aloof from the true Eucharist.

Some reject Jesus is God because it sounds absurd. Such is the Christian faith until one becomes enlightened and realizes it's not as absurd as it seems to the natural mind.

>Jesus also says He is a vine.<

Is Jesus saying He represents or symbolizes a vine? Or is Jesus saying that He and His Church are LIKE a vine? or saying He is a SORT of vine?

Your version is: "This (bread) is LIKE my Body."

or

"This (bread) is a SORT of my Body."

Whether you want to say the bread IS ACTUALLY PART of the Body (as Jesus solemnly stated) or that the bread IS LIKE PART of the actual Body of Christ or that the bread is a SORT of Christ's Body, you cannot deny that YOU are ACTUALLY PART of Christ's physical Body.

Whatever your view, you can't get away from the fact that the bread and wine become part of Christ's Body. They ACTUALLY become part of us... and it can be argued they become part of us even before they've been ingested.

Let me use an example that may be extreme, but demonstrates this in a way:

If your ear gets cut off, you still consider it part of your body, even though it has not yet been re-attached.

If you are about to receive a new heart through surgery, it's not absurd or improper to consider the new heart YOURS even before it's put into your body.

In the same way, if you are physically a member of Christ's Body and you are about to receive sanctified bread in unity with other members of Christ's Body, then it's not too absurd to consider that Thing which you are eating to be a literal part of Christ's Body, even before you ingest it.

These examples may be hard to follow, but if you follow them they may help you see that it's not totally absurd to look at the simple bread of communion and be able to "discern the Lord's Body" there. (1Cr 11:29)

You only reject it because it seems absurd at first. It's not as absurd as your natural mind makes it out to be. Mystical? Yes. Absurd? No.

Here are some other seemingly "absurd" realities:

St. Paul considers the union between Christ and His Church a great Mystery. (Eph 5:32)

St. Paul considers "Christ in you" to be a Mystery. (Col 1:27)

1Ti 3:16 "And without controversy great is the MYSTERY of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" - St. Paul

1Cr 15:51 "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" - St. Paul

These truths all seem absurd to the unenlightened. The Resurrection itself seems absurd. The death of God on a tree seems totally foolish and absurd.

These are some of the Mysteries of our Faith. Don't reject it just because you can't understand it right away. That's all.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

I'm not talking about John 6. I'm talking about the moment Jesus instituted the Eucharist. It was an extremely sober and solemn occasion. Jesus literally said that the bread IS His Body. He could have used a different word so as to not confuse his followers. But, He used the words: This IS my Body.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is based on John 6.

The fact that Jesus was holding that bread and wine when he said that it was his body and blood--makes it pretty clear that he didn't mean it *literally*. He couldn't have since he was alive and well at that time. He was pointing to the cross--and using those elements to symbolize His body and blood that would be shed at the cross--for us. He said that everytime we celebrated that meal--the Passover meal in particular--we should remember Him when we eat and drink....

Now, the disciples were there and they didn't automatically conclude that Jesus was speaking in figurative language. Later, St. Paul says that eating the bread is literally a participation in the body of Christ - not merely symbolic.

Please post this Scripture so that I can see it for myself

Is Jesus saying He represents or symbolizes a vine? Or is Jesus saying that He and His Church are LIKE a vine? or saying He is a SORT of vine?

Jesus uses the same symbolic language as He did when He said He was bread.

Your version is: "This (bread) is LIKE my Body."

or

"This (bread) is a SORT of my Body."

My version? Jesus holds the bread up and says "This is my body"...obviously this isn't literally so...

Whether you want to say the bread IS ACTUALLY PART of the Body (as Jesus solemnly stated) or that the bread IS LIKE PART of the actual Body of Christ or that the bread is a SORT of Christ's Body, you cannot deny that YOU are ACTUALLY PART of Christ's physical Body.

I can't honestly say that this has anything to do with communion and what Jesus meant with the symbolic elements. But I am confident that we are part of the body of Christ in a very spiritual sense.

Whatever your view, you can't get away from the fact that the bread and wine become part of Christ's Body. They ACTUALLY become part of us... and it can be argued they become part of us even before they've been ingested.

Absurd

Let me use an example that may be extreme, but demonstrates this in a way:

If your ear gets cut off, you still consider it part of your body, even though it has not yet been re-attached.

If you are about to receive a new heart through surgery, it's not absurd or improper to consider the new heart YOURS even before it's put into your body.

In the same way, if you are physically a member of Christ's Body and you are about to receive sanctified bread in unity with other members of Christ's Body, then it's not too absurd to consider that Thing which you are eating to be a literal part of Christ's Body, even before you ingest it.

You are right--this is extreme and in my opinion--absurd.

These examples may be hard to follow, but if you follow them they may help you see that it's not totally absurd to look at the simple bread of communion and be able to "discern the Lord's Body" there. (1Cr 11:29)

I find it to be a totally pagan concept.

You only reject it because it seems absurd at first. It's not as absurd as your natural mind makes it out to be. Mystical? Yes. Absurd? No.

It's not biblical Max--and if you think that this section of John 6 must be taken so absurdly literal--then why not the rest of John?

Here are some other seemingly "absurd" realities:

I am talking about *absurd literalism* Max--not revealed mysteries of God. Transubstantation is not revealed in the Scriptures when you read the gospel correctly. And if you need to take John's symbolic message in this absurd way--then you must follow it throughout his gospel.

John 10:14-16

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

John 15: 1-4

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

John 6:33-36

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

It is clear to me what the symbolic correlation is. Comes=receiving or eating., and you will never hunger. If this was to be played out to the absurd literalism that you make it--then those of us who receive Jesus through communion--should never be hungry again--in the literal sense. But we know that this is a spiritual correlation because those who receive Jesus never hunger spiritually.

Those who believe=drinking the wine--will never thirst again. Of course--we know this is symbolically speaking.

No ax--this isn't the same thing.

Glad you can see that

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

>The doctrine of Transubstantiation is based on John 6. <

I do not hold to Transubstantiation. That is a Roman Catholic dogma. I believe the bread remains bread, but is also truly and fully and mystically the Body and Blood of Jesus.

>The fact that Jesus was holding that bread and wine when he said that it was his body and blood--makes it pretty clear that he didn't mean it *literally*. <

Not necesarily. You're assuming Jesus can't claim bread and wine as part of His Body unless He ingests it. He doesn't ingest YOU, but He considers YOU part of His Mystical Body. ;)

Certainly, if Jesus can idenify YOU as a part of His Body, He can identify physical food (which His Body consisted of) as part of His literal Body without eating it, but giving it over to us, His Mystical Body.

>He couldn't have since he was alive and well at that time.<

That's a false assumption based on narrow logic. That's the same narrow logic that some people employ when they say, "Jesus can't be God because He prayed to God."

>He said that everytime we celebrated that meal--the Passover meal in particular--we should remember Him when we eat and drink.... <

No, it wasn't referring to the Passover. It was referring to that new meal He just instituted.

>Later, St. Paul says that eating the bread is literally a participation in the body of Christ - not merely symbolic.

Please post this Scripture so that I can see it for myself<

1Cr 10:16 "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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

>My version? Jesus holds the bread up and says "This is my body"...obviously this isn't literally so... <

You still haven't said what Jesus truly meant by His words.

Did He mean: "This is LIKE my Body."

Did He mean: "This is SIMILAR to my Body."

Did He mean: "This REPRESENTS my Body."

Did He mean: "This SYMBOLIZES my Body."

For you, like Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what 'is' means."

>I can't honestly say that this has anything to do with communion and what Jesus meant with the symbolic elements. But I am confident that we are part of the body of Christ in a very spiritual sense.<

We are part of the Mystical Body of Christ in a physical sense. Jesus is physical and so are we. If you deny Jesus is physical, you deny He is the Christ.

>You are right--this is extreme and in my opinion--absurd. <

No problem. It's just an analogy I was hoping would help you see it's not as absurd (illogical) as you assume.

>I find it to be a totally pagan concept.<

Can you give one reason why you find the idea that we are part of Christ's Mystical Body to be pagan? His Mystical Body is not simply spiritual, it is also Physical. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, if you suppose we are not part of Christ's Mystical Body (which is physical) then you are the one with the pagan view.

>It's not biblical Max--and if you think that this section of John 6 must be taken so absurdly literal--then why not the rest of John? <

I've already dealt with this question.

>I am talking about *absurd literalism* Max--not revealed mysteries of God. Transubstantation is not revealed in the Scriptures when you read the gospel correctly. And if you need to take John's symbolic message in this absurd way--then you must follow it throughout his gospel. <

I didn't even quote John's gospel. I quoted Jesus Christ's words of Institution.

>"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."<

We are like sheep.

>"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me."<

Jesus is like a vine.

>For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe."<

Yes, this is figurative.

>It is clear to me what the symbolic correlation is. Comes=receiving or eating., and you will never hunger. If this was to be played out to the absurd literalism that you make it--then those of us who receive Jesus through communion--should never be hungry again--in the literal sense. But we know that this is a spiritual correlation because those who receive Jesus never hunger spiritually. <

You assume that I base my views on this verse. I don't and have never used this verse toback my position. Sorry to disappoint.

>Those who believe=drinking the wine--will never thirst again. Of course--we know this is symbolically speaking.<

Yes. Jesus was speaking figuratively here.

You assume that Jesus is only allowed to speak figuratively whenever you encounter a "hard" or mystical saying.

Jesus claimed He and His Father are One. Is this figurative?

Elizabeth exclaimed that Mary was the mother of the Lord. Was this figurative since surely Mary's Creator can't literally be born of her womb (according to narrow logic)?

You must realize that your body, Faith, is physically part of Christ's Mystical Body. Christ's Mystical Body is not simply something figurative. It truly existed on this physical earth and was crucified, died, and rose again and literally and physically exists today. It will return someday and be united with the rest of His Mystical Body, the Church.

I'm going to use an analogy that may test your sensibilities, but I think it's worth expressing...

When you marry your spouse, you become spiritually one. When you have sexual relations with your spouse, your physical bodies become one.

(Forgive the graphic language. I believe we're all adults here, though.)

When sperm leaves the body of the male and enters the female, the sperm still belongs to the male. It's still part of his body, though it is not directly connected to his body. When a child is born from this process, the man can rightly claim the child as his own because it is still part of him... flesh of his flesh.

The sperm is not figuratively part of the male's body. The child is not figuratively part of his father. They are literally and physically one.

In the same sense, Jesus was holding true bread in his hands at the Supper. It never ceased being bread even as He claimed it as part of His Body. He held it in His hands and OWNED it as part of His Body. Then, He broke it and gave it to the disciples to eat, so it would become one with their physical bodies.

We are one with Christ, not only spiritually, but also physically as we partake of the bread, which is truly part of His Mystical Body.

"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1Cr 10:17

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.

I assumed you were talking about Transubstantiation, Max.

Yours seems to be a doctrine somewhere inbetween Transubstantiation like the Catholic Church believes...and the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ in communion--like the Protestant believes.

I have never heard this point before.., and I am not sure if it makes sense to me.

I believe that we are part of Christ's body only spiritually speaking for now--until the time of Christ's return--when He establishes His kingdom in the physical--when He raises us in our new immortal and incoruptable bodies--which I do believe will be physical. We will receive spiritual bodies., and we will not be like ghosts or something.

But until then--I believe it is all spiritual.

I believe the bread and wine are spiritual food---to feed our spiritual hunger for God. Jesus represents this with bread and wine-- and points us not only to the cross where He sacrifices His physical flesh and blood--so that we could live eternally in heaven with Him one day--but also to the resurrection--which is new life in Him.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

For new seer..

I am sorry I missed your question:

Faith; If Our Lord did not mean that His flesh was literal, why did he let the crowd walk away. They said that this was too hard a saying, just as you are now doing. He threw away three years of work on one remark, but all He said to the few remaining was "Are you also going to leave"? HJe could have clarified that it wa only a metaphor... but He did not.

-- A new seer (Maxie@2345rw.com), October 23, 2004.

I think that those who walked away--did not walk away because they didn't understand Jesus. Quite the opposite actually. I think they understood Him perfectly--but rejected Him.

Ya see--they weren't arguing because Jesus said he was bread--or that they were to eat Him., but they were grumbling because He said he was bread that came down from heaven. They knew exactly what this meant--and they rejected Him as being God--because they reasoned.."Isn't this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" In other words, He can't be from heaven--he can't be the promised Messiah--he is just the carpenter's son whom they have known.

John 6:37-52

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" (notice the focus is not about bread)

"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. (believes what?.. that Jesus is bread? I don't think so..)

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (How does one live forever according to Scripture? pointing to His crucifixion, I suggest that it is by faith in Jesus Christ and what He accomplished at Calvary--that we are saved and receive eternal life.)

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (But this was not really the problem they were having. They had put up a pretentious fight--and Jesus became a stumbling block because they wanted it that way...)

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (Jesus is speaking of a spiritual truth here. He uses the elements and His symbolic language to make a deeper spiritual connection with them)

I think he allows those who refuse to believe in Him to walk away because it is a faith issue. We must believe that Jesus is who He says He is., and we must want Him--really want Him. We must have a hunger for Him.

Jesus said:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." .

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.