Pledge of Future Glory: The Eucharist as the Promise of Salvation

416 comments

1. J.H. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, describes the Eucharist as “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.”

   Casual Protestant Observer: Everything V-2 says is biblically bankrupt.

   J.H. So what does it mean to say that the Eucharist is a “pledge of future glory,” and why does the Catholic Church teach this?

   C.P.O. The Roman Catholic Church teaches this because she is biblically illiterate. On the contrary, it is not having ingested the Eucharist which confirms our sonship, but rather it is God’s pledge of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the “seal of our inheritance”…period (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30-1; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). In other words, the Spirit is given to us as a downpayment in pledge that the entire inheritance will follow because we are joint-heirs with Christ. Now wasn’t that easy?

   J.H. The Eucharist [is] a Promise of Heaven [because Jesus says] “if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

   C.P.O. Excuse me, but any commentary on planet earth will tell you that the Lord was referring to the giving of his flesh on CALVARY’S CROSS, and not that it was to be the main course on the dinner menu.

   J.H. So several times in a row, Jesus explicitly ties reception of the Eucharist with a promise of eternal life, of being raised with Him on the Last Day. But why?

   C.P.O. Jesus does NOT “explicitly” tie reception of the Eucharist with the promise of eternal life; rather he is tying the METAPHORICAL concept of “eating him” with the literal truth of BELIEVING in him! EATING = BELIEVING, my dear Mr. Heschmeyer. While it is true He repeated four times the command to eat His flesh (vs. 53-56) this was because He had repeated four times it was imperative to believe in Him! (vs. 29, 35, 40, 47). He is making the SAME POINT to believe in Him in all eight verses by merely intensifying that vital point through metaphor. Making the same point in both plain and figurative language is simply an effective method to reinforce a bottom-line truth without being redundant. See also “lazarus sleepeth”(aka, “Lazarus is DEAD”).
   Again, the Last Supper was not to be implemented until a full year later, so he was definitely not tying ingestion of the Eucharist to eternal life…FOR THEM, at least; nor could his audience have understood that to be his meaning since human beings cannot see the future. Neither then could they have obeyed his command to eat his flesh at that time (even if Transubstantiation were true). Answer the question Mr. Heschmeyer: How could his audience have obeyed the command to eat his flesh right then and there if that’s what Jesus meant? Is it not true that Christ was asking them to do something right there on the spot? Eating his flesh would have been impossible and you know it. But what they COULD do right there on the spot was to BELIEVE ON HIM, which in fact, was the main point of the gospel of John 6 in particular, and the gospel of John in general.

   J.H. St. Thomas Aquinas says…

   C.P.O. I am not impressed by T.A….AT ALL. His view on the Eucharist may be summed up by one of his hymns: “Though the senses fail to see; FAITH ALONE which sight forsaketh, shows true hearts the mystery.”
   Joke of the day: Catholicism has a hissy fit over the Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”, but it is perfectly alright to believe in the invisible miracle of Transubstantiation… by FAITH ALONE!

   J.H. When we look at the Eucharist, we see Christ (although the accidents are of bread and wine)

   C.P.O. Baloney. You are at liberty to believe Christ has shrunk himself sown to the size of a Ritz cracker, but it will never be true. The Lord has not asked us to walk around with our eyes “wide shut” and deny our senses! The testimony of our God-given senses MUST be the testimony of God Himself, who has commissioned the messengers (i.e., the eyes, ears, nose, mouth and sense of touch), to deliver the verdict. And NONE of these senses validate Transubstantiation. One look at all the miracles in the Bible confirms that the Creator of the universe brought them to pass so it would be amazing for all to see. But the RCC wants us to believe in the miracle of the Eucharist for NO ONE TO SEE???? Not on your life.
   Moreover, God’s special revelation in Jesus Christ is backed up with certifiable evidence (John 3:11; Acts 1:21-22; 1 John 1:1-4), and as a result, it is considered true (3:33, 5:32-33, 19:35, 21:24, 3 John 12). In fact, the entire gospel of John, for all intents and purposes appears as a legal defense for Messiah’s claims. He called Himself the “Faithful Witness” (Rev 1:5) who regarded His personal testimony as valid (John 8:14) stressing that His AMAZING WORKS affirmed His divine status (John 5:36, 10:25, 10:38, 14:11, 15:24). Aware that according to Jewish law, one’s own witness without confirmation invalidates the testimony (5:31, 8:13-18) He summoned other witnesses (John 4:2, 18:20; Acts 1:8), including Christians today who present evidence for many prophecies being fulfilled perfectly. The same was seen in the Old Testament. Israel was witness to the fact that God alone had the power to save, not only by delivering them so often, but by giving them predictions of future events. All of this is said to reinforce the theological importance of how strongly the witness testimony of our senses is and how Transubstantiation, being forensically bankrupt, simply cannot meet the high standards of jurisprudence set forth in Holy Writ.
   Hence, any supposedly biblical argument the Catholic may wish to bring to the table..CANNOT be what God is saying because every single one of their defenses (and we do mean every single one) ultimately wrestles His word into a boxing match with the very senses He provided us!

   J.H. As I’ve explained in the past, there were two stages to a Jewish wedding… That’s the promise of a Bridegroom to His newlywed, and so it’s not a surprise that this spousal imagery…

   C.P.O. Yes, let’s talk about spousal imagery. While we are confident that the smooth fabric of Scripture leaves Transubstantiation in tattered shreds, did you know it carries no weight over the authority of our God-given senses? This is because the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of our senses are MARRIED dance partners. One is not any more important than the other. The testimony of our senses should be considered the testimony of God Himself. The magisterium demands we set aside the witness of our senses, but that is like asking one partner to dance the “Anniversary Waltz” alone. This premise cannot possibly be true because, again…. Scripture and our senses are married. While the husband (Scripture) is out to work, the wife (our senses) is home taking care of the family doctrine. She does not even need her husband to debunk Transubstantiation since her senses alone are perfectly capable to see that the theatrical sensation of the Mass deserves every bad review it has received. All the empirical evidence for the show-stopping performance of the “miraculous Eucharist” is missing, and thus, it must be recognized as a logical absurdity. We trusted the testimony of our senses to bring us to the gospel (Romans 10:17; 2 Tim 3:15), and so we trust them to reveal the falsity of the “miraculous Eucharist” as well. Consequently, since Transubstantiation is, to the wife, dead on arrival, there is no immediate need to call the husband to deal the final blow, since it’s impossible to kill a doctrine which is already dead, just as it’s impossible to kill a man who is already dead.

   J.H. St. John Paul II describes this in his 2003 encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia…[He says]
   “This pledge of the future resurrection comes from the fact that the flesh of the Son of Man, given as food, is his body in its glorious state after the resurrection.”

   C.P.O. So you believe you eat “his body in its glorious state after the resurrection”??? Excuse me,
   but Roman Catholics are in fact, left up a creek without a paddle when asked if they are eating a “PRE” or “POST” resurrection body because the Pope has muddied the waters with a commotion of contradictions. Apparently, you are unaware that
   the Pope flip-flops to eating a PRE-resurrection body:
   ”the body given up for us and made present under the sacramental signs, was the same body which Mary had conceived in her womb” (Ecclesia, 16).
   But excuse me, that was a body which was not yet glorified (John 7:39) so how can it be his body in its glorious state after the resurrection? Answer? It can’t be. The Pope is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, thus exposing the corrupt nature of his doctrine.
   Again, the Pope reverts back to a pre-resurrection stand: we read that in communion, “we receive His body which He gave up for us on the Cross” (Ecclesia, 55). But excuse me, that “hung up on the cross” body had not yet ascended into heaven to receive the glory and honor that awaited him, and was thus, a body that was not yet glorified! (John 7:39). Anyone with a thinking brain should realize that the RCC simply cannot have it both ways.

   J.H. Eucharistic metabolism into the Body of Christ preserves us from eternal corruption.

   C.P.O. However, the alleged metabolic “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist only lasts until the stomach acids attack it, whereupon, your “jesus” makes a fast exit per CCC 1377, and is not “metabolized” at all. His visit lasts only a few minutes at most; less if we suppose the salivary acids are to blame. It’s actually quite amusing to contemplate that, for Catholics, Christ is unable to win the fight in the acidic war zone of the body which he himself created.

   J.H. When you eat something, it is metabolized into part of your body: [We read]
   “For those things by being within me became my blood and flesh, the corresponding nutriment by its power of adaptation being changed into the form of my body.” Simple enough.”

   C.P.O. It most certainly is not that “simple”. Again, the catholic “jesus” is NOT metabolized into the digestive system per 1377, end of story. True Christians believe Christ is with us 24/7, per his promise. Catholics evidently do not.

   J.H. St Augustine said: “eat the bread of the strong; you will not transform me into yourself, but I will transform you into me.”

   C.P.O. You fail to alert your readers that commentators agree that Augustine was inconsistent. For he also gave the Protestant position in all its eloquent and metaphorical beauty:
   1) ‘You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor are you going to drink the blood which those who will crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament.”—Exposition on the Psalms, Psalm XCIX. VIII/

   2) “To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? BELIEVE, and thou hast eaten already.—–NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.

   3) “For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes, eats…”—-NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 26, §1.

   4) “Certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.”

   I trust that what I’ve said will come as a shock to the system to most. I will come back if you don’t mind, with “living water” to douse the flames of their objections.

   Reply

   1. “Excuse me, but any commentary on planet earth will tell you that the Lord was referring to the giving of his flesh on CALVARY’S CROSS, and not that it was to be the main course on the dinner menu.”

      The Greek of The Gospel of John disagrees with you.

      John 6:53 the Greek word for “Eat” is φάγητε. Which means, “To eat (figuratively).”

      The very next verse, John 6:54 the Greek word for “Eat” is τρώγων. Which means, “To eat (literally).”

      Say what you will, Jesus literally meant he wants us to eat Him. It would take a twisted mind to come up with something else that Jesus meant. He really mean to literally have us put Him into our mouth, bite down, swallow and digest him.

      “Anyone with a thinking brain should realize that the RCC simply cannot have it both ways.”

      Are you different from when you were conceived in your mother’s womb? Is that single cell not “You”? Will the body you take your last breath from not equally be “You” as well? The Eucharist is the same body that was in the Manger, that got lost in the Temple, that preached the Sermon on the Mount, the same body who forgave those who killed Him, the same body that emerged from the tomb, The same body that taught the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus, and didn’t disappear from them, but was still present in the bread, the same body that St. Thomas put his fingers into before exclaiming, “My Lord and My God!” the same body that ascended to Heaven.

      The RCC can indeed have it both ways, and every way in between.

      “You are at liberty to believe Christ has shrunk himself sown to the size of a Ritz cracker, but it will never be true.”

      Why do you say this? God can do anything He wants. He is God. If there is even one thing that God cannot do, then that cannot be God. If you don’t believe Jesus Christ is God, such as the Arians, or the muslims, then this statement makes sense, a mere man cannot do that. But if you believe that Jesus is God, then who are you to tell God what He cannot do? If God wants to shrink himself down to the size of a Ritz cracker, He can do it.

      We have the words of Jesus, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day…” Jesus wants us to eat Him. Either He is God, and He can make Himself into a form that we can eat, and we should eat Him because He tells us to because He loves us so much that he literally wants to be inside of us. Or He is not God, and He can’t do that, and we are worshiping a piece of bread.

      History is not on your side on this one because the only groups who agree with you were all declared heretics centuries ago.

      “I trust that what I’ve said will come as a shock to the system to most.”

      Not to me. I used to be exactly like you. Then I converted to the Catholic Church.

      Reply

      1. Rob quoted me previously saying, “Excuse me, but any commentary on planet earth will tell you that in vs. 51 the Lord was referring to the giving of his flesh on CALVARY’S CROSS, and not that it was to be the main course on the dinner menu.”

         R: The Greek of The Gospel of John disagrees with you. John 6:53 the Greek word for “Eat” is φάγητε.

         Casual Protestant Observer: That is surely not the issue and you are simply confused. The topic of vs. 51 was the FLESH that Jesus would “GIVE”, and I said that it is a universal fact that all biblical scholars would tell you Jesus was referring to the flesh he would give on the cross for the life of the world and NOT the Eucharist! You have not disproved that in the least, nor have you provided anyone to back you up. Your complaint must then be dismissed.

         R: Say what you will, Jesus literally meant he wants us to eat Him.

         C.P.O. No, he did not.

         R: It would take a twisted mind to come up with something else that Jesus meant.

         C.P.O. To make such an accusation shows a VERY deep-seated ignorance of Holy Writ, which is what I have been saying all along. Is it the mark of a twisted mind if one decides to compare Scripture with Scripture to find our theology? (1 Cor 2:13). If not, I will now refer to the book of Ezekiel…

         “So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey” (Ezekiel 2:8-3:3:1-10).

         Just as Ezekiel was told to eat from the book he saw in outstretched hands, so too was John told to “take and eat” the little book held in outstretched hands in Revelation 10, which in turn reminds us of when Christ told His disciples to “take and eat” what was in HIS outstretched hands at Supper.
         This “eating of books” graphically illustrates the dual reality pertaining to both the gladness and sadness of the message: the sweetness of God’s word in His final victory was coupled with some bitter truths about judgments to come, which nauseated these prophets. Nevertheless, “eating” was meant to INTERNALIZE the message, making it an inward passion, ready to deliver to others, for the prophet was told, “Hear with your ears and receive into your heart all my words” (Ez 3:10; cf. Psalm 119:9, 103; Jer 15:16; Job 23:12). This is precisely what we are to do when we “eat” the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (!!!).

         The books (or scrolls) that were eaten were not made of any sort of literal paper because our bodies were not designed to digest those materials. Neither is the Catholic Eucharist made up of the literal Christ, which our bodies were not designed to digest either. The books, as well as the bread in Communion, were indeed meant to be consumed, but the overarching purpose of both was to digest what was said and then proclaim those truths: “Eat what thou findest; eat this scroll and go speak to the house of Israel” (Ez 3:2). Thus, the concept of eating which is defined as incorporating into our being what we have heard and believed, has a rock-solid foundation that Rome totally avoids in her catechism because it would obviously rain on her parade.

         R: He really meant to literally have us put Him into our mouth, bite down, swallow and digest him.

         C.P.O. Under no circumstances whatsoever does even the RCC believe Jesus makes his way through your digestive track! (CCC 1377). Someone at the top realized the lunacy of what you yourself are proposing; namely, that it would mean the Savior would end up in the city sewer which is so disgusting I will not mention it further. Anyway, to get around that nasty problem, they issued him only a TEMPORARY visa when crossing the border into the catholic belly. Thus, when the stomach acids begin their attack, your “other jesus” (2 Cor 11:4) makes a fast escape going who knows where after doing who knows WHAT in those 60 seconds in the stomach.

         R: The Disciples on the Road to Emmaus, [were aware that] he was still present in the bread

         C.P.O. Not on your life! The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread (CCC 1329). They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well. But this is pure eisegesis! The breaking, blessing and distribution of bread was simply characteristic of Jesus, and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves wherein bread and FISH were used, it is out of order to presume it does in Luke 24 where bread and WINE were used. Yet the Pope advises that, “the faithful can IN SOME WAY relive the experience of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 6), which reminds us of the claim that the event at Calvary becomes “IN A CERTAIN WAY, present and real” (CCC 1363). We adamantly deny these potent sedatives, obviously designed to make the laity drowsy. The medication to get to know Jesus “in some way” and a “certain way” via Transubstantiation, is a deadly prescription. It is an open invitation to think whatever one wishes this “some way” and “certain way” to be!

         Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? If it wasn’t the nail scars in his hands, we do know that his resurrected body was altered from his previous appearance (you can check Rev chapter 1 to see John’s description of him). But the point is that since their eyes were kept from recognizing him initially (and probably accounts for Mary Mag not recognizing him either at first), when Jesus removed the vail from their eyes, it could very well be that they caught a glimpse of his appearance like we see on the Mount of Transfiguration, which of course had nothing to do with Transubstantiation. After they saw that, he disappeared. There is no indication that they knew him as a result of T having occurred.
         Again, the pervasive use of this Text is so ingrained in the Catholic mind, it must be cut down further and bears repeating. At the table with these men on the road to Emmaus, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. During the miracle of the loaves, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply characteristic of the Lord; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is out of order to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus.

         R: God can do anything He wants. If there is even one thing that God cannot do, then that cannot be God.

         C.P.O. Well, the Bible says God cannot lie, so that fulfills the one requirement you say he cannot do, and hence, you reveal that you do not believe in the God of the Bible.
         Now I would tell you further that there is ANOTHER thing the Lord cannot do. Look into the field. There is a rooster and a caterpillar. Yes, Almighty power could turn the rooster into a caterpillar and vice versa, just as John the Baptist said God could turn these rocks into the sons of Abraham (Matt 3:9). But to make the first thing become a second thing, which hides under the appearance of the first thing, is something Almighty power could NOT do, since neither could achieve the purpose for which they were made in their original form! To suppose then, that God could turn the rooster into a caterpillar… UNDER THE FORM OF A ROOSTER, are the ravings of a maniac. Hence, neither is the bread turned into the body of Christ… under the form of bread. Aquinas ruffles the feathers of this rooster by saying that God can make “diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject.” We submit that this is nothing but a bunch of cock-a-doodle-doo!
         (Summa Theologica, pt. 3, q. 75, art. 3; pt. 3, q. 77, art. 1).

         Reply

         1. Good morning!

            God created the universe from nothing. Then there was dust. Out of that He made man and breathed His spirit into him. God put His spirit and an eternal soul into man. Of course He can and does do whatever He wants. He said the bread is His body. Not was or will be, but IS.

            Those who deny Him deny eternity. Some fine night the rooster will wait for day and find nothing to crow about. Wake up, will you?

            Reply

            1. M: He said the bread is His body. Not was or will be, but IS.

               C.P.O. As I said elsewhere on here, where then is the army of Greek scholars who will put us to shame and say “This is my body” is not a figure of speech based on the textbook definition of “is”? You are saying that when Christ uses the word “is”, that he means the outward appearance of the bread is one thing, while the inner reality is another.
               WHERE oh where, are the scholars who support this definition of “is”?

               Answer? No such army exists because no such definition exists (i.e., it NEVER means that while the outward appearance of an object is one thing, the inward reality is unrelated to the subject to which it adheres).

               You are refuted, and are in fact, the one who needs to wake up.

            2. Hey Gunfire,

               Whatever. So there’s your learned refutation. You fail to understand scripture in black and white. So of course you may have a problem with English too. Then there is philosophy and logic. HAH. You make me laugh and cry at the same time. There’s a conundrum for ya. Go figure.

         2. “Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? ”

            Did you ever stop to consider that you just made that up?

            Also, it’s not like they would have been invisible on the way.

            Reply

            1. M: Did you ever stop to consider that you just made that up?

               C.P.O. As I said elsewhere,
               If they didn’t recognize him by the nail prints on his wrist, we do know that his resurrected body was altered from his previous appearance (you can check Rev chapter 1 to see John’s description of him). But the point is that since their eyes were kept from recognizing him initially (and probably accounts for Mary Mag not recognizing him either at first), when Jesus removed the vail from their eyes, it could very well be that they caught a glimpse of his appearance like we see on the Mount of Transfiguration, which of course had nothing to do with Transubstantiation. So after they could have seen that, he disappeared. There is no indication that they knew him as a result of T having occurred.

               Again, the pervasive use of the Emma’s episode is so ingrained in the Catholic mind, it must be cut down further and bears repeating. At the table with these men on the road to Emmaus, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. During the miracle of the loaves, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply characteristic of the Lord; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is out of order to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus.

            2. Notice that this doesn’t even touch on his claim about the nail prints.

      2. Rob – Thank you.

         Reply

   2. You are at liberty to believe Christ has shrunk himself sown to the size of a Ritz cracker, but it will never be true.

      Why not? He was even smaller when he was newly conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. If you believe “it will never be true” you are necessarily denying that Jesus was the Christ.

      The Lord has not asked us to walk around with our eyes “wide shut” and deny our senses! The testimony of our God-given senses MUST be the testimony of God Himself, who has commissioned the messengers (i.e., the eyes, ears, nose, mouth and sense of touch), to deliver the verdict

      An unwise statement to make after you’ve accused other people of being “Biblically illiterate.”

      “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen”
      and again
      “For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.”

      It is Biblically illiterate to demand the evidence of your sense win over Christ’s words.

      Reply

      1. Hi Mary,

         Your point about size and truth is excellent.

         I noted the reason and the love imbuing Joe’s article. Then there was the insult-laden sarcastically-twisted, theologically fantastical dribble-drabble hatred of truth.

         My response? Mass with Holy Eucharist.

         Reply

         1. Margo my dear,

            I trust you realize that you (and everyone else) have completely failed to interact with 95% of the evidence I have provided, and think you deserve a gold medal for simply labeling me as a hater of truth. I can assure you that the real Jesus, whom you do not know, is not impressed; neither would anyone else be observing this thread that supported your position, seeing Roman Catholic foot-soldiers have offered nothing of substance to keep the case for Transubstantiation from melting, just like the Wicked Witch of the West did at the end of “The Wizard of Oz”.

            Reply

            1. Here’s the problem, BB dog. I wasn’t talking to you. Got it? Your posts, full of anger and ash, contain no evidence worthy of argument.

            2. M….to say that my arguments present “NO” evidence worthy of argument, is my belly laugh for the day. Anyone reading this post in its entirety knows your comment is simply an escape hatch to run away from the fact that you cannot answer my objections.

            3. “I trust you realize that you (and everyone else) have completely failed to interact with 95% of the evidence I have provided”

               I trust you realize that you have arrogated to yourself the position of judging whether we have done so, but that imposes no duty on us to accept your judgment.

      2. Maria Marvelous,
         I am certainly aware that the Messiah was at one time, the size of a pinhead, but that truth does not militate against my denial that he NOW chooses to shrink himself down into the size of a Ritz cracker for public consumption.
         I have given MORE than enough evidence on this thread to support my conclusions, with those in your camp giving me pitifully little. In any case you bring up another objection; namely accusing me along the lines of doubting Thomas and John 20:29:
         “Blessed are they who have not seen, and have believed” (Jn 20:29).

         However, we err if we set out to pit the divine authority of His word against the divine authority of our God-given senses! As previously mentioned, they are dance partners and cannot be separated. To believe someone’s testimony without seeing it firsthand is one thing. To believe in contradiction to the senses, is another. Jesus made the above statement in reaction to the unreasonable demand of Thomas. Few of His disciples were favored with the evidence of sense with regard to His resurrection, because the witness of others was well established and sufficient grounds for conviction. Thomas is then reproved, even though his unbelief was satisfied with the kind of proof he wanted. Millions since have believed in the risen Christ without seeing, and He promises blessing on those who do. But there is no blessing promised for that absurd kind of faith that makes men succumb to superstition by renouncing the testimony of God in the very senses He provided us!

         Aquinas composed another hymn that goes like this: “In touch, taste, sight; although deceived we be; the word of God is quite enough for me.”

         In other words, “I will sooner believe the testimony of ‘This is my body’, rather than the testimony of my senses”… as if the two contradicted each other! They do not. We recoil at the advice of Aquinas which, for all practical purposes, asks us to deceive ourselves outright, and then shut down our faculties all in favor of a literal reading of, “This is my body.” The more realistic approach is that “This is my body” is a figure of speech and the testimony of our senses complement and confirm it. That being so, every man, via the use of Scripture and his senses, has an immediate revelation from God that Transubstantiation is a LIE. Deny it? Where then is the army of Greek scholars who will put us to shame and say “This is my body” is not a figure of speech based on the textbook definition of “is”? Answer? No such army exists because no such definition exists (i.e., it never means that while the outward appearance of an object is one thing, the inward reality is unrelated to the subject to which it adheres).

         Reply

         1. “I am certainly aware that the Messiah was at one time, the size of a pinhead, but that truth does not militate against my denial that he NOW chooses to shrink himself down into the size of a Ritz cracker for public consumption.”

            Yes, it does. You openly ridiculed the notion based on the size. You admit that you accept that he did indeed “shrink himself down.” You offer no reason why the size is worthy of ridicule in one case but not the other, and you do not recant your claim that the size makes it worthy of ridicule.

            “I have given MORE than enough evidence on this thread to support my conclusions”

            You flatter yourself.

            Reply

         2. Perhaps you haven’t heard. Greece is nearly bankrupt, and the Greek scholars have all died.

            Reply

   3. Bull,

      Your first sentence, in addition to being a blanket generalization, offers an incongruent logically inconsistent and contradictory claim: “Everything V-2 says is biblically bankrupt.” Vatican II documents contain much scripture.

      Reply

      1. Bull,

         You claim that everything Vatican II says is biblically bankrupt. Yes or no: Is the scripture within Vatican II bankrupt?

         Reply

         1. D. You claim that everything Vatican II says is biblically bankrupt. Yes or no: Is the scripture within Vatican II bankrupt?

            C.P.O. Learn how to read! I was responding specifically to the claim that the Eucharist is “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.”

            All of ***THAT*** is biblically bankrupt, and is nothing more than a bunch of religious soundbites, lulling those who believe it into a spiritual coma.

            Reply

            1. Bull,

               Bull,

               I read you correctly. Here is your quote, your handle, the date/time stamp. Following your quote I repeat my question.

               “Barry the Bulldog says:
               June 9, 2017 at 9:51 pm

               Casual Protestant Observer: Everything V-2 says is biblically bankrupt.”

               Yes or No: Is the scripture within Vatican II bankrupt?

            2. If you can not read what you have written yourself, it imposes no duty on us to not read it ourselves. You said exactly what she said you said. It does not matter what you said it in response to, that is what you said. It would be shameful to even feign that you didn’t say it. To feign that, and to help arrogant insults on the person who actually read what you wrote, is to compound your sins.

         2. D. Here is your quote, your handle, the date/time stamp.

            C.P.O. Oh stop it. I do not need for you to quote me as I know very well it was the very first sentence I wrote on this thread in response to the author’s article. Moreover, I do not need YOU to interpret my own statements since I am the one who has the right to interpret what I say thank you very much. Now I very clearly explained what I meant when I said “everything Vatican 1 said is bunk”… and if you can’t accept that explanation, then perhaps you need to get your head examined.
            I’m responding to your fruitless inquiries so that any future readers will see to what lengths Catholics will go to in avoid the main evidence provided here which exposes Trent as anti-christ, “transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor 11) but who are actually servants of the devil.
            It may be found on 6/10 at 4:48.
            Face it, if you can’t prove me wrong about Trent’s error, which annihilates their infallibility proclamation, you are as lost as Osama Bin Ladin.

            Reply

            1. “Moreover, I do not need YOU to interpret my own statements since I am the one who has the right to interpret what I say thank you very much. ”

               False. Everyone who reads them has the right to interpret them.

               “Now I very clearly explained what I meant when I said”

               Nah, you asserted, not explained, that was what you actually said, without even having the grace to admit that your wording was so much as unfortunate. It is the sort of thing that casts down on everything you say.

      2. DL – welcome to the fray!

         Reply

         1. 🙂

            Reply

   4. Bare – Why do you appear compelled to come to a site like this? There is something precious here which you appear bent on taking down. It seems a pity that your mother apparently never taught (or you didn’t learn) that if you have nothing constructive to offer you’d best be off without that offering. Those who live by the life of the Holy Spirit show so by His fruits. Your posts demonstrate a sore deficiency. Natural reason too is bent and twisted. The ineluctable conclusion is that the moral teaching offered here bothers you to unclear thinking, raw destructive emoting, and rage-filled darting of scripture. If the Catholic Church offers much that you find repulsive, you waste your energy, your time, and your freedom here. You’ve shown me once again that a lesson of the Resurrection is lost on many: Christ is alive! You’ve shown me once again how many fail to understand scripture: The gates of hell shall not prevail upon His church and His Mystical Body. You can’t win, sonny. Why do you try?

      Check this out: Try some CPO sites. How many Catholics there spew there at CPO teachings? I’ll be waiting for that stat.

      Reply

      1. M: Why do you appear compelled to come to a site like this?

         CPO: Catholics are unsaved, whether you believe it or not, and we are called to open our mouth.

         M: There is something precious here which you appear bent on taking down.

         CPO: I would luvvvvv to know what you find so “precious” about the RCC. The biblical evidence leads to the conclusion that it is nothing other than counterfeit Christianity, requiring (in addition to the Eucharist), that “it is altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (“Unam Sanctum). THAT, my dear, is unmitigated gall, a false gospel, satanic deception and a slap in the face to the one on Calvary’s cross. “Precious”, INDEED!

         M: Those who live by the life of the Holy Spirit show so by His fruits.

         CPO: I have repeated over 10x on this thread that the Council of Trent claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet we discovered that their fruit was ROTTEN to the core. Take your own advice madam and leave the RCC before the Grim Reaper pays you a call.

         M: Your posts demonstrate a sore deficiency [of fruit].

         CPO: Do not tell me for a moment Margo that if I put on the old charity church mouse routine that your reaction to any of the biblical evidence I provided would be any different. I am WELL aware of how to behave properly, but the RCC has come right out and called us Satanic (which I suppose they have every right to do) but as a result, the time for pleasantries is now OVER. There is a war for souls going on just as God called men to war in the OT time and time again, and we are called to fight as well in this day and age. Haven’t you read of the Christian’s armor in the book of Ephesians?
         Anyway, you say my posts demonstrate a sore deficiency of fruit. But in actuality, YOU my dear, ARE my fruit. What do I mean?
         You forget that Jesus said, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you”. In other words, if your ministry is all kisses and hugs and not “creating any waves”, there is something wrong with your operation. We are told the gospel is OFFENSIVE to the lost, so we must expect the flack, just like Jesus who “endured such contradiction of sinners against himself” (Heb 12:3). Consequently, I rejoice in your bitter resentment of me because you confirm I am walking the narrow road.

         M: [Your] natural reason too is bent and twisted.

         CPO. You have utterly failed to prove any such thing, now don’t be ridiculous. Being so full of hot air, you should be glad you weren’t born as a balloon. You would pop instantly.

         M: If the Catholic Church offers much that you find repulsive, you waste your energy, your time

         CPO: Apparently Jesus wouldn’t think so. He “HATES” false doctrine (Rev 2:15) and gave thumbs up to those who TOOK the time to examine those who claim they were apostles but were in fact, FRAUDS (Rev 2:2).

         M: Christ is alive!

         CPO: You can say those words till you’re blue in the face, but they will send you straight to hell because you believe in “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Cor 11:4. You may be likened to the 5 foolish virgins who were expecting the Bridegroom, but their high expectations were brought to naught. All their religiosity and all their “niceness” and all their good behavior, and even associating with all the right people (the 5 wise) did them no good whatsoever. Ditto for those in Matt 7, oh they were such NICE Christians who did many wonderful works for their Savior, or so they thought. But at the end of the day, THEY WERE REJECTED. It takes my breath away that you do not even consider that you too are on deck to be one of those VERY people who are also given the boot. AND YOU WILL be given the boot if you think for one minute that your oxymoronic “grace-produced-works-salvation” (CCC 1821) will save you. Or that attaching a salvific efficacy to good works will save you by shouting “We are saved by our faith AND our works”, completely contradicting Scripture which says exactly the opposite!…..and you will be THROWN out of his sight if you think for one minute that swallowing the physical anatomy of Jesus Christ will open’s heaven’s gate.
         Salvation does not have anything to do with an oral fixation because the gospel was simply never meant to satisfy our carnal appetite whatsoever. When the Lord took the witness stand 2,000 years ago, he told us under oath that he’d be picking up on the theme of eating and drinking in a symbolic sense right from the start of his ministry. He utilizes eating and drinking as an act of the intellect, saying that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled (Matt 5:6). Everyone knows you cannot actually get filled up by eating and drinking righteousness. Therefore, since the promise of being “filled”, (indicating salvation) clearly rests on a figure of speech, so too does the promise of eternal life rest on the figure of speech of being filled with Christ’s flesh and blood [i.e., as an act of the intellect, by faith alone in his glorious cross-work ***FOR*** us, not by the work of the Holy Spirit ***IN*** us].

         M: You’ve shown me once again how many fail to understand scripture:

         CPO: Spare me the “you don’t understand” quip my dear woman. I’ve studied Scripture for over 30 years, and if you don’t think I have a clue, I would advise readers to compare my posts with yours and once that’s done, the “you don’t understand” canard must fall to the ground.

         Reply

         1. Hey Bare –
            So my words about Christ being alive will “send me straight to hell”? Where might I find that in scripture? And his appointing you as my judge? Where might I find that in scripture?

            BTW, what made you change your mind about answering my posts? You said you wouldn’t answer my or AK’s posts because we referred to you as parsed. Now you are angry for referring to by your own chosen name.

            Reply

            1. M: So my words about Christ being alive will “send me straight to hell”? Where might I find that in scripture?

               CPO: I have answered that question at least 5 times on this thread. If you are believing in “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Cor 11:4…(which I say you ARE), then you may say “Christ is alive” till kingdom come because “another jesus” will NEVER save you.

               M: BTW, what made you change your mind about answering my posts? You said you wouldn’t answer my or AK’s posts because we referred to you as parsed.

               CPO: I said I would not answer your posts on the OTHER TOPICS you were bringing up to blow smoke over the main issue which you have avoided. I will not be side-tracked but will rather, make sure you lose sleep at night knowing the Catholic position for the infallibility of Trent’s position on the Eucharist is dead in the water.

   5. Jesus does NOT “explicitly” tie reception of the Eucharist with the promise of eternal life; rather he is tying the METAPHORICAL concept of “eating him” with the literal truth of BELIEVING in him!

      So what’s so appallingly disgusting about believing in Him?

      We know that followers left Him for preaching that He was the Bread of Life. We are explicitly told so. Furthermore, it was literally the only time that any follower left him for anything He preached, in any of the Gospels.

      An explanation that is innocuous is therefore inherently flawed.

      Reply

      1. M: So what’s so appallingly disgusting about believing in Him?

         C.P.O. Are you serious? Where did I ever suggest any such thing?

         M: An explanation that is innocuous is therefore inherently flawed.

         M: I’m so glad you said that my dear, because you just stepped in the mud. That is precisely the bottom line I am hitting you over the head with on this thread. Namely, A COUNCIL, SUCH AS THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, THAT CLAIMS TO SPEAK FOR GOD, YET IS ON RECORD AS HAVING MADE A FLUB IN THE MIDST OF THEIR INFALLIBILITY, IS THEREFORE AN INHERENTLY FLAWED AND NON-INFALLIBLE COUNCIL, RENDERING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEIR DOCTRINES AS OF THE DEVIL.

         So get a clue: If Jesus Christ did not give the gift of infallibility to the RCC, everything they say is fraudulent. There is no way out of it for you. Ergo, if you have any integrity left after considering my words, one should hope you will make a mad dash OUT of the RCC. Choosing to stay, without having a response to my allegation, simply puts you into the category of a fool who happily places a dunce cap on their hat for all to see.

         Reply

         1. Are you under the impression that anything you said in this comment even addressed what I said?

            A sad lack of integrity on your part.

            Reply

      2. M: We know that followers left Him for preaching that He was the Bread of Life. We are explicitly told so

         CPO: We are NOT “explicitly” told so. Immediately prior to their turning away (in 6:65) you will notice that Jesus said that it is impossible for anyone to come to Him unless the Father who had sent Him, draws him…. Verse 6:66 explicitly says, “AS A RESULT OF THISSSSS”, (not the fact that they were “explicitly” disgruntled over the Bread of Life discourse.) While the B.O.L. discourse may have CONTRIBUTED to their disgust, TECHNICALLY these fair-weather friends of the Lord’s had a BIG problem with the sovereignty of God in relation to man’s supposed “free will” to come to God whenever they feel like it.
         Yes, I know Mary, no one ever told you that before.
         Your welcome.

         Reply

         1. ” We are NOT “explicitly” told so.”

            That is a lie. Are you under the impression that by drawing out “this” into “THISSSSS” you can conceal that the pronoun refers to their distaste at the sermon? Claim it refers to that some ” BIG problem with the sovereignty of God in relation to man’s supposed “free will” to come to God whenever they feel like it.” — which just happens to be mentioned nowhere?

            “Yes, I know Mary, no one ever told you that before.”

            Well, yes, because that’s tin-foil-hat level crazy.

            “Your welcome.”

            I forgive you for lying to me.

            Reply

   6. Hahaha, do you smell God? Do you see Him? Do you deny God exists if you can’t see it with your senses?
      No where does Scripture say that our senses are out only medium of truth. This is stupidly Enlightenment era stuff.

      We are gifted with grace to believe that which we cannot believe by our own senses, so that we may not boast.
      If I pray to God for an increase of faith, and He grants this miracle, can I touch it with my hands? Nay, I cannot.

      Further, you seem to misunderstand our position. It is not that we deny any symbolic significance in the Eucharist: it is overflowing with it. But we also believe that as a Divine Mystery, it is so much more than that. It is the sacrifice of the mass, that is why the priest is called a priest. Jesus Christ is our Paschal lamb. The paschal lamb was cooked “crucified” on planks of wood and eaten with bitter spices. Similarly, we eat our Paschal Lamb as well. And bread is already typologically connected to the Real Presence as it is in the Tabernacle.
      It is beyond explanation. It is truly amazing, the centerpiece of the Faith, and known in mass since the beginning. The scholars agree it is within months of the Crucifixion. The Eucharist is actually about a literal translation of a Jewish sacrifice called the Todah, for instance, which is the same pure Sacrifice told to be instituted by the Christ. To limit it in so many ways is an insult.
      PS, I won’t argue because I don’t really have an account on this site and other people are already doing it. I hope the priest who runs this site can speak with you as well. I just made rhis account to comment this, I won’t get notifications for replies. Just adding my 2¥

      Reply

2. “God’s special revelation in Jesus Christ is backed up with certifiable evidence….”

   Only thing certifiable is you. Lord, what a depressingly long-winded string of daftly wired convolutions. Where would you Fundacostalists be without the Play-Doh of imagined metaphor?

   So many targets…let’s pick one….

   “For he also gave the Protestant position in all its eloquent and metaphorical beauty” – “You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor are you going to drink the blood which those who will crucify me are going to shed.”

   Of course Jesus said that….did Jesus intend for anyone rip off a chunk of his flesh or catch a cup of His Blood at the Cross? No…..Jesus had no intention of creating a Church of literal cannibals. Which is why, despite your raging obscurantism, is the simple, direct, and **Scripturally literal** truth of Transubstantiation as reflected in all those Gospels. Jesus meant for those who would follow to partake of His Sacrifice in the most literal way possible **for humans** by eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood in a way acceptable to our human nature, through the accidents of bread and wine as he clearly and irrefutably directed. Funny how Fundies scream at Catholics not taking the Bible literally when they just-can’t-seem to take the Bible literally, all because they are jealous of the One True Church.

   And one more….

   “But the RCC wants us to believe in the miracle of the Eucharist for NO ONE TO SEE???? Not on your life.”

   Do you believe in Grace? Can you mark it with your senses? Maybe you can feel it ruffling your pompadour.

   I’d be glad to do more, but it’s been a long day.

   I’d say your screed reflects less any defensible logic (not impressed by Thomas Aquinas? Maybe not in Deliverance-Land, your confusion is understandable) than Alinsky’s rule #5 ““Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” But it doesn’t work here. Bring truth, not meagre cherry-pickings, strung together with a weak taffy-pull of sadly inadequate sarcasm.

   Reply

   1. BTW…quoting Phillip Schaff, with his ecumenical attitude towards Catholicism? Might want to rethink that.

      Reply

      1. But in fact, I think it more apropos for YOU to rethink your VERY ecumenical Pope. Last October he jumped a plane to Switzerland to have tea and crackers with the Lutherans! And when he returned, he did not hesitate to set up a statue of Luther at the Vatican so everyone can now go kiss the idol’s feet, much like the one they already have of Peter, whose toes are all worn out by people like you who have slobbered it with so many kisses the toes have turned into pancakes.

         If this ecumenical madness was not enough to give all RC apologists a severe migraine, someone gave him a jumbo, leather bound copy of Luther’s 95 gripes against the Roman Catholic Church, which he accepted with a smile. See photo online.

         And to make this ecumenical comedy routine complete, he has now given the order to create a POSTAGE STAMP in honor of the Reformation! What’s next, the canonization of Luther???

         Upper management at the Vatican seems to be such a disappointment to so many, that perhaps you may want to consider setting up your ecclesiastical lodging elsewhere.

         Reply

         1. The ‘ecclesiastical’ Church consists of any/all Christian church/es. Ask your CPO since he appears to know a lot. The RCC consists of the entire Mystical Body of Christ, not simply and solely Christ’s Vicar on earth. Got it? I get you.

            Reply

            1. Margo…You ask, “Got it?”
               No, I do not, as you are being unclear.
               You were responding to my comments on the Pope’s ecumenical madness, but you say, “The RCC consists of the entire Mystical Body of Christ”. If you were trying to convey that the Lutherans are, by definition, part of the mystical body of Christ in the eyes of the RCC, you would be DEAD WRONG. I have already stated on this thread that Trent’s decree on the Eucharist categorizes anyone not believing in the Tranz as “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. Lutherans do not believe in the Tranz, and therefore they, along with me, are on their way to hell, according to official RC dogma.
               Got it?

            2. We talked about missing and misplaced puzzle pieces in the last article. My puzzle picture is complete, clear, precise, concise, and wonderful, with the Eucharist of the Mystical Body occupying center space. Maybe someday you’ll find your puzzle pieces and then humbly seek help in putting them together. Until then, good luck and good day.

   2. AK: [quoting me] “God’s special revelation in Jesus Christ is backed up with certifiable evidence”.

      Only thing certifiable is you.

      C.P.O. Of course, these 5 words make no sense whatsoever. To boot, you have utterly failed to deal with the facts I presented from the Bible relating to factual evidence, whether it be pertaining to miracles or the legal defense of the credentials for Christ as Messiah. This is typical RC apologetics; namely, respond with a nonsensical answer, sweep your opponent’s view under the rug, and resort to name calling, ALL of which you accomplished in one post. Congratulations for being so diverse.

      AK: Lord, what a depressingly long-winded string of daftly wired convolutions.

      C.P.O. Oh stop it. The only thing that is REALLY depressing is that you are calling the biblical evidence… “depressing”. I wonder what the Lord thinks of THAT? Moreover, if I had written only 2 sentences, you would have scoffed just the same and probably would have said, “Is that all you got?” Instead, when I do go the extra mile, it is classified as long-winded. Yawn. Smart readers will notice you are trying to damn me if I do and damn me if I don’t, so your complaint must be seen as wholly unwarranted.

      AK: Where would you Fundacostalists be without the Play-Doh of imagined metaphor?… So many targets…let’s pick one….

      C.P.O. Finally, an attempt at trying to form an argument. Let’s see how you do.

      AK: Jesus had no intention of creating a Church of literal cannibals.

      C.P.O. I did not expect you to fall on your face so quickly, but I suppose with the Bible never coming to your rescue, the only way to go is down. Now, may I say briefly, that if the RCC is going to insist at the get-go that they are consuming the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ…(and they most certainly DO)….we are INSTANTLY justified with the accusation of cannibalism, and which is PRECISELY what many thought when he uttered that particularly “hard saying”. Furthermore, I asked the question HOW…(again)…HOW…would Jesus’ audience in chapter 6 comply with his command to “eat him”? You did not answer. Protestants have waited over a thousand years for you people to answer the question and it is obvious you simply can’t do it. That being so, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6 and the Last Supper, period, end of story.

      AK: Which is why, despite your raging obscurantism…

      C.P.O. I don’t think I’m being obscure in the LEAST! I am forthrightly confronting your doctrine with sober facts, utilizing common sense, history and the Holy Text. This is what I mean when Catholics are bereft of a reply…they must resort to unreasonable insults.

      AK: Transubstantiation [is a] **Scripturally literal** truth reflected in all those Gospels.

      C.P.O. Excuse me, but the Last Supper account is not even recorded in the gospel of John, which is where the Tranz was supposedly instituted. The catechism says that John 6 was a “preparation” for the institution of the Eucharist (1338), as well as an “extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper” (Karl Keating, C & A, p. 234). However, these assertions fall to pieces when one realizes that John’s gospel is the only book which claims to stand alone, in that the author thought the content by itself was sufficient to grasp the message of salvation, “so that by believing you might have life in His name” (20:31). This is detrimental to the Catholic position because Rome claims that the episode in John 6 was a promise for eternal life via the Eucharist which would later be instituted the following year at the Last Supper. But this cannot be! Contextually, the discussion centers on salvation by believing in Jesus, not on the Lord’s Supper which was chronologically in the distant future. If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have included the Last Supper account to ensure the promise was fulfilled and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established. Yet this did not happen. As a result, anyone reading John’s gospel by itself and WITHOUT the Last Supper being mentioned, could not possibly imagine the concept of Transubstantiation as the “extended promise” of chapter 6, nor as a necessity for eternal life as is claimed. For, only by aligning chapter 6 with their interpretation of the passages with the Last Supper, can the RCC arrive at its teaching on Transubstantiation.

      Therefore, because the Holy Spirit decided NOT to sprinkle the salt and pepper of the Last Supper account into the gospel of John, the doctrine of Transubstantiation simply cannot be true. Again, we are told it is a book that is sufficient in and of itself when it comes to seeking salvation. But with the Last Supper removed, the tie which Catholics think binds chapter 6 to the upper room event, is broken, and thus, finding salvation by means of the Eucharist using this gospel alone, becomes impossible. That being so, the only way to understand Jesus in chapter 6 is metaphorically.

      AK: Jesus meant for those who would follow to partake of His Sacrifice in the most literal way possible
      **for humans** by eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood in a way acceptable to our human nature

      C.P.O. This entire sentence is so full of holes you remind me of a slice of swiss cheese.
      Jesus NO WHERE indicated that communion was meant to be “eat” a sacrifice and “offer” it to God at the same time! Contrary to the Council of Trent, the Last Supper was just never meant to be a “eucharistic sacrifice” for the sins of the living and the dead, “offered” to God under the form of Transubstantiation (“Concerning the Mass”, canon 3; CCC 1362-1372). Awake! The Savior simply never commanded the bread to be offered in sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, let alone reserve it for another day, gawk at supposedly “bleeding” wafers, carry it about in parades, display it in public, adore it as Deity, or to “fast” before eating it as the catechism teaches. Hint: the disciples did not “fast” before communion and neither do we have to!

      In fact, Catholic dicta is so littered with the word “offering” that we are aghast that papal egos can so easily dismiss the Bible’s declaration that it was Christ alone who…(watch it now!)… “offered HIMSELF to God” (Heb 9:14; Matt 20:28), with no mention that we, or any priest including Mr.Heschmeyer, do likewise. Our great High-Priest, “does not need to offer sacrifices day after day”, and, “there is now no more offering for sin… nor yet that He should offer Himself often (Hebrews 7:27, 9:25; 10:18). It follows then that just as God rejected the offering of Cain (Genesis 4:4), so too does He reject the offering in the Mass. Rome actually thinks that when the Bible says, “Christ does not offer Himself often”, that this is not a contradiction to Christ offering Himself over and over in the Mass! We say IT MOST CERTAINLY IS!
      As for your assertion that “Jesus meant” that we consume his physical anatomy in a form “acceptable to human nature”, this is nothing but a religious sound-bite, and ADDS to the word of God, which is forbidden. We are not to think about men “above that which is written” (1 Cor 4:6). What you assert is out of bounds and above that which is written about Jesus the Messiah, so while we thank you for trying to read the mind of Christ, your conclusion must be rejected.

      AK: Funny how Fundies scream at Catholics for not taking the Bible literally when they just-can’t-seem to take the Bible literally

      C.P.O. All of God’s word and in fact, ALL HUMAN LANGUAGE is meant to be taken literally, UNLESS there is sufficient cause to perceive one is speaking otherwise. In the case with “This is my body” and “Eat my flesh” there is a truckload of evidence to prove the RC position is dead in the water.

      AK: [Protestants] are jealous of the One True Church.

      C.P.O. Careful now…your biblical illiteracy is showing again. There is no such thing as a “true church” mentioned in Scripture, so you need to go back to Christianity 101. The word “church” is mentioned over 100 times and absolutely nowhere does it mean a monolithic religious superstructure situated in Rome. Do some legwork and go look the word up.

      AK: Do you believe in Grace? Can you mark it with your senses? [So if you can’t see grace but believe in THAT, you ought to believe in Transubstantiation even though you can’t see that either]

      C.P.O. While this apologetic may sound nice, at the end of the day it simply won’t work. Why? Because while grace may be something that is unseen and which I believe in according to Scripture, the claims for the unseen presence of Christ in the Eucharist are FRAUGHT with difficulties at the get-go and flatly contradict the word of God in far too many places for it to be taken seriously. For example, the Pope teaches that, “Eucharistic Communion brings about in a sublime way, the mutual “abiding” of Christ and each of His followers, [saying] “Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except you abide in me” (John 15:4; taken from Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 2).
      On the contrary, Scripture is crystal clear that we do not abide in Christ by virtue of ingesting a solid or a liquid. It is just the opposite: “HEREBY WE KNOW THAT HE ABIDES IN US; BY THE SPIRIT WHICH HE HATH GIVEN US” (1 John 3:24). Consequently, the reason we don’t have to literally eat him is because he already dwells with us by the promise of the Holy Spirit!
      And since there is no way for you to escape that fact, we must conclude that Jesus is no more in the RC wafer than there is a man in the moon.

      Reply

      1. OK, Barry, I get a very strong sense of the Westboro Baptist school of theological debate. Twisted, one-off (found nowhere but your and your bunker-dwelling adherents’ fevered imaginations), cherry-picked out-of-context, circular, repetitive arguments that ignore the literal reality of Scripture and church tradition, delivered in a mocking, arrogant, superior tone, in hopes of battering**someone** into submission. Nothing could be less like the examples of the Apostles, St. Paul, or the early Church fathers. Been here before, and am wise enough not to get sucked into this latest iteration of the Fundacostalist Special Olympics. When I finally walk away, having realized how much time I wasted, I’d still be Catholic, and a stronger one, and you’ll still be ‘special.’ Vale….

         Reply

         1. AK,
            I’d say you’re a KO. Got it? 🙂

            Reply

            1. Margo – thanks!

               What is interesting here in these incredibly long-winded, cherry picked, context-suspect, strung-together screeds is a single theme…that in 2000 years of Church writings, that if one cherry picks long enough, one **might** find enough disparate theological maunderings that can be doctored to appear as an inconsistency, **if** one takes documents out of context. Case in point – Barry the Weimaraner quotes Phillip Schaff as if that nearly-Catholic Protestant apologist agreed that Augustine was some kind of proto-Westboro pompadour in his trashing of Transubstantiation. Shall we look at a bit more of Schaff on Augustine:?

               Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig, 1910, pp.492, 500, 507:

               The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .

               In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim……

               [Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

               Note: Schaff had just for two pages (pp.498-500) shown how St. Augustine spoke of symbolism in the Eucharist as well, but he honestly admits that the great Father accepted the Real Presence “at the same time.” This is precisely what I would argue. Catholics have a reasonable explanation for the “symbolic” utterances, which are synthesizable with the Real Presence, but Protestants, who maintain that Augustine was a Calvinist or Zwingian in his Eucharistic views must ignore the numerous references to an explicit Real Presence in Augustine, and of course this is objectionable scholarship.

               Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion ‘verissimum sacrificium’ of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (‘immolat’) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]

               Now, here’s another nugget gleaned from Barry’s droppings, above:

               “It is an open invitation to think whatever one wishes this “some way” and “certain way” to be!”

               This is too good to pass up….Barry, saying this about Catholic doctrine like it’s a bad thing, just defined all of Protestantism.

               There’s more – some of which I identified earlier – but you get the point. This is all so Macbeth: Act 5, Scene 5, page 2. I am reminded of the original Star Trek episode “The Trouble with Tribbles” …when McCoy presents Kirk a simple solution to the absurd, existential, and pointless reproduction of tribbles…”Jim, stop feeding them…if you stop feeding them, they stop reproducing…”

               So it is with our pet troll-pup Barry the Shih-Tsu. Cut off his kibble and the spewing of theological tribbles ends.

3. Dear Barry,

   I am a Presbyterian and I like to read Joe’s blog because I find it instructive. I have never commented before.

   You are a guest here, and so am I. If you are following the Lord, you will know Paul’s instruction to be completely humble and gentle (Eph 4:2) and to gently instruct your opponents (2 Tim 2:25). Whether you intend it or not, your contributions are coming across as being brash, abrasive and rude. If you think you have a biblical case to make, please make it with courtesy. The seat of mockers is not a healthy place to hang out, according to Psalm 1. Otherwise you will just antagonise those who disagree with you, and embarrass those who do.

   Thank you, Joe, for another interesting post.

   Reply

   1. Thursday…I might remind you that I am showing the greatest form of love, in that I am interacting with my spiritual enemy. THAT, shows I care about the issue on hand and the eternal destiny of those I disagree with. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t do ANYTHING. Furthermore, we are NOT always called to be a charity church mouse ALL the time. Did not the Lord call Herod a “fox”? In fact, he went quite further by calling the religious leaders some very insulting names no less than 16 times in Matt 23. And since we both agree that Jesus was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such, is not a sin either, but is rather, a virtue, when one perceives that the word of God is being mishandled. But as a matter of fact, I did not even go THAT far by calling anyone a name, but “AK” most certainly did, and I see no slap on the wrist from you to THAT person. Would you mind explaining your hypocrisy?
      In addition, on page 1 of the Council of Trent’s decree on the Eucharist, they said that “contentious and evil men” were responsible for supposing Christ was speaking metaphorically in chapter 6 and the Last Supper, and that our position was “SATANIC AND GODLESS”. Now if it’s good enough for THEM to turn up the heat with that kind of language, then it’s good enough for me, who has not even come close to it.
      In any case, we are to “rebuke, reprove and exhort, with all long-suffering and “doctrine”. I am doing ALL of that here, and am not crossing any boundaries.

      Reply

      1. Thursday is welcome to ding me for my expressed anger at such as you; I am sorry I fell for the bait, and I won’t repeat my mistake.

         I have seen the human wreckage that follows the ministrations of fundacostalist bullies and abusers….more than a few youth suicides where I live have been tied to a holy-rolling nondenom “Jesus Camp” program run by people who sound just-like-you….greatest form of love, right.

         The best that can be done with you, in this forum, is to ignore you. I’ll now take my own advice.

         Reply

         1. By the way….those programs are still going on, unchanged and unchallenged, and the last suicide was a few weeks ago, a co-workers son. At least Catholicism recognizes the atrocious problems resulting from man’s fallen nature and is doing something to stop them.

            Reply

         2. AK….oh stop the “bully” tactics that you accuse me of, putting me in the same category as Westboro Baptist. Naturally, when I quoted the Council of Trent saying we are satanic, godless, contentious and EVIL, THAT gets no acknowledgment. And we all know why. Deep in your heart you know their words would fall smack dab into the category of Westboro, and oh my, you can’t admit that, so you resort to giving ME a dunce cap, but say not a word about Trent! Your hypocrisy is palpable.
            The plain simple truth is that you cannot deal with the fact that I not only know the Scriptures, but am quite familiar with RC doctrine as well. This is a double-edged sword for you, and I quite understand that I would be the LEAST likely person you would like to converse with. But as much as you might like to think you have refuted me in any way whatsoever, I am confident you have not – because God’s word simply and persuasively over-rules everything you say. Furthermore, that you previously equated my knowledge of Scripture with “arrogance” is a cheap shot. Do you think for one minute I would choose to go back in time and NOT STUDY, so I can appear like a dunderhead just so I could please YOU? I don’t think so! It’s not a crime to have confidence in what you believe, just as Paul said he had labored more than all the other apostles. It wasn’t arrogance for him, and neither is it for me. It is simply the TRUTH.

            Reply

            1. Funny, you don’t seem to grasp that people quoting the Bible at you also know Scripture.

      2. “I might remind you that I am showing the greatest form of love, in that I am interacting with my spiritual enemy. THAT, shows I care about the issue on hand and the eternal destiny of those I disagree with. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t do ANYTHING.”

         That does not excuse you from your duty. “For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” Especially since if you didn’t do anything, you might very well be doing better than you are doing now, given that ‘being brash, abrasive and rude” is not the way to convince people.

         Reply

         1. I wouldn’t want to be one of his kids.

            But then again, it was American Evangelicals who came up with the idea of “Christian Domestic Discipline.” It’s a thing….CDD, look it up. My niece left her fundie parstard hubby of 20 years, ran screaming with 5 kids, when he decided, after consulting with some of his fellow ‘clergy,’ that a daily CDD “laying on of hands’ (and I don’t mean like holy orders) was necessary for a Godly household.

            So what he’s doing here, the bullying and ridicule, is probably indicative of…larger issues.

            Reply

   2. Thursday’s Child,

      In the midst of a lot more nastiness than ought to have existed in a conversation between Christians, your comment stuck out as such a pleasant and useful reminder of how we ought to approach one another in love. Thank you, and I’m so glad to hear that you enjoy the blog!

      Joe

      Reply

4. Question: I am sure if we did the statistics, those who partake of the Eucharist regularly live holier lives compared to those who simply self-identify as Christians. The transformative power of the Eucharist on the one who receives it is a possible cause for the correlation.

   Why do we have no such correlation for baptism?

   I have opinions but I am looking for others’ answers.

   And, thumbs up to Thursday’s comment.

   Reply

   1. Mr. T…
      Your comment about holier living as a result of ingesting the Eucharist is troublesome on 2 accounts.
      1) No benefit of “holy living” is ever mentioned as a benefit of the Eucharist, and in fact, Scripture speaks more of the meaning pertaining to woman’s head coverings, than it does about any benefit of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:2-15). Thus, all you have in your pocket is nothing more than a good ‘ol seat of your pants HUNCH.
      2) Jesus said in John 16:2 that there was coming a time wherein, “they will kill you, thinking that they do God service”.

      Who was Jesus referring to? The answer has to be those “holy living persons” who, while claiming allegiance to Him out of one side of their mouth, were in fact, false professors of the faith who decided to do God a favor by slaughtering the innocents (Rev 6:9). Since we are told that Transubstantiation is the “center, source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324, 1343), we are not surprised to discover that a central theme of the Inquisition was Transubstantiation as well. History records that the only religion deserving the gold medal for “holy living”, thinking they were doing God a favor by killing under the banner of Christianity, was Catholicism and ONLY Catholicism. On countless occasions, we read that before snuffing out the life of one of their victims, they would ask that innocent soul to recant their metaphorical views on the Eucharist, and if they did, they could go free. Literally ALL of them refused! Hence, the executioner was given the green light and it was then broadcast that, “this is all to the glory of God”, precisely as Jesus had predicted.
      He was able to look down the corridors of time and identify the deluded mindset of an apostate church with such precision and exactitude, we are amazed. These murderous rampages, under the guise of “holy living” and particularly over Transubstantiation, is a scorching indictment against the bogus claim that he founded the Roman Catholic Church to be the repository of all truth and justice, and does away with your claim of the supposed “transformative” power of the Eucharist.

      Reply

   2. Craig – might be because Baptism is a door-opener….while it cleanses us of original sin (and in the case of adult baptism, all other sin) it doesn’t change our fallen nature. Man is built both for sin and salvation….without the constant infusion of grace and personal renewal gifted by Jesus to humanity in the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist, we will find it much more difficult – if not impossible – to “regularly live holier lives” as you said, or to have life within us…..and forsake the former sin for the latter salvation.

      My poor two cents.

      Reply

   3. Hi Craig,

      Even as the woman who was healed of her ‘flow of blood’ relieved ‘power’ from Jesus when she touched Him, so to all others receive power in a similar manner. However, we note that many others were touching Jesus also, so it was the woman’s faith that effected the power leaving Jesus and entering into the woman, as is related:

      “…When she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind him, and touched his garment. For she said: If I shall touch but his garment, I shall be whole. And forthwith the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the evil. And immediately Jesus knowing in himself THE VIRTUE that had PROCEEDED FROM HIM turning to the multitude, said: Who hath touched my garments? And his disciples said to him: Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou who hath touched me? And he looked about to see her who had done this. But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. And he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole: go in peace, and be thou whole of thy disease. ” (Mark 5:27)

      So, for those who have faith, and the Eucharist being the ‘true presence of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity’… can have a similar power. But, again, faith is a most necessary element.

      The story of the resurrection of Lazarus is similar. It is certain that Mary and Martha had great faith in Christ, and yet, because Jesus was not ‘physically’ present among them Lazarus died. The sisters even complained sorrowfully to Jesus of this. So, in this case Christ’s ‘physical’ proximity was important for the miracle of the raising Lazarus from the dead.

      There is obviously great mystery in all of this, and also how it relates to the Eucharist, but it is Christ Himself that says that His body and blood are a type of spiritual nourishment, i.e…”For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed”. And…”take and eat, this is my body”, AND, “Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. ” So, if Jesus Christ commands such things it’s most wise to carefully listen. Moreover, we also have the historical practice and witness of the early Church…. which is no minor testimony in favor of the Catholic (and Orthodox) position on the holy Eucharist.

      Reply

      1. The desperate connection AWLMS wishes to make between the touching of his garment releasing power and the alleged power released in the Eucharist is nothing less than wishful thinking.

         AWLMS also tells us the following, which must receive the crown of hypocrisy for the year 2017. He puts on a halo and quotes Christ: ”take and eat, this is my body”, AND, “Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament… So, if Jesus Christ commands such things it’s most wise to carefully listen.”

         But does AWLMS actually LISTEN to Christ? He most certainly does NOT. Notice the poster’s high-case lettering of the word “AND”. Apparently, AWLMS wishes us to believe that it is vital we obey Jesus by partaking of both bread AND wine. What he omits to say is that with unmitigated gall, the Council of Trent subverts the Lord’s authority by declaring, “This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit…declares that lay people…are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).
         NON-CATHOLICS ARE SHELLSHOCKED that Trent had the nerve to make such a hideous statement! It is downright satanic, to be sure. These are not the words of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather of mad scientists on the verge of an explosion in the laboratory. They have completely reversed and thrown under the bus Christ’s original formula to partake of both bread AND wine! And no excuses will do AWLMS, so don’t even try. We know exactly what you are going to say (“jesus” is in every last crumb and drop of the wafer and wine so it doesn’t matter!). More unbiblical nonsense.
         Let us recall now the sin of King Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. This good king went from royalty to leprosy in a matter of minutes, all because he ended up thinking he was superior to God in deciding how worship was to be conducted, and so he decided to modify the commandment to his liking. Over 80 priests confronted him that he was erring greatly, but Uzziah only became enraged. Fifty years of achievements and service to the Lord were nullified in a few brief moments of sin, and he was struck with leprosy.

         The sin of the Council of Trent (and advocated by AWLMS) is no less breathtakingly stupid, going so far as to say we are not even OBLIGED by any divine command to partake of both bread and wine! Like Uzziah, they fly into a rage and tell their detractors, “If anyone says that by God’s command [we] ought to receive both kinds of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema” (ibid, canon 1). However, the dual axiom of bread AND wine provided at the Last Supper is a foundation that stands immovable, regardless of the bulldozing tendencies of the Roman oligarchy to uproot it.

         Let the reader consider the words from Pope Gelasius and deal with it: “We have found that certain, having received a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of His blood, being entangled with I know not what superstition. Let them either receive the sacraments entire, or be excluded from them, for a division of one and the same sacrament cannot be made without great sacrilege” (quoted from the on-line book, “Morning Exercises at Cripplegate”, p. 583). Good for him! Unfortunately, in 1420, matters only got worse as Pope Martin V issued a bull proclaiming a crusade for the destruction of the Hussites, whose primary angst against the RCC was receiving communion under only one kind. Imagine that! Killing Christians for obeying Christ!
         Face it AWLMS, your pious instructions to obey Christ falls flat when we peel back the layer of your doctrinal onion and find it rotten to the core.

         Reply

         1. Bulldog, why talk of the Council of Trent when you don’t understand the teachings of the early Christian (Catholic) Church?

            Read what St. Justin Martyr says on the Eucharist in 154 AD…about 75 years after the book of Revelation was written:

            “And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

            For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” – (First Apology, 66)

            Do you care to learn from such early Christian witnesses and Martyrs. Or do you prefer the scholastics and theologians of the 16th century who lived and taught more than 1350 years later?

            Are you implying that the early Church apostatized from your understanding of the Eucharist before 150 AD? And if so, can you give a rough date of such apostasy, or names of Early Christian teachers who taught your ideology on the matter?

            Reply

            1. Paul wrote that Christians share in an “altar” when we eat the Eucharist and share in a pagan “altar” when we eat meat sacrificed to idols. Apparently Paul apostatized too.

            2. “Are you implying that the early Church apostatized from your understanding of the Eucharist before 150 AD? ”

               And if so, how on earth can you trust the Bible that the early Church handed you?

      2. Al, my wife and I speculated on the same thing and that is the answer we arrived at. AK, thank you also for your insight. God bless.

         Reply

         1. Mr. T: Paul wrote that Christians share in an “altar” when we eat the Eucharist and share in a pagan “altar” when we eat meat sacrificed to idols. Apparently Paul apostatized too.

            CPO: Your “altar” argument FAILS…

            http://www.justforcatholics.org/a39.htm

            Reply

            1. It’s hard to take you seriously when you link something that doesn’t address the point

            2. Hey Mary – it’s not about small, digestible amounts of logical, civil debate….it’s about disgorging great, steaming piles of strung-together conjecture and opinion leavened with an occasional reference it is hoped is buried sufficiently deep in the narrative to not be checked for inconsistency nor ‘cherry-picking.’ All linked with sarcasm, put-downs, and triumphalist howling designed to bully, intimidate and suppress. It’s the Pastor James White school of abuse theology…it succeeds in gleaning the vulnerable, the scared, and the ignorant; the perpetrator can go to his flock saying, see, I beheaded the Catholic Goliath.

               Trouble for them is, a lot of the millennial ‘nones’ I know, not buying it, are refugees from this unfortunate and sad paradigm…and more than a few of them, searching in the way humans do who down deep know they are wired for God, express an interest in Catholicism. Go to YouTube and check out “Mormon Girl converts to Catholicism.” Inspiring witness, and her story could apply to any of a number of kids of my acquaintance. As well, get a copy of “Evangelical Exodus.” The smart, inquiring ones, listening to the call of the New Evangelization, are looking more and more towards Rome. The turnaround is slow, and not everywhere apparent, but it’s happening.

               Long-term prognosis? I have my opinions, but I choose to hew to the Gamaliel Principle….if it is of God, it will become apparent one way or the other. Also, that Matt 16:18 thing,and something about gates…..if we remain as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves; I have to remind myself of the latter, while humbly doing my best at the former…..

   4. Hi Craig,

      It seems like we’d have to actually see the statistics on these things before we speculate on ’em too far. Like, I’m not at all sure that your hypothesis is true – or that we’d see a statistically significant difference between those who take the Eucharist blessed by a priest, and those who just take bread and grape juice in what we’d all agree is an untransformed state.

      Even then, I think we’d have a job to do untangling some confounding factors – Catholicism and denominations practicing believer’s baptism have different cultural spreads, and it’s likely that the sort of sin most common in, say, English-speaking cultures is not exactly equally prevalent in Hispanic cultures, and vice-versa. We’d also have to figure out how to deal with people who were receiving Catholic communion and are no longer able to do so due to sin – seems like they would count against the thesis (“Communion leads to holier lives”), but those folks wouldn’t appear if we’re only surveying those who do receive the Eucharist.

      All that said, I’d be interested in seeing a good survey on the subject. Do you know if there is such data?

      (The rest of this conversation seems to be in a little bit too much of a high-energy state to jump in on.)

      Reply

      1. Hi Irked,

         Too high energy, yes! His outer shell electrons have spun off to another galazy. Yes!

         As a perfect specimen of he who has consumed too much food only from below: Look no further than Father Phil, AKA Dog, Pope DeRooster, Ritz Picked. He has eaten that which has been Roasted, Broiled, Fried, Poached and Toasted, only then returned to the state and place from within which it was originally grown.

         Reply

         1. M….It simply amazes me that you continue to make a fool of yourself by simply criticizing me WITHOUT doing any research to back up the snake venom you are so adept at spewing forth.

            Reply

            1. Again, when you say something worthy of thoughtful reply, I’ll patronize.

      2. Irked…you could at least CHECK OUT my evidence that Trent has bamboozled you into believing they are infallible, which would take you no more than 3 minutes to look over. But you do not express any desire to do this and return back with your findings. Instead, you ignorantly cater to the pious twaddle of Mr. T who would like to see a survey done on the holiness of those swallowing the Eucharist! Yikes! when will the madness end?! You are then flat out guilty in the same sense that Jesus accused his detractors when he told them they were putting things FIRST, which should really come SECOND.

         Reply

         1. Barry,

            I’m a Baptist. I’m familiar with most of your evidence, and agree with a large part of it. If you look over the last few months of posts, you will find ample demonstration of my opinion of Trent, Aquinas, etc.

            But there’s not really any need to be rude about it.

            Reply

            1. Thank you sincerely, Irked.

               Onto sleep now. God bless.

            2. Which is why you have Catholic friends here.

               Because you are a gentleman.

      3. Irked,

         Good points. I have seen surveys that the general Christian population lives no better lives than non beleivers in general. However, the more that one attends church the less likely they are to divorce by a significant margin (http://archives.relevantmagazine.com/slices/harvard-study-links-church-attendance-lower-divorce-rates). They are much more philanthropic. (https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973) . Catholics that attend Mass more frequently likewise have less divorces and more children (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-who-attend-mass-are-divorced-less-and-have-more-children-usccb-po).

         Granted a lot of these statistics would be similar for any religious belief system and frequency. So, correlation does not prove anything. Personally, I prefer to believe that grace is conferred by God the more we draw near to Him, as He is our reward. This would be true for all Christians Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox. THis does not diminish very real and important differences, but let us praise Him for His grace.

         God bless,
         Craig

         Reply

      4. Irked,

         Good points. I have seen surveys that the general Christian population lives no better lives than non beleivers in general. However, the more that one attends church the less likely they are to divorce by a significant margin. They are much more philanthropic. . Catholics that attend Mass more frequently likewise have less divorces and more children (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-who-attend-mass-are-divorced-less-and-have-more-children-usccb-po).

         Granted a lot of these statistics would be similar for any religious belief system and frequency. So, correlation does not prove anything. Personally, I prefer to believe that grace is conferred by God the more we draw near to Him, as He is our reward. This would be true for all Christians Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox. THis does not diminish very real and important differences, but let us praise Him for His grace.

         God bless,
         Craig
         P.S. I had a reply with citations but the spam filter blocks it. Sorry

         Reply

         1. Craig,

            I think we’re basically on the same page there. I’ve seen similar results in the past – “describes self as Christian” is a poor predictor of behavior, but “agrees with certain core doctrines,” “attends regularly (and is involved),” etc. are much better ones. I do think it would be really interesting to see some more in-depth comparative stats, even if all we got was correlation – it’d be something to start with, at least.

            I have fought the spam filter wars myself – no worries.

            Reply

            1. In other words, actions speak louder than words?

               Who’da thunk…. 😉

         2. Mr. T…..Catholics that attend Mass more frequently likewise have less divorces

            C.P.O. But of course they do! The RCC dreamed up the ridiculous concept of an “annulment” and pretends it isn’t a divorce. OH STOP IT, it most certainly is!
            By doing this little trick of linguistics, when they look at the numbers for divorce, they APPEAR low because annulments don’t register as a divorce! Gullible persons such as yourself are then fooled into believing there is less divorce amongst Catholics!

            Mr. T: This would be true for all Christians, Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox.

            C.P.O. Once again you show your abysmal ignorance. I have repeatedly said on this thread that your “infallible” Council of Trent considers all those who do not accept EXACTLY what they say about the Eucharist, are SATANIC. Since Protestants and Orthodox DO NOT accept their delirious viewpoint, we cannot possibly be considered “Christian” by the RCC. Since therefore, Trent has more authority than you, we must reject your opinion that Eucharist-denying non-catholics may be classified as Christian. You appear to be just another ecumenical expositor who sticks a rose in-between his teeth and revises history as he sees fit.
            I am not impressed.

            Reply

            1. Someone didn’t get their rabies shot….

            2. AK: Someone didn’t get their rabies shot….

               C.P.O. Tell that to Jesus, who became UNLEASHED and insulted the Pharisees 16 times in Matt 23 alone, not to mention other places.
               In fact, the strict “charity church mouse” routine advocated by Catholics is completely unbiblical, inventing for themselves a Tinkerbell jesus who goes around throwing angel dust on everyone’s heads and tells us we are to do likewise. It is sickening.

5. An important aspect in the understanding of the Eucharist is to understand the underlying motive of WHY Jesus would have instituted the Eucharist in the first place. That is, what was His motive for doing so? Clearly this is an important aspect of the faith as it was instituted as a ‘last testament, will and inheritance’ for us on the night before He died. For those who simply believe in the word’s of our Lord Jesus Christ (…which is also the words of the Church that Christ founded), this is the greatest treasure on Earth: to be able to touch and speak to the Jesus Christ, physically, face to face on this Earth, not as if in a day dream, or as if reading a book, but in all physical reality. And is this not also how Moses spoke to God up on Mt. Sinai, wherein it is written: “And when Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned [shining with rays] from the conversation of the Lord. [30] And Aaron and the children of Israel seeing the face of Moses horned, were afraid to come near.” ? And was not God PHYSICALLY present to the Israelites in so many acts and deeds found in the Old Testament, but especially as He was with Moses, and then in the midst of the Cherubim and Tabernacle in ‘Solomons’ Temple. Was it not God’s tremendous presence in the tabernacle as the walls fell down at Jericho? So….why should the true presence, and power, of Christ (God) be such a surprise to Christians, when it was a common, every day occurrence, with those the early Israelites…. as if this type of ‘real presence’ of God had no precedent in Jewish history??

   But, the answer to the motive for God wanting to leave ‘ HIS PEOPLE’ with His tangible presence is simple to understand for anyone who actually receives the Eucharist as it is supposed to be received. And that is, God understands that physical touch is important for His creatures. And even as true physical touch is an important aspect of true love, be it a hand shake, and embrace, a kiss, etc…Christ wanted His disciples for all ages to have this close ‘physical’ relationship with Him. So, for the faithful Christian who ‘keeps’ Christ’s words, even as a child keeps the words of his parents, when Jesus says “This is my body” and “This is My blood”…. that is exactly what He meant. That is, Jesus is not present before the ‘communicant’ in an abstract or metaphorical way, but in a ‘physical’ way. A Catholic, herein, receives Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as the Lord desires him to receive Him, in close physical proximity, flesh touching flesh, bone embracing bone (…and hopefully with face shining as also was the face of Moses above); but the doubtful Protestant receives the Eucharist WITHOUT THIS ACTUAL PRESENCE, or, rather like a ‘photo’ from a scrapbook of their spouse or friend. It is NOT the true physical presence of their friend/spouse (as if he just landed on an airplane wherein he can be greeted and embraced at the airport in all physical reality) but rather, they are satisfied with the mere memory from a letter, or picture, that was taken of their friend/spouse from months or years earlier. Or, it’s like the difference between a soldier receiving a letter from his wife while being overseas fighting a war… and a soldier who lands at his home port and is actually greeted by his wife in ‘all actuality’. This is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant. We greet Jesus in the Eucharist as Moses greeted God in the ‘Tabernacle’. The Protestants greet Jesus abstractly, not really sure where He is in all actuality. To them, His physical presence is far away…though His spiritual presence might seem to some, more or less close.

   So, it is Jesus Christ Himself, in the great expanse of His ‘Sacred Heart’ that desired this intimate relatationship with his disciples for all ages. It is not the disciples who invented this, but God ‘the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ who did so…. so much did God ‘love His own in the World’. The motive being…God wanted to make sure that we all knew that He would always be available for us, to be with us (Emmanuel), and not in an abstract way, but in a rather ‘touchy feely’ way, even as St. John the Apostle laid his head on the breast of the Lord at the Last Supper, or as Jesuss discussed events with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration. In the Eucharist Christ would always be available for intimate conversation with His beloved disciples, and which would endure until the end of the world, even as He said: “…and behold I am WITH YOU ALL DAYS, even to the consummation of the world.”.

   If you believe in God’s true presence as related with Moses in the ‘Tabernacle’ described in the Old Testament…is it too much to believe in the true presence of Christ in all of the Tabernacles of the Catholic Church throughout the world? And was this ‘true presence’ not what Christ wanted for all of the peoples and nations on Earth, and not only for the Jewish populations? Was this not what Christ really wanted…. that the same shining holiness that Moses experienced in the presence of God, would now be available for every people and nation on the planet to experience as well?

   So, this is what the Eucharist is all about: ‘God with us’…”Emmanuel”. Alleluia!

   Reply

   1. AWLMS says: An important aspect in the understanding of the Eucharist is to understand the underlying motive of WHY Jesus would have instituted the Eucharist in the first place. That is, what was His motive for doing so? …Protestants… are satisfied with the mere memory.

      Casual Protestant Observer: Correct! Because “mere memory” is all Jesus ever intended according to the Text! Catholicism is FOREVER going out of bounds, thinking that all her additions are perfectly justified in God’s sight. I say Judgment day for you will be a shock to the system. Absolutely everything you say is unbiblical, and everything ***I*** say is faithful to the Text. Who do you think the Lord Jesus has more respect for then when elucidating on “Do this in memory of me”?
      Memorials help people to remember important events. When God placed the rainbow in the sky, it was a memorial that He would never again inundate the earth with a flood (Gen 9:13-17). When He instituted the Sabbath rest, it was a memorial that He had created all things in six days and rested on the seventh as a pattern to follow (Ex 20:8-10). When He instituted the Passover as a monument to their deliverance from Egyptian slavery, He said, “This day shall be unto you for a memorial” (Exodus 12:14). He told Moses to, “Write this for a memorial” (Exodus 17:14). The tribes of Israel were to be remembered by “stones of memorial” (Exodus 28:9,12). When Joshua had twelve men take one stone each from the Jordan River, it was to be a memorial that God had stopped the flow of the river so they could cross over (Josh 4:1-9). Crowns, frankincense and trumpets were categorically stated to be memorials (Zech 6:14, Leviticus 24:7, Numbers 10:10). When a certain woman poured expensive oil on His head, Jesus said this act would henceforth be reserved in Scripture as a memorial for her kindness (Matt 26:12-13). The prayers and alms given by Cornelius were said to stand as a memorial (Acts 10:2-4). The wounds of Christ, which did not heal a week after His death, will forever remain a memorial (Luke 24:39, John 20:27). Consequently, when we read in the “Catholic New American Bible”, “Do this in memory of me”, the statement is clear enough without importing the alien concept of Transubstantiation into the Text!!!
      What I have just done is compare Scripture with Scripture, as we are instructed, to find our theology (1 Cor 2:13). YOU..have not.

      AWLMS: Clearly this is an important aspect of the faith as it was instituted as a ‘last testament, will and inheritance’ for us on the night before He died.

      C.P.O. You omit to say that Catholics believe that Jesus offered himself up in SACRIFICE the night before he died at the Last Supper—BEFORE he went to the cross the following day(!!!). One can only gasp at such unbiblical, illogical assertions.
      As it relates to his last testament, what you fail to realize is that Hebrews 9:16-20 says, “FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR; FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE [only] AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES”

      To put this in perspective, Jesus was inaugurating His last will and “new testament” at the Last Supper. Now a person’s last will and testament, as you well know, is not in force until that person is DEAD. It is ineffectual, having “no strength at all”. But Rome insists that swallowing the transubstantiated bread and wine under the auspices of Christ’s last will and testament, has the STRENGTH to cleanse us from past sins, preserve us from future sins, strengthens our charity and wipes away venial sins! (CCC 1323, 1393-4, 1395).

      However, Hebrews 9:16-20 utterly REJECTS the above and any other imagined benefits of the Eucharist based on the fact that Jesus was ALIVE when proclaiming His “last will and testament”. Hence, if the contents of a person’s will are useless and have “no strength at all” until the Testator has died, then Transubstantiation did not occur, and thus, the contents of the cup Jesus held, and by extension, the bread, have NO STRENGTH AT ALL to be “the cup of salvation” they claim it is (CCC 1355).

      AWLMS: This is the greatest treasure on Earth: to be able to touch and speak to Jesus Christ, physically, face to face on this Earth, not as if in a day dream, or as if reading a book, but in all physical reality.

      C.P.O. NO! The Lord has NOWHERE promised us a physical relationship! Once again, we find everything you suggest is categorically unbiblical and nothing less than pious nonsense. Why?
      Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was GOING AWAY! READ IT…

      “[He] knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world”… “I go to prepare a place for you” . . . “Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more” . . . “I go away” . . . “But now I go my way to Him that sent me” . . . “I leave the world and go unto the Father” . . .. “I go to my Father and ye see me no more” … “Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come” … “And now, I am no more in the world” . . . (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11). And Paul confirmed that, “though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more ” (2 Cor 5:16). Notice— He makes no exception that we be consoled with either Christ’s presence in, or eating His flesh as a result of, the Eucharist. Naturally then, we should not submit to any doctrine which bids us to extinguish every biblical principle of common sense and reason.
      Jesus said, “if I go not away, the Comforter will not come; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you” (John 16:7). “Receive the Holy Spirit…that He may be with you forever” (16:22, 14:16-18). Words could not be clearer. Any claim to the physical or sacramental presence of Christ, other than by the third person of the Trinity, is nothing but a frenzy of religious delusion (2 Thess 2:11-12). Yet, in absolute defiance of the Lord’s farewell, Roman Catholicism counters that, “it is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present in this unique way. Since He was about to take His departure in His visible form, He wanted to give us His sacramental presence [in the Eucharist…CCC 1380].

      Reader, that is a boldfaced lie.

      Before Christ made His exit, there was not even a whisper of “this unique way of remaining mysteriously in our midst through His sacramental presence in the Eucharist.”

      AWLMS: Was not God PHYSICALLY present to the Israelites in so many acts and deeds found in the Old Testament?

      C.P.O. NO! God is “spirit”. Read your Bible!

      AWLMS: God understands that physical touch is important for His creatures. And even as true physical touch is an important aspect of true love, be it a hand shake, and embrace, a kiss, etc…Christ wanted His disciples for all ages to have this close ‘physical’ relationship with Him.

      C.P.O. I simply cannot get over the never-ending heretical assumptions that you think you’ll get away with on Judgment Day. Jesus said we will be judged by his word ALONE (John 12:48), and the fact that NOTHING you allege even comes close to his word, means you are in for some dire consequences.
      The problem with Catholicsm in general, and your post in particular, is that you utterly fail to rejoice in the promise of the Holy Spirit sent to each believer in Chrit’s physical absence! For, “You do greatly err” as Jesus told them, “not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God”. True Christians already believe in the “real presence” of the Lord because He is, “not far from any one of us” (Acts 17:27). “If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I lie down with the dead, there you are” (Psalm 139:8). He is a God near at hand (Jer 23:23). The very fact that Jesus is designated as “Immanuel” (God with us) further makes void and renders unnecessary, the doctrine of the “Real Presence” via Transubstantiation, for, “nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13). But these truths, which no Catholic denies (CCC 1373-4) have unfortunately metastasized into the hellish desire for His body parts as well, which serve no purpose whatsoever.

      Reply

   2. Al,
      With gratitude for your words, a gift from heaven.
      Craig said it best: You are kind.
      God bless.

      Reply

6. Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

   55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

   56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

   1.) How is His flesh true food?

   2.) If His flesh is not to be eaten, then who cares if it is true food?

   Reply

   1. Duane wonders that since Jesus said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”…how then is his flesh true food?
      The proper answer must come by comparing Scripture with Scripture, something Catholics are infamously negligent in (1 Cor 2:13). What your parish priest has not told you is that the RCC already admits that Jesus is also the “true light” (1:9), the “true vine” (15:1) and the “true bread” (6:32), all of which are “truly” emphasized, and all of which Catholicism admits are metaphorical. That said, “true food” and “true drink” are in harmonious, metaphorical unity with the others. There is simply no escaping it. How then is his flesh and blood true food and true drink?

      We must look deeper into the image of eating flesh and drinking blood for a fully orbed meaning. Two Old Testament references help us to prepare for what Jesus is talking about. The first is in Psalm 27:2 where David refers to the wicked who are coming against him. “When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell.” David is obviously using picture language. He is confronting the wicked who wish to BENEFIT from his death. This gives us an insight into what Jesus means. “Eating His flesh” is tantamount to receiving the BENEFITS of His obedient life (Romans 5:19) and “drinking His blood” is tantamount to receiving the BENEFITS of His sacrificial death (Romans 5:10). Essentially, when we BELIEVE in His flesh and blood sacrifice, we are “eating His flesh and drinking His blood”, as this belief is then absorbed into our souls, just as food is absorbed into our systems. It is an act of the intellect.

      Again, in the life of David, we look to the word “blood”. It is used frequently in the Bible as a graphic metaphor meaning violent death. When the image of drinking blood is used, we discover it means exactly the same thing as eating flesh in the previous example. David was fighting the Philistines who had taken the town of Bethlehem and he remarked how much he would love a drink from the well in that area. Three of his men heard this and took him seriously. They fought their way through the Philistine line, got water from Bethlehem and brought it back to David. But he said,

      “May God forbid it me, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of these men who have put their lives in jeopardy? For at the risk of their lives they brought it” (1 Chronicles 11:19).

      To drink that water would be equivalent to “drinking the blood” of those men; not literally of course, but it would be like enjoying the BENEFITS which came at the expense of risking their lives. Consequently, these examples succinctly and gloriously sum up what Jesus is talking about in chapter 6. When He refers to eating His flesh and drinking His blood to starving sinners, He is talking about embracing the whole “food bank” of benefits which come from both His life and death!

      Consuming the physical anatomy of Jesus Christ in any way, shape or form, would absolutely nothing; whereas “eating his flesh” (metaphorically) accomplishes everything and is tantamount to receiving the benefits of his obedient life (Matt 5:17, Romans 5:19) and “drinking his blood” is tantamount to receiving the benefits of his sacrificial death (Romans 3:25; 5:10). It is an act of the intellect, which begins an intimate dependance on him as the sole source of our spiritual sustenance.

      But the RCC says that simply because the word “true” is used, this is adequate cause to accept a literal rendering. I have just proved that to be utterly false. Further evidence if it were needed, is to peel back the onion layer of the Council of Trent which tells us, “For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth, that to be his own body which he presented (to them)”. See, “Decree on the Eucharist”, ch. 3.
      This council shows the typical human tendency to embellish whatever it is they want to prove. In this case, the student of the Bible will notice at once that Jesus most certainly did not… “affirm with truth”… the elements were actually his body and blood. He simply said, “This is my body”. An affirmation of truth conveys something to the effect of, “Truly, truly I say unto you” or something similar in the way of “Listen up people, this is important!”. But Jesus did not do this, and thus, Trent was WRONG.
      The catechism continues with more “true lies” when they actually quote the Council of Trent: “Christ our Redeemer said that it was *** truly*** His body He was offering under the species of bread” (CCC 1376).
      NO!
      Again, Jesus put no emphasis anywhere on the elements being “truly” His body. PLEASE NOTE:
      These are serious errors which disproves the infallibility of the RCC! On page one of their decree on the Eucharist, Trent claims they are being taught by the Holy Spirit, but Trent got it wrong! The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here. Trent’s first error was the brazen lie of “affirmation”, when there was no such affirmation. The second offense showed their confusion between where he did say, “Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” in John 6:53, but ERRONEOUSLY transporting it over to the Last Supper account, where he did not “truly” affirm that at all. Their third monstrous error has already been mentioned by me elsewhere, in that Trent said Jesus did not even command us to partake of bread “AND” wine; either one they say, will suffice. The C.O.T. was so full of hot air, if they were a balloon, they’d pop.
      Hence, because the C.O.T. was CLEARLY not infallible, their decree on the Eucharist cannot possibly be correct, and the only other alternative is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in chapter 6 and the Last Supper, exactly what the biblical evidence shows.

      Reply

      1. So Jesus is lying though, right? His flesh is not true food?

         Reply

         1. I explained what I meant in the clearest possible terminology. If you cannot understand it, we must conclude that the Lord has decided not to open your eyes as of yet, or if he ever will (2 these 2:11-12).

            Reply

            1. Oh Barry, Thank you so much. I have not laughed so hard in years, as when I read your post. Tears were in my eyes. Thank you again.

               You say Trent was wrong, because Jesus did not say truly, at the Last Supper. But when Jesus does say true in John 6, you say He is being metaphorical. Even if Jesus had said truly, this is His body, you could not accept it, for your heart is hardened. You clearly have no life in you.

               1.) You in no way destroyed Trent. Jesus says He is the Truth. The very fact that He is Truth, is an affirmation, without having to state the word truly to know He is affirming something. You must prove He was being metaphorical at the Last Supper, to make Trent’s words untrue. This you have failed miserably in attempting. I will adress the OT passages later in this post.

               2.) Since you have not proven Jesus was being metaphorical, and Christ speaks the truth, by distributive properties, Trent is correct.

               A.) Jesus says His flesh is true food.

               B.) Jesus says He will give this food for the Apostles to eat.

               C.) We see only one place where Jesus could posdibly give the Apostles His flesh to eat, at the Last Supper, when He says this is my body.

               Logical inference: C must hearken back to A and B. So Trent is correct again.

               3.) Since Jesus is fully present under either form, just the simple act of swallowing the Bread, which contains Blood, you would, when swallowing, be drinking His blood. Trent fulfills Jesus commands.

               So far, you are 0 for 3 on Trent. Trent’s infallibility still stands.

               Now in John 6, John uses the Greek word phago for the word eat several times. Phago is normally used literally, but has been know to be used metaphorically. Unfortunately for your argument, in verse 54, John changes the word for eat to trogo. Trogo is always used literally. There is not one instance in any Greek manuscript where anyone can find trogo used metaphorically. Yet you would have me believe that John changed from one word, phago, which can be used metaphorically, to another word, trogo, which has NEVER been used metaphorically, yet he was still being metaphorical.

               Why change the wording, if he was still being metaphorical?

               The following is from Matt1618’s website:

               Notice back in vv. 51-52, it talks of him giving his flesh for the life of the world. This bread that he gives is flesh. If one understands his flesh to be symbolic, he does away with that idea by saying that the same flesh will be given up on the cross. How many Protestants do not believe that Jesus literally gave his flesh on the cross? This flesh will be given to eat. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a “figurative way” or “spiritually speaking”, then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative. This metaphorical meaning destroys many more Christian doctrines than just the Eucharist.

               Let’s go back to Mr. Taylor’s theory. We must remember Jesus is speaking specifically to people who are not privy to Mr. Taylor’s theory that eating flesh is figurative. John heard Jesus’ words and when he wrote it in Greek, he decided to write vs. 54-58, knowing that when he writes ‘trogo ’ it has always meant literal. But the hearers of these words out of Jesus’ mouth, since these were the ones who were to sort those words out, were not privy to Mr. Taylor’s academic theory. To hold to Taylor’s theory, they must think ‘hey I know Jesus is saying something which always means literal, and the way that he emphasizes everything after we asked him about it, he again emphasizes the literalness, and I know that people left him after him saying it was literal, but hey, there is this theory that Jesus means it in a figurative sense. It in fact doesn’t matter that no one ever used this language this way in a positive manner, before, during, or after this time, but he must be using it in a figurative way here.’ There is no way that any of the hearers of Jesus words, or the late first century, early second century readers of this gospel, would have been privy to Mr. Taylor’s theory. This is a nice academic theory, but that theory has no basis where anybody would have understood it that way. Why should we presume this theory when everything surrounding that context speaks against it?

               In the language of the Bible the metaphor “to eat one’s flesh” meant to persecute, abuse, and destroy one’s character:

               Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. (Psalm 26:2)

               By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Isaiah 9:19-20)

               And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine. (Isaiah 49:26)

               You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. (Micah 3:2-3)

               Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. […] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. (James 5:1,3)

               And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)
               Do you really think Jesus meant “He that persecutes Me has eternal life”?

            2. Duane: You in no way destroyed Trent. Jesus says He is the Truth. The very fact that He is Truth, is an affirmation, without having to state the word truly to know He is affirming something.

               C.P.O. Congratulations. You are the first person here to even ADDRESS the issue of Trent. For that, you get a gold star. However, upon further examination, I must present you with a dunce cap. As I pointed out to you, Trent categorically claims that Jesus “affirmed with truth” that the bread was his body. Your response boils down to because Jesus identifies himself as “the truth” OUTSIDE of the Last Supper account, that this justifies Trent putting words in his mouth to the effect that the bread was “truly” his body (!!!). This argument is so fallacious it takes one’s breath away. If you were in a class of Logic 101, you would receive an F. It makes no more sense than if to suppose that just because I was qualified to fly a small passenger PLANE, someone has the right to exaggerate my credentials to their friends by saying I was qualified to fly a passenger JET. Hence, Trent was WRONG to put words in the mouth of the Lord that he most definitely did NOT “affirm with truth”, and your explanation fails on a grand scale.
               Next, you completely avoided my second proof where it cannot be denied that they quote Jesus OUT OF CONTEXT in the gospel of John and transport the word “truly” over to the Last Supper account. It is an insurmountable error that disproves the infallibility of the C.O.T. in the blink of an eye and everything else you say for that matter, falls right along with it.

               D: You must prove He was being metaphorical at the Last Supper, to make Trent’s words untrue.

               C.P.O. Gladly. But excuse me, first…. because I have already conclusively proved that the C.O.T. was NOT infallible, making their claim to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fraudulent, I win by default. Based on the verdict of guilty to the charge of fraud, Trent’s position that Jesus was speaking literally must be abandoned. Ergo, since there are no other options other than Jesus speaking metaphorically in chapter 6 and the Last Supper, the Protestant position stands supreme.
               Now as for actual proof that figurative speech was being utilized at the Last Supper, the apostles would naturally react symbolically to drinking literal blood. First of all, they were forbidden to drink it to begin with! (Gen 9:4; Deut 12:23, Lev 17:14). Second, the disciples would have understood this against the backdrop of the blood sacrifices of the old covenant (Exodus 24:8). And that sacrifice was blood from a sacrificial victim and NOT a living person, as was Jesus. That being so, they would have understood him in a symbolic sense.
               “This is my body” also has a symbolic connection with the Passover meal right in front of them, which was incredibly rich in symbolism! They would have eaten and used…

               *** Moror (bitter herbs)… representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery.
               *** Unleavened bread (matzah)… representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.
               *** Charoseth (mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon)… representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.
               *** Ceremonial cups. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.
               *** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so the death angel would know to pass over that household.

               The unfolding chapters of the New Testament remind us that since Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed, the wrath of God “passes over” us who trust in Him and walk in newness of life. Christians are then classified as unleavened bread themselves! “Therefore, purge out the old leaven, that you may become a new lump, since you truly are unleavened….let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:7-8).

               We see then that ***before*** the Supper, the apostles were already thinking symbolically because each of the items on the table was a symbol and a reminder of the escape from Egypt. *** During*** the Supper, His physical body was sitting there right there in front of them! It is obvious from the situation that these words were not meant to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Answer? He did not intend any such thing. The elements at table were meant to commemorate His sacrifice for future generations, period. If they weren’t, then he would have been incarnated in two places at the same time, an unreasonable view which contradicts Scripture which depicts Jesus as being incarnated only ONCE in a human body (Hebrews 2:14;10:5).
               Too, ***after*** the Supper, He continued to use illustrations by washing the disciples feet in response to their arguing who among them was the greatest (which also refutes the idea that were in subjection to Peter as Pope!). And finally, ***subsequent*** to the Supper, Paul used the word “body” figuratively as well, regarding the church (Romans 12:5, 1 Cor 10:17, 12:12, 20, 12:27; Eph 1:22, 23; 2:16; 4:4; Col 1:18, 24; 3:15). When we gather the data wherein “body” is used figuratively all over the place, and “This is” is used figuratively all over the place, and “bread” is used figuratively all over the place, you end up with “This bread REPRESENTS my body” having enough volcanic force to know that is exactly what Jesus meant when he said, “This is my body”.

               D: Jesus says His flesh is true food.

               C.P.O. Silly rabbit, I already answered that TO YOU on 6/10 at 4:48. Catholics simply do not learn their lesson and then go repeating the same old errors as if no one had ever refuted them. Amazing!

               D: Jesus says He will give this food for the Apostles to eat.

               C.P.O. I just told you that the apostles would have been adverse to drinking blood, which would make them to understand Christ to be speaking symbolically.

               D: Since Jesus is fully present under either form, just the simple act of swallowing the Bread, which contains Blood, you would, when swallowing, be drinking His blood. Trent fulfills Jesus commands.

               C.P.O. Absolute nonsense! You simply assuuuuuume, without proof, that Jesus is present in either form! Did you think I would not notice that little trick oh thou son of satan? (John 8:44). We emphatically deny this! Second, even if swallowing bread, signifying his body, were to actually contain blood, you are forgetting that wine, signifying his blood, would not have the constituents OF A BODY, because blood is a liquid. You are refuted yet again.
               Furthermore, to say that Jesus is in EVERY last drop and crumb of the bread and EVERY last drop of the wine, is intellectually and logically offensive. Shall it also be said that the whole earth is in EVERY grain of sand? Or that the whole ocean is in EVERY drop of seawater? Surely not. That being so, Jesus is certainly not in every crumb and drop of the Eucharist; for our senses conclude that what we are hearing is irrational beyond belief. Should one deny it, stop and think. If we were to suppose that there are about 100 grains of wheat in the communion wafer, and it takes 100 drops of wine to swallow it, that would leave us no choice but to conclude that we had consumed 200 “christs”!
               Therefore, the Eucharist is irrational on practically every level and is therefore anatomically and metabolically bankrupt. It is also exegetically, soteriologically, physiologically and philosophically bankrupt. It is also logically, scientifically, forensically and metaphysically bankrupt. It is also linguistically, empirically, ontologically and most of all biblically bankrupt!

         2. I might add, nowhere does David call his flesh true food.

            Barry, I thank you for your commentaries, they have truly strengthened my Catholic faith. And I don’t mean that metaphorically.

            Reply

            1. D….I completely destroyed the infallibility of the Council of Trent right before your very eyes and you could say nothing. Do not tell me for one cotton-pickin moment that the proof I furnished has “strengthened your faith”. Without you providing any evidence to the contrary, your words are meaningless and delusory. It is obvious that Jesus has chosen to keep your eyes closed shut, as per John 9:39.

            2. The only credibility you have destroyed is your own.

            3. Parstard had some to begin with?

      2. This gives us an insight into what Jesus means. “Eating His flesh” is tantamount to receiving the BENEFITS of His obedient life (Romans 5:19) and “drinking His blood” is tantamount to receiving the BENEFITS of His sacrificial death (Romans 5:10). Essentially, when we BELIEVE in His flesh and blood sacrifice, we are “eating His flesh and drinking His blood”..

         I have seen some twisted convolutions of Christ’s clear message, substantiated (heh) by the Church father’s equal clarity, but this has to win some kind of padded-room prize.

         Here’s another chew-toy for you, from an essentially Protestant source, F.L. Cross (Anglican):

         F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, pp.475-6, 1221:

         That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .

         Reply

         1. AK: I have seen some twisted convolutions of Christ’s clear message, substantiated (heh) by the Church father’s equal clarity, but this has to win some kind of padded-room prize.

            Excuse me, but I interact with the word of God as it relates to eating flesh and drinking blood and how God defines it. You do not. Therefore, no matter what you say, you lose.

            Second, under no circumstances whatsoever, were the Fathers so “CLEAR” as to their take on the Eucharist. This subject requires more space, which is not possible here, but suffice to say that I have read Darwell Stone’s, “A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” circa 1900, which compiles every statement ever made by anyone of note on that topic. What is so shocking to me is that they do NOT back up their assertions with the word of God, but over and over again fall back on that same old lame excuse, “God can do anything” trick. IT IS A MISERABLE APOLOGETIC, one which any cult can use to “prove” anything they want.

            Third, your assumption that Christ’s “clear message” in John 6 was to eat him via Transubstantiation, would be thrown out of court without addressing the issue (which I have asked 4 times now) of just exactly HOW would those listening to him in chapter 6 have obeyed the command to eat him if that’s what Jesus really meant for them to do? Put on the witness stand, all Catholics fail to answer this question; ergo, so must their Eucharist fail, and be exposed as being no more miraculous bread than that which we see on the grocery store shelf. Thus, they are guilty of idolatry, and Scripture says no idolater will inherit the kingdom of God. Again, failing to answer this question makes your assumption that it was ever so “clear” he meant for them to eat him, logically indefensible and biblically untenable.

            AK: Here’s another chew-toy for you, from an essentially Protestant source, F.L. Cross (Anglican):

            “That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first”

            C.P.O. Ummm, all non-catholics believe that the bread and wine “convey” the body and blood and Christ. It’s all in how you interpret “convey”.

            AK: Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts

            C.P.O. Ummm, all non-catholics believe, as the Bible teaches, in the “real presence” because there is no where on earth that we can go to escape his “real presence”. The error of Catholicism however, is that they imagine there is some virtue to eating the physical anatomy of Christ, which we assert is downright cannibalistic and beyond ridiculous. Proof after proof has been given to you, any one of which is enough to put the RC position in a rocket and send it off into outer space. The absolute lunacy of Trent to suppose that Christ did not even OBLIGE us to consume BOTH bread and wine, as if he had given us an OPTION, is proof positive they were under the influence of, “their father the devil” per John 8:44.

            Reply

            1. OK, I hear you say:

               “IT IS A MISERABLE APOLOGETIC, one which any cult can use to “prove” anything they want.”

               Then…:

               “I interact with the word of God ……You do not. Therefore, no matter what you say, you lose.”

               In other words, I speak for God and you don’t. Because I say so.

               And you have the onions to all-caps-tard a definition of MISERABLE APOLOGETIC….

               “Just exactly HOW would those listening to him in chapter 6 have obeyed the command to eat him if that’s what Jesus really meant for them to do?”

               A non-sequitur, which is why no one with a 3rd grade education bothered to answer you. I’ll engage my Catholic school book-larnin’….Jesus was speaking of his real Presence, in the Kingdom of His Church to come, which would be available to the Elect after His Resurrection, because He reasonably did not expect anyone to rip off a piece of His leg while He was preaching.

               You want to be one of the Elect, put the banjo down and enroll in RCIA.

            2. I have shown multiple times, sometimes form your own sources, that you cherry pick to make your case and ignore credible theological writing – much from Protestant sources – that demonstrate the opposite of positive historical and doctrinal consensus on Transubstantiation. Your arguments are contrived and bankrupt.

            3. For some reason, there is no reply button after many comments, so I cannot respond.

            4. AK: [So you ask]
               “Just exactly HOW would those listening to him in chapter 6 have obeyed the command to eat him if that’s what Jesus really meant for them to do?”
               A non-sequitur, which is why no one with a 3rd grade education bothered to answer you.

               C.P.O. Nonsense. They can’t answer because THEY DO NOT KNOW.

               AK: I’ll engage my Catholic school book-larnin’

               C.P.O. Oh this I have to see.

               AK: Jesus was speaking of his real Presence, in the Kingdom of His Church to come, which would be available to the Elect after His Resurrection, because He reasonably did not expect anyone to rip off a piece of His leg while He was preaching.

               C.P.O. I have already completely refuted the notion, TO YOU, of a “future promise” on 6/10 @ 2:16 am. So get real: Jesus was asking them to do something on the spot, right then and there, and your explanation is biblically bankrupt. WE KNOW what he wanted them to do, which I have explained repeatedly. Your explanation, which assumes that Jesus meant for all Catholics to henceforth eat his hands, arms legs and feet, is quite simply, delirious.

               FYI, Jesus lays down the general principle to denounce any future claims of His bodily manifestation by saying, “if they shall say to you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth: or Behold, He is in the inner rooms, believe it not” (Matt 24:25-26; Mk 13:21). The “inner rooms” depict a chamber on the ground floor or interior of a house, generally used for storage or privacy. The backbone of Roman Catholicism is its star prop—the monstrance, which is a vessel wherein they imagine Jesus Christ remains in “storage” during eucharistic adoration, or in a golden chalice waiting to be picked out by the hands of the priest at Mass. But the Bible argues that Jesus does not dwell in temples (or any holy receptacles) made with hands, but has entered into Heaven itself where He will remain until He appears “a second time”, not manifesting himself a million times daily in every Mass on Earth so Catholics can “rip off his legs”, which is in actuality what you are doing (Acts 7:48; Hebrews 9:24-28). Neither is any sort of “sacramental presence” mentioned to sustain us in the meantime. Thus, the vessel that houses the Eucharist is nothing other than an alleged holy place made with hands which the Bible forbids and yet the RCC bids you to believe that, “Look! He is there!”. But Christ Himself says he is not there!

               Knowing this kind of deception would be pandemic, our Lord says to reject any future claims of his physical appearance no matter WHAT kind they are, and we can confidently assert this because he did not make any exception for the Catholic view. He then sprinkles his statement with salt and says, “See, I have told you beforehand.” And he certainly did. History is littered with claims of a visiting Savior by pious Catholics on a personal level, and invitations to a “one man show” in every church, everyday, on a national level. Consequently, a doctrine such as the “Real Physical Presence” is the very essence of what Jesus was WARNING against!
               God gives the jigsaw puzzle pieces of Christian doctrine to each one of us in the Bible. Once we put the pieces together, the “big picture” is complete. Transubstantiation is like finding an extra jigsaw puzzle piece that simply does not belong in the completed framework, and so, it must be thrown away.

            5. At this point, you are devolving into Westboro-compound bunker recirculated-air psychosis. I default to Craig’s screed on your insanity.

         2. BB cannot find his buttons now.

            Reply

7. Dear Barry,

   You present a false dichotomy. You do not have only two options: being rude or being a ‘church mouse’. It is better to just be well-informed, civil and reasonable. I know that Jesus (who will judge the living and the dead) and Paul (who had responsibility for the whole Gentile mission) occasionally used words to condemn, but you and I do not enjoy their status or their spiritual insight. We are dealing with people on precisely the same level as ourselves (or perhaps a little higher in patience). Maybe the apostle James’ warnings about the tongue can equally apply to the keyboard. I am bothering to say this because you said love was your motivation.

   Reply

   1. Thurz…I am NOT being rude, period, end of story. You may PERCEIVE that if you wish, but my words do not support your accusation. Now you know as well as I do that Jesus did not always walk around with a feather duster and a limp wrist. Neither do I. And I must reject your thesis that just because J & the apostles showed a little heat in their disputations, that I am not to have the same liberty. Frankly, I take this advice to be perfectly obnoxious, especially when BOTH Jesus and Paul state we are to be IMITATORS OF THEM! You have completely whitewashed their words to suit your own agenda, and I am not impressed.
      I am especially disappointed that you, as a Presbyterian, can only comment on my “tone”, and are obviously afraid to offend anyone by actually agreeing with me, when I know full well you do, at least on certain points. You are just like those folk in the N.T. we read of who believed in Christ but were afraid to admit it lest they be criticized.

      Reply

      1. Nice try. But telling us “I am NOT being rude, period, end of story. ” is rude.

         Reply

         1. Bulldog guy a bad person. Non Christian lurker here, but if I do accept Christ, I don’t want to be in his denomination. Wow. Bad guy , real rude. Others who disagree like Craig more my speed if I go Protestant route. What denomination is Barry, and how do I get as far away from it as possible. I thought this religion thing was about love? Barry not love, Barry pure evil guy. My 2 cents

            Reply

            1. You won’t find Craig worshipping in a Protestant church anymore unless it’s some kind of Eastern Orthodox outreach.

            2. Rick, wherever you land, and I’m praying you do, the world should make more sense, ALL people should be more lovable, and the fruit of the Spirit enumerated in Galatians 5 should be apparent. Otherwise, it’s not the fullness of the truth and not worth wasting your time on. Blessings.

            3. Oh shut up Rick. You think your pathetic “bad guy” quips mean anything to me? You have not said one blessed word to convince anyone of anything on this thread! Who in the world can take you seriously?!
               And to say I am a “NON CHRISTIAN” lurker, takes the cake for idiocy in light of all the biblical criteria I’ve submitted. So get a clue: They said Jesus was of the devil too, so I am delighted to receive your worthless criticism because it proves I am on the narrow road and should expect the same type of unjustified abuse that he did.
               You just don’t like the WAY I present my facts. You want me to put on a dress and lipstick and throw angel dust all over you and bat my eyes and blow you a kiss. You have absolutely no idea of what spiritual warfare is, so I guess it’s better you not join any church because its clear you have a limp wrist and wouldn’t know how to fire a weapon.

            4. Oh shut up BARRY. You think your pathetic “bad guy” quips mean anything to me? You have not said one blessed word to convince anyone of anything on this thread! Who in the world can take you seriously?!

               I fixed it for you.

         2. Look at the latest Barry response, 17 June at 11:40. I think the past week or so of not only no one gophering up and shrilling “I believe in you, Brother Barry!’ but only more pushback, correction and repudiation is starting to affect Barry’s, well, judgment.

            Ok, so you reap what you sow….more than a few of us asked him to be civil, several times….some things are just sad.

            Reply

8. Barry the Bulldog, just a quick question:

   St. Justin Martyr says on the Eucharist in 154 AD…about 75 years after the book of Revelation was written:

   “And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

   For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” – (First Apology, 66)

   Do you care to learn from such an early Christian apologist, witness and Martyr? Or do you prefer the scholastics and theologians of the 16th century who lived and taught more than 1350 years later?

   Are you implying that the early Church apostatized from your understanding of the Eucharist before 150 AD? And if so, can you give a rough date of such apostasy, or names of Early Christian teachers who taught your ideology on the matter?

   Reply

   1. AWLMS quotes Mr. Martyr: “so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

      Response: You do not understand the ramifications of this quote because you are looking through a glass darkly and simply don’t get it.
      Now what exactly ARE those ramifications? J.M. is giving a view that is diametrically opposed to MODERN Catholicism! How?
      Catholic author William Jurgens says, “The change referred to here is the change that takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (“The Faith of the Early Fathers”, vol. 1, p. 57).
      However, Justin said he heard through the grapevine that the consecrated Eucharist nourishes our body in the SAME MANNER as regular food. Modern RCism does not teach that at all. Thus, any early idea of Transubstantiation was originally thought to have resulted in the traveling Savior taking a trip through our digestive system under the “accidents” of bread and wine. Do you get it now? As I have stated elsewhere on this thread, your catechism states that Jesus DOES NOT choose to stay in the midst of the acidic war zone in the stomach, and bids you farewell after one measly minute (CCC 1377). Someone early on recognized the ramifications of the Justin Martyr complex; namely that the traveling Savior would end up being being broken down and absorbed after the stomach acids take their turn; then burned off as energy, stored as fat, and/or expelled as waste. . But since this very thought was disgusting beyond belief, they had to get him out of there as quickly as possible. What to do? Answer? Create a doctrine out of thin air which has him packing his bags before the stomach acids begin their attack so he can seek asylum in a safety zone elsewhere. That way, He can be spared the shame of ending up in the city sewer.
      Hence, since we know that God is adamantly opposed to any doctrine that “promotes controversial speculation” (1 Tim 1:3-4), He ***MUST*** be opposed to Transubstantiation since every single one of the RCC’s defense tactics breeds controversy like mold to a wet spot, ministering a plethora of needless and endless questions that Catholics spend their entire adult lives grappling with, all to no avail.

      AWLMS: Do you care to learn from such an early Christian apologist, witness and Martyr?

      C.P.O. Absolutely not. J.M. said he got his thoughts from those before him, so we may very safely conclude that this whole fiasco of literally eating Christ and him taking a trip through our small and large intestines, was an error that begin very early on, and without a shred of biblical back-up to support such a ludicrous notion, why of course I have no desire to learn from him… AT ALL. The apostle predicted that as soon as he left the scene, there would be those who would creep in with damnable heresy, exactly as Moses said, “the minute I leave, you will all fall through the cracks”. And so it was.

      AWLMS: Are you implying that the early Church apostatized from your understanding of the Eucharist before 150 AD?

      C.P.O. The least that can be said is that J.M. and those he got it from, clearly “apostatized” from what the RCC teaches today! I’m sure this must come as a shock to your system, so perhaps you better lay down with a wet washcloth on your forehead.

      AWLMS: And if so, can you give a rough date of such apostasy, or names of Early Christian teachers who taught your ideology on the matter?

      C.P.O. Obviously, the error of J.M. was firmly in place circa 150, so it had to start sometime before that.
      As for my ideology being in vogue, we could look to the Didache circa 100, which simply refers to the Lord’s Supper as spiritual food and drink, precisely what Protestants worldwide believe today.
      Or Tertllian, circa 180:
      “Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ THAT IS, the SYMBOL of my body.”
      There was of course, Augustine circa 400, whose quotes I already provided on this thread. Then there is also Ignatius. Catholics like to think he supports their view, but this brilliant article entitled, “EATING IGNATIUS”, lays that claim in the nearest available coffin.

      http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

      Reply

      1. Barry the bulldog,

         It’s really amazing that you trust so certainly the canon of the New Testament, as it was approved by the great majority of Bishops who believed exactly what Just Martyr believed by the time of the Council of Nicaea I.

         A quick read of ‘Church History’ by Eusebius of Caesarea, will amply show the history of the selecting of the texts for the New Testament, during the many centuries of ecclesiastical debate on the subject. After about 400 years of
         Christianity the canon was finally closed by the authority of the Church (that you consider apostate)at the time of St. Augustine. So, if you trust that these Catholic Bishops got the canon right, why would you consider them ‘apostates’? It doesn’t make sense. Apostates would have chosen many of the wacky Gospels that were then in circulation to include in the canon also.

         But at least you are Catholic in this sense, that you accept our canon, as compared to creating your own.

         Sorry to tell you, Bulldog, but Church history is not on your side. You might want to take a look Eusebius’ history, and maybe then an early Christian catechism called ‘The Apostolic Constitutions’, to get a more orthodox view on ecclesiology. Here is a link for your review of the Apostolic Constitutions detailing how Christians were taught since the times of the Apostles to it’s compilation in about 375 AD, and beyond:

         http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0715.htm

         Reply

         1. Having failed to refute any of the many evidences I have given, “A” now resorts to going off topic to the selection of the canon, which does not prove one blessed thing.
            Nevertheless, even here, you are wrong. You obnoxiously state that Protestants accept the Catholic canon, when that isn’t true AT ALL. We categorically reject the Apocrypha, which is no more the word of God than are the nursery rhymes of Mother Goose.

            Then you wish us to believe that, “the canon was finally closed by the authority of the Church at the time of St. Augustine”. That too is false, for “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” tells us that the Councils of Carthage and Hippo circa 400 did NOT establish the canon for the Church as a whole and affirms that the Canon wasn’t established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:

            “The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (under, “The Canon”).

            Hence, we have now observed that every sentence you have submitted thus far is erroneous, and so, if you still wish to believe such things like the Council of Trent was infallible, when I clearly proved they WERE NOT, then you do so to your own peril. Ergo, on Judgment Day, kindly do not look in my direction and say I didn’t warn you.

            Reply

            1. You’re missing (or just ignoring) a nuance, here, Lassie. While the said Councils *did* establish the validity of the deuterocanonicals, there was controversy, the validity was reconfirmed throughout the Middle Ages. Countless manuscripts of the Vulgate include the DC’s..and the Council of Florence in 1442 included a complete list of the books of the Canon without calling it a Canon. The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (who works in His own good time) was prompted by the Protestant heresy to put a final end to the discussion by certifying what was pretty well by then accepted fact, at the Council of Trent. A loose end to tie up, so to speak.

               During the pre-Trent period, was there disagreement amongst Catholic theologians on this topic? Absolutely. Does that give one cause to doubt the validity of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Not on your cornbread-n’beans-fed life. If you say yes, then you, coming from a tradition of ‘interpret Scripture any way you please’ of 40,000 squabbling sects, have to have your pic in the dictionary next to the word ‘hypocrite’ as the only definition necessary.

            2. Bull dog, here is a short history on the “Development of the Christian biblical canon” (from wikipedia). You will see that it was considered closed by the 5th century, and ratified later by Trent:

               “…Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine’s commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.

               In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regard to them.[9] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393). The acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419).[10] These councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[11] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[8] or if not the list is at least a 6th-century compilation[12] claiming a 4th-century imprimatur.[13] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[14] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church.”[15] Thus, from the 5th century onward, the Western Church was unanimous concerning the New Testament canon.[16]

            3. Nice post, Al. I think they call that a “pincer movement.”

      2. “Someone early on recognized the ramifications of the Justin Martyr complex; namely that the traveling Savior would end up being being broken down and absorbed after the stomach acids take their turn; then burned off as energy, stored as fat, and/or expelled as waste”

         You know who the someone was? Voltaire! A virulent atheist! A hater of anything and all things Christian, a forefather of the French Revolution, and of Communism. You fundatards run in good company. Is that why you did your sheepish little “wa’al…someone early on…’ because you didn’t want us to know the real source of your inspiration?

         The more theological tribbles you spew, Banjo Man, the more holes I’ll find. Until you head back to your bunker to gas up the generator.

         Reply

         1. AK: You know who the someone was [who thought up Christ was going through our intestines?] Voltaire! A virulent atheist! A hater of anything and all things Christian

            C.P.O. You really are at the point of gnashing your teeth like those who foamed at the mouth at Christ. It doesn’t intimidate me in the least. Your comments are getting worse each time you post. I have already demonstrated that it was Mr. Martyr who said he had heard by those before him of the traveling, “transmuting” Savior being assimilated like regular food, so your comment of it being Voltaire is wildly nonsensical. Obviously, the RCC did not like the idea of “jesus” being so rudely escorted out of the body, so they pulled the doctrine of his “fast escape” like a rabbit out of a hat, per CCC 1377.
            Happily, true Christians have the promise of Christ by his spirit 24/7. Catholics greet him for one minute once a week, down their throat for some unknown purpose, whereupon he LEAVES, and does not return until the next Mass, where this hamster-wheel salvation of the Savior-in-the-stomach, keeps turning week after week. It is pure fantasy.

            Reply

            1. From Voltaire’s “Philosophical Dictionary:”

               “Their preachers in the pulpits, their learned in their publications, and the people in their conversational discussions, incessantly repeat that Jesus Christ did not take His body in His two hands to give His disciples to eat; that a body cannot be in a hundred thousand places at one time, in bread and in wine; that the God who formed the universe cannot consist of bread which is converted into fæces, and of wine which flows off in urine; and that the doctrine may naturally expose Christianity to the derision of the least intelligent, and to the contempt and execration of the rest of mankind.”

            2. The fact that Voltaire was on the same page as J.Martyr, proves nothing. I fail to see your point. The overarching point (which you ignore by blowing smoke in bringing up Voltaire) is that J.M. did not agree with modern RCism, and this of course, you cannot admit.

               At the end of the day, there is not one benefit the Catholic has by allegedly swallowing the physical constituents of Christ, that I do not have by believing in the promise of the Holy Spirit to abide with me forever. The sin of the RCC is that they KIDNAP all the virtues of the Holy Spirit, which ARE mentioned in Scripture, and proceed to bat their eyes and transport those virtues over to the Eucharist, the virtues of which are mentioned NOWHERE in the Text.

         2. “I fail to see your point.”

            That’s a shock. Maybe if I speak….very…slowly…..

            Reply

9. If you’re confused by Bulldog’s diatribes this letter will help you sort things out. It will give you a new mental map upon which to fix your own position so that you can better shatter the adage that courtesy and manners don’t count for anything. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Bulldog cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures. It sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue getting as many people as possible to line up behind the geek-tent barkers at the latest and greatest carnival of animalism. Bulldog is good at stirring its minions into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that many scholars have already concluded that its slogans are highly sanguinary. Nevertheless, it’s still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that Bulldog keeps saying that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. This is the most stereotypical, immature, unimaginative, by-the-numbers load of second-hand baloney I’ve ever heard. The truth is that Bulldog makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant’s mother. Consider, for example, Bulldog’s claim that its junta is a colony of heaven called to obey God by erasing the memory of all traditions and all history. The fact of the matter is that it’s indeed astounding that it has somehow found a way to work the words “ultramicrochemistry” and “scientificogeographical” into its actions. However, you may find it even more astounding that its policy is to provoke scummy, tyrannical heresiarchs into action. Then, Bulldog uses their responses in whatever way it sees fit, generally to set our national thermostat to its maximum degree of exhibitionism.

   Bulldog is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of tribalism and you’ll see a discourteous twerp hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of academicism in a prolix, aberrant attempt to develop mind-control technology. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that in Bulldog’s limited horizon it itself is the important object. As a sequence to this self-conceit, it imagines that its memoranda enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. We therefore need to explain to it that when I first heard that there exists a tyrannous sybarite who has been promoting a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk, I was entirely bumfuzzled. Who could be so crafty, so deficient in human grace, as to do such a thing? After learning that Bulldog was the asinine, sordid stoner in question, I realized that Bulldog likes to compare its homilies to the venerable documents that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn’t hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it’s not even worth summarizing them.

   Bulldog relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do Bulldog’s dirty work for it. Without its swarms of useful idiots, Bulldog would not have been able to conceal the fact that it is hardly surprising that it wants to introduce absurd, baseless, terror-ridden lawsuits intended to destroy the lives of countless innocent people. After all, this is the same wild potlicker whose goofy prattle informed us that philistinism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. Bulldog’s opinion is that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by birdbrained deadheads for the purpose of population reduction. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that I like to say that it may seem excessive to note that Bulldog uses a rather brown-nosing definition of “superincomprehensibleness”. It always gets agitated whenever I say things like that. Regrettably, the substance of Bulldog’s complaints about such statements indicates either that it has entirely misunderstood my point or else that it is deliberately misrepresenting it. Either way, Bulldog hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to draw an accurate portrait of Bulldog’s ideological alignment.

   Strange, isn’t it, how overbearing Zoilists are always the first to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours? I realize my phlegmatic approach to such issues might not elucidate some of my audience, but I need to spend some time considering how best to make this world a better place in which to live. How much more illumination does that fact need before Bulldog can grasp it? Assuming the answer is “a substantial amount”, let me point out that the practice of intersectionality—that is, taking into account the way different forms of oppression mutually reinforce each other and differentially affect different subgroups—was not developed for the sake of a “more oppressed than you” competition. It was developed precisely in order to weed out organizations like Bulldog that have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. We must build a broad, united movement against all forms of exploitation and oppression. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Bulldog claims that “the truth”, “the whole truth”, and “nothing but the truth” are three different things. One might wonder how it arrived at such a belief, especially given that it merely asserts it rather than arguing it. Bulldog could have argued instead that it has been trying to convince us that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the national treasury. This pathetic attempt to insist that our society be infested with extremism, alarmism, ultraism, and an impressive swarm of other “isms” deserves no comment other than to say that Bulldog wants me to stop trying to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Instead, it’d rather I self-censor my critique of it. Sorry, but I don’t accept defeat that easily.

   Bulldog intends to put its iconoclastic platoon of featherbrained, putrid slumlords in charge of preying on people’s fear of political and economic instability. We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that Bulldog is laughing up its sleeve at us. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to it. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you’ll find that I wish I didn’t have to be the one to break the news that Bulldog’s flunkies are just as bad as Bulldog is, if not worse. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Bulldog doesn’t want us to know about its plans to promote intolerance and paranoia. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

   I once told Bulldog’s apparatchiks that Bulldog combines greed and bloodlust into a single persona. As a result, I witnessed in them a paranoia that reached astonishing new levels of hysteria, which made me realize that listening to Bulldog talk about spitting on sacred icons is like watching a colonial power laying out a plan to force its language, culture, laws, religion, and ideals on a subject people. The put-upon natives in this case are those of us bold enough to state in public that Bulldog wins people over to its sodality of disdainful chaterestres by convincing them that it is entitled to make human life negligible and cheap. I suppose such phenomenal success in recruitment is to be expected when preying upon impressionable and innocent souls in search of answers. I can scarcely imagine the difficulty such people will encounter when they eventually learn that Bulldog’s polity is not a cultural or religious assemblage, as Bulldog purports it to be. Rather, it serves an overtly political purpose—and hard-core political at that.

   One could imagine that some good might come from letting Bulldog scatter about in profusion an abundance of pro-Bulldog wheelings and dealings. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is Bulldog. Bulldog will hate me for saying this, but it is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as it. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how deranged Bulldog is. You can’t do it. Not only that, but if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.

   If I had to choose the most self-indulgent specimen from Bulldog’s welter of dysfunctional gabble, it would have to be Bulldog’s claim that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. I can only pull back the curtains on Bulldog’s disquisitions and show them for what they really are if Bulldog’s cocky, ghastly loony-bin crew is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to pronounce an enlightened and just judgment upon Bulldog and those who wish to push all of us to the brink of insanity. Naturally, Bulldog belongs to the latter category. Nobody wants Bulldog to poke someone’s eyes out, but Bulldog insists on doing it anyway. I try never to argue with Bulldog because it’s clear it’s not susceptible to reason. We desperately need to rise above the narrow confines of self-existence to the broader concerns of all humanity. It’s not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Bulldog doesn’t move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low.

   Bulldog’s criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, its criticisms are based solely on its emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Bulldog’s “I think … I believe … I feel” game. Now that I’ve been exposed to Bulldog’s inveracities I must admit that I don’t completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps if Bulldog is incapable of discerning the mad ramblings of ornery, ungrateful rattlebrains from the wisdom and nuance embedded in a sage’s discourse then I seriously doubt that it’ll be capable of determining that it sees the world as somewhat anarchic, a game of catch-as-catch-can in which the sneakiest kooks nab the biggest prizes. We have much to fear from Bulldog. Personally, I’m afraid that before long, it’ll impale us on a Morton’s Fork: Either we let it muster enough force to spread blasphemous, combative views, or it’ll jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either inane or recalcitrant. Regardless of which we choose, Bulldog should stop protesting against its weaknesses and shortcomings. Rather, it should forgive itself for them and seek to strengthen itself by facing its tendentious fears. Then, perhaps, Bulldog would stop replacing intellectual discourse with programs designed to instill sectarian and ideological doctrines.

   I may not be perfect, but at least I’m not afraid to say that as Bulldog matures morally it’ll eventually grow out of its present way of thinking and come to realize that my cause is to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Bulldog presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. Who is Bulldog to decide what is morally acceptable for us and what is not? Bulldog says that it acts in the public interest. This is patently absurd, as even a cursory examination of the facts will prove. In any event, if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about Bulldog’s rude obloquies and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I’d rather spend some time discussing how the mot juste for describing Bulldog’s polemics is most probably “ophidian”. More than that, Bulldog’s bootlickers allege that “children should belong to the state.” First off, that’s a lousy sentence. If they had written instead that Bulldog has a different view of reality from the rest of us then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, if you can go more than a minute without hearing Bulldog talk about rowdyism, you’re either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Although I’ve spent most of this letter criticizing Bulldog, let me end by stating simply that I’ll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that Bulldog will hasten society’s quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty sometime soon.

   Reply

   1. Craig, How do you know this guy?

      Personally, I’ve never come across a Christian with such a nasty way of expressing himself. The way I see it, is that Jesus Christ taught his followers how to correctly evangelize when He sent His disciples out two by two, in poverty and humility, in imitation of Himself. He said:

      “And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. ” (Matt:10:10)

      So we see, Jesus Christ teaches His disciples ( And to us through them) to spread His Good News with peace and charity, in imitation of how we find Jesus Himself conducting His mission throughout Israel. And how charitable was the ‘way the Lord’ in His teaching which we ourselves must follow? Just consider how charitably He treated ‘the woman at the well, and ‘Mary Magdeline’, the 10 lepers that he healed, and Zacheus who climbed the tree, how He treated his own doubting Apostles, and even Judas His betrayer! And so we know that Our Lord Jesus Christ indeed has a ‘Sacred Heart’, He who Himself ‘wept over Jerusalem’, and was grateful for the testimony of a poor blind man when he stood up to the Pharisees in Christ’s defense.

      So, when Christian’s attempts to spread the Gospel in a way other than that example that we we find in the Gospel of Christ, they might indeed believe Him… but they don’t imitate Him. And really, I can’t imagine Jesus allowing such a soul to promote His ‘Good News’ in His name…which is “The Prince of Peace”. Even if the message were true (not to say with Dog it is), the attitude alone would be something akin to diabolical, in that the egioism displayed is something not found throughout the very scriptures that the egoist is promoting.

      However, regarding this I can give some good testimony to Catholicism, in general. I find that Catholics are fairly humble and loving people if you judge by those who attend mass daily, or a few times per week. For the most part the are very beautiful people… kind and caring people. In such the Lord might be seen, not as an earthquake, or a great storm, as Elijah noted…but as a gentle breeze.

      Maybe this is why Jesus is seen under the analogy of a ‘lamb’ and a ‘good shepherd’.

      May we all imitate Christ in His manner of teaching and preaching in this world; for He says of Himself: “Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”

      And we all should be like our Shepard in this, and in no way conduct ourselves in the way that Bull Dog tries to evangelize. He seems to be almost a perfect example as to ‘how NOT TO evangelize’, as such egoism is completely contrary to the beautiful scripture of Christ, above. And Joe also, is a good example of a true Christian method of evangelizing others, in imitation of Christs humility, and with great patience and respect for all; and his for the Love of Jesus Christ is easily noted through these virtuous attributes.

      Best to you always in the Lord, ….and I hope you and your wife are settling in well in your new home!

      – Al

      Reply

      1. I don’t I am fascinated by how loquacious he is. That reply is an argument-generator on google, I did not write it LOL

         Reply

         1. Craig. That is a riot! 🙂

            I was thinking….is this really Craig or an imposter?…and I kept looking at your picture to make sure. Then I though that maybe you have been responding to Bull dog for many years on your own blog, and so you knew him better than his own psychoanalyst!!

            The thought that you were a freakin’ genius even passed my mind a few times, because I couldn’t really understand what you were saying, but you had so much conviction. And you USUALLY know well what you are talking about, so I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

            But I agree with you, people like Bulldog, and our occasional friend Phil, are really very interesting characters in their own way. But only the Lord knows how to judge them. They probably are just exhibiting excessive zeal…sort of the way suicide bombers think in the Moslem faith. The think they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong…and go to extreme measures to demonstrate it.

            Best to you.

            Reply

            1. Al,
               Thanks for the thoughts! 🙂 “Extreme measures” is only the tip of an iceberg.

            2. AW: [Protestants act] sort of the way suicide bombers think in the Moslem faith.

               C.P.O. I take great pleasure in fact that you could stoop so low to classify me in the same category as a suicide bomber. It is exactly the kind of verbal abuse Jesus said to expect from their enemies, so I should not be surprised. Your mind is just so easy to read, you may as well put it on your sleeve. How? Your reaction is simply a disgust with the fact that I know the word of God annnnd RC doctrine like the back of my hand ( a terrifying combo for the Catholic to deal with). That being so, the only other option is to go for the jugular and consider me “beside himself”, as they said of Christ.
               So keep the insults coming and keep failing to interact with the facts provided. All of it will be displayed on the big screen on Judgment Day and I have every confidence your apologetic endeavors will be classified as a monumental failure.

            3. No, not Protestants. I said “people like Bulldog..and our occasional friend Phil”. I’m talking more of personality and communication skills than of theological opinion. A guy name Phil debates in a very similar manner as yourself, and can be very crude at times. He used to beg over and over again for someone to “please excommunicate me” and other non-sense. And he wrote with many of your highlights and exclamations, and with an attitude as if he were the only person on Earth that understood the Truth. Every one else were intellectual and theological dimwits.

               So, I still stand by my assessment that you are probably suffering from a case of what is termed ‘excess of zeal’ and is usually accompanied by a good dose of egoism. It doesn’t matter what a person is talking about, it could be science, atheism, physics, whatever…it’s the attitude that stands out which can also be defined as ‘obnoxious’.
               So, at least you are not alone. But you seem to me to be on your way to getting the grand prize for this…at least so far.

            4. To kind Al. Was telling my wife about your printing press yesterday. Thanks for your work and best to you!

      2. AWL: Personally, I’ve never come across a Christian with such a nasty way of expressing himself.

         CPO: Personally, I’ve never come across such abysmal ignorance of Scripture coupled with cowardice to face the truth that the Council of Trent was no more infallible than there are rivers running in the Sahara desert.

         AWL: The way I see it, is that Jesus Christ taught his followers how to correctly evangelize when He sent His disciples out two by two, in poverty and humility, in imitation of Himself.

         CPO: First of all, most RC foot soldiers do not live in poverty, so your example of imitation falls flat. Second, your accusation that I do NOT imitate Christ is a canard and cannot be supported by any verifiable evidence. Third, your “how to evangelize” advice has a black cloud hanging over it by your lacking to mention the brutal tactics of “how to evangelize” used by RC personnel to get people to believe in the Eucharist by tying them up to a stake under penalty of death! It is glaringly noted for its hypocrisy. Fourth, you can’t seem to accept the fact that Jesus was able to predict the slaughter of the innocents by CATHOLICS in particular, by saying their murderous acts would be under the delusion of thinking they were doing God a favor by these executions. And sure enough…we, by looking back in history, see that is EXACTLY what happened, for those religious monsters prefaced their dirty deeds by saying, “This is all to the glory of God”. Since no other religious institution claiming to be Christian fits the bill, we may rightly conclude that Jesus is in fact, identifying the Roman Catholic Church in particular, as his arch enemy and thus, any and all doctrines promoted by her are to be cast in the nearest city dump.
         Fifth, your further avoidance of Trent’s “evangelism class” on the Eucharist stating that opposition to the RC wafer was “satanic, godless, contentious and evil” is even more hypocritical. If we were to believe that Trent was infallible, that ipso facto, means God was speaking through them, correct? That being so, any harsh way you judge MY words to be, could not be any more harsher than theirs, because I would be “imitating Christ” as you say we should, by calling our enemies “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. For the most part, I have no even come close to Trent’s venom, yet you slam me into the ground and plant a halo on Trent’s head! Incredible!
         Anyway, I trust you now see what happens when a little logic is applied and your pious counter attacks, which prove utterly fruitless when all is said and done. Of course you will never admit it, but I do know you will roll in bed at night knowing your apologetic attempts have failed miserably.

         AWL: So we see, Jesus Christ teaches His disciples (And to us through them) to spread His Good News with peace and charity, in imitation of how we find Jesus Himself conducting His mission throughout Israel.

         C.P.O. As I have already mentioned a few times here WITH NO RESPONSE, Jesus did not always walk around with a feather duster and a limp wrist! You Catholics take the “charitable” side of Jesus and STRIP HIM of all his emotions and reactions to error as if they didn’t exist! You have concocted for yourselves a cartoon character of the Lord and hence end up with “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Cor 11:4. It is absolutely inexcusable, and anyone with a thinking brain can see your argument against me is about as strong as a house of cards build on a table with 3 legs.
         The RCC is coming at us with a demand for salvation, via the Eucharist, that we systematically reject, and hence, we MUST react to it, just as in any war the Lord appointed men to fight in as we read of in the O.T. For the most part, I simply have given you the facts, and you, not knowing how to deal with them, clamp down on certain emotive characteristics of my writing WHICH SHOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE, and harp on it because you cannot answer my challenges! The confidence I show in my position should be a CATALYST for you to do further research, like for example, go read Trent for yourself and see if what I’m saying is true. But you won’t. The thought that Trent was in error and thus not infallible, wreaks havoc with your whole mindset and your body is going into convulsions at the thought you’ve been deceived. I quite understand that your only alternative is to go into defense mode and pretend what I told you about Trent does not exist. BUT IT DOES, and there is no way out of it for you. According to the word of the Lord then, per Deut 18:22, Catholicism must be classified as counterfeit Christianity. DEAL WITH IT.

         AWL: And how charitable was the ‘way the Lord’ in His teaching which we ourselves must follow? Just consider how charitably He treated ‘the woman at the well, and ‘Mary Magdeline’, the 10 lepers that he healed, and Zacheus who climbed the tree…

         C.P.O. Oh stop it. You sound like Christians are ordered to act like Tinkerbell and throw confetti on all they come in contact with! Your form of argumentation is grossly flawed and unwarranted. No one denies the simple acts of courtesy and proper manners we are to follow. But what makes your rebuttal to me out of order is your forgetting that I am REACTING to the Council of Trent’s tirade about the Eucharist being NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, and THEY state that any and all who do not follow their scheme down to the last detail, may be classified as (oh…did I forget to mention it?) “satanic, godless, contentious and EVIL”… and may furthermore expect to be issued a passport to hell on that final day. Hence, YOU BETTER BELIEVE there is to be some emotion in my reply, and Jesus himself congratulates those of us who examine the claims of those who “SAY” they are apostles but are not, and hast found liars (Rev 2:2). THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE DONE…”exposing the unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph 5:11, 2 Tim 4:2, Romans 16:17-18) reminding everyone that if Jesus did not give the gift of infallibility to the Catholic Church, he “HATES” this doctrine, per Rev 2:15. And if the Lord can “HATE” false doctrine, SO CAN I. Ergo, because I have conclusively proved that the C.O.T. was a fraud, they ***MUST*** be scorned and rejected in everything they promote. This means all Catholics ought to swallow their pride… and NOT the Eucharist, and RUN, not walk, AWAY from the insidious doctrine of the RCC. Neither you or anyone else on this thread, let alone the Pope if given a chance, can respond with anything but a blank stare to the allegations made by me to the C.O.T., and therefore THEY MUST STAND.

         AWL: I find that Catholics are fairly humble and loving people if you judge by those who attend mass daily, or a few times per week. For the most part the are very beautiful people… kind and caring people.

         C.P.O. Your syrupy apologetics make me hungry for pancakes.
         Astonishingly, you JUST DON’T GET IT, and are obviously blinded by that same religious delusion as exemplified by Mr. T. whose biblical ignorance is so thick it can be cut with a knife. FYI, those self-proclaiming Christians in Matt 7 were EVER so “nice and loving” people, yet Christ told them to take a hike. Or how about those 5 foolish young maidens? They too were ever so nice and proper and even associated with just the right people; namely the 5 wise. But when Judgment Day arrived, the door was shut and they were NOT allowed into heaven. This, I say, is exactly the fate awaiting for “nice and loving” Catholics who are DUPED into believing that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation, that baptism is necessary for salvation, that good works are necessary for salvation, that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation …and on it goes. Jesus gets pushed so far back out of the picture that for all intents and purposes, is forgotten about altogether.
         I highly advise you watch this brilliant 3 minute video which so very accurately shows what your fate will be on that final day

         http://www.sermonspice.com/product/16550/good-o-meter

         Reply

         1. Is there anyone else here who would rather watch his or her own appendix being removed, sans anesthetic, than anything-video posted by Barry “Many Droppings” Bulldog?

            Reply

            1. Mememememememe! I’d rather do many other things than observe the drip drops from our resident dog. But I do laugh quite a bit so that keeps me lungs cleared up after having breathed in so much smoke. God bless. 🙂

   2. Craig,

      Thanks! I particularly like that you need (as do we all) to get out more. Away from such ludicrosities, so ludicrous they have become their own opposite. Sad. In other words, as BB himself miraculously recognized and confessed, he cannot find his buttons.

      Reply

      1. Craig: A while back, I read about the “Sokal Hoax” which has been used to generate nonsense papers comprised of social justice jargon strung together, which in turn get peer reviewed and published. I thought of that immediately when i read your screed. Most appropriate for this situation.

         Margo: I attended two funerals – one, my brother, the other, the son of a close friend. My brother died of complications from Agent Orange exposure 40 years previous; the son, way too young in a river rafting accident. Both men had abandoned the Catholicism of their youth to follow whatever faith their wives held, and both funerals were presided over by evangelical parsters. I was struck by the miserable content and delivery of these sermons, which instead of a gentle message of God’s love and comfort to the grieving, was an angry and loud delivery (to a mixed audience) of hellfire and damnation to anyone with the temerity to disagree with what the parster was shilling. Sounded *just like* the crap BB is spewing, what some character named Micah was doing here some months ago in another thread, and interestingly, the way I have heard Westboro Baptist mouthpieces talk to the press and anyone else who will listen. The weak sardonics, the “get it now,? the all-caps….Think maybe there’s a “School for Fundacostalist Trogolodytes” where they standardize the idiocy? I am positing that the mass conversions at the Southern Evangelical Seminary a few years back have the evangelical proglotards running scared, and this is why they have taken to diving into Catholic Church doctrine and the early Church fathers in search of cherry-picked “attack nuggets” like our hairy-forehead friend Barry has been using. A desperation strategy….kinda like Japanese troops, cut off and starving, making suicidal Banzai attacks on entrenched and superior Allied forces. Sad to see, but doesn’t mean we as Catholics do anything but fire on the screaming, ranting incoherent mob until movement stops.

         Reply

         1. AK: I was struck by the miserable content and delivery of these sermons, which instead of a gentle message of God’s love and comfort to the grieving, was an angry and loud delivery (to a mixed audience) of hellfire and damnation to anyone with the temerity to disagree with what the pastor was shilling

            C.P.O. It is ever so obvious that you are under a God-ordained delusion per 2 Thess 2:11-12. How you have the AUDACITY to criticize “loud delivery and damnation to anyone with the gall to disagree” and NOT take to task your precious Council of Trent who did THAT VERY THING which I have mentioned no less than 10 times on this thread, shows you are not dealing with a full deck. I am ever so glad I am witness and participation in these posts, because it is easy to see you are completely refuted and condemned BY YOUR OWN WORDS!

            Reply

            1. Given the devolution of protestantism over the past five centuries, into it’s current theological bottom-feeding swamp-dwelling of the scraped-knuckle backwoods American variety, as evidenced by you, the aforementioned parstards, and your fellow Westboro spiritual brothers – I’d say Trent was both spot-on and preternaturally prescient. I applaud their rulings.

               Keep up the all-caps snake-oil-wagon hellfire, though…it’s amusing both to watch you degenerate to type, and to get a refresh on what appeals to the lowest common denominators of ignorance and fear. It’s like watching the devolutionary regress of the Reformation in a time-compressed video.

            2. BB, AKA Father Phil, Pope DeRoost, Ritz Roast and Picked,

               So you attended the funerals too? Those of AK’s brother and friend? Too bad the Catholic Mass did not accompany the deceased. You could then have learned something.

         2. AK: I’d say Trent was spot-on

            C.P.O. I think that if the owner of this website was participating, he would ban you for not supporting your “SPOT ON” opinion of Trent with any discernible criteria to prove your opponent wrong. Again and again I have said it’s obvious you people are stumped and cannot escape the fact that your entire belief system is destroyed right here in front of you with the very simple truths of fraud that anyone can understand. But because God has the ability to close the eyes of those he wishes to blind (Isa 6:9; Matt 11:25-6; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 9:39-41, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8)…

            it is obvious has he closed YOUR eyes at this time for his own good reasons, perhaps forever, unless he decides to wake you up out of your spiritual coma. Naturally, I have given up hope to convince you of anything, but I write for the benefit of those who might read this in the future. I think God wants this thread to stand as a monument to his power in being ABLE to blind the eyes of those whom he chooses, and I must say, I am indeed a witness to that power. Your blindness is no doubt on the level of a true miracle from on high….almost along the lines of the miracle of Transubstantiation…(if it were true!)

            Reply

            1. “I think…”

               I’ll rejoice when I see that for the first time, reflected in one of your posts.

               “You deserved crickets in return and will GET nothing but crickets in return as it relates to that issue..”

               Then why did you address the subject at all, then go silent when awlms and I proved you wrong? Thought you easily could prove a point, but got slammed, and are now out of arguments? BTW…I have seen this deflection (“it’s not the subject of the thread”) before, on this site, from previous foaming fundatards when they run out of gas.

               Back to your leg de jour.

      2. Face it Margo….for all intents and purposes you have contributed absolutely nothing to this discussion to the end of defending your belief system. Do you think that Heaven is impressed by simply calling what I say “ludicrous”– but failing to support your contentions with anything other than the hot air coming out of your mouth?
         We both know Heaven is NOT impressed. Let this be a lesson to you to gather some facts to support your beliefs BEFORE you post. That way when we see your name, we can happily expect something to deal with in your post. As it is now, we see your name and must simply pass over it knowing that we will not miss a thing.

         Reply

         1. As if you alone know what words issue forth from heaven! Lordy, lordy, lordy, let us all bow down to the underground where you dwell.

            Reply

            1. Let him gas up the generator first and check to see the pintos are properly soaked for tonight’s vittles.

         2. Feel free to pass over, then! As if you yourself, Father Phil, AKA Pope Roast, Dog Breath, know what in God’s good heaven you mean by that.

            Reply

10. Mr. T…

    I have probably never read a more idiotic piece of mumbo jumbo in my life. It was obviously written as a result of your feeling guilty that you could not interact with any one piece of logic from the Bible I presented. As you said,

    “I try never to argue with Bulldog because it’s clear he’s not susceptible to reason.”

    Excuse me Mr. T, but the bottom line here is that I REASONABLY and without any shadow of a doubt, proved that the Council of Trent was MISTAKEN when they wrote on the Eucharist, and therefore all claims to infallibility (and I do mean ALL) must be abandoned. I have shattered your belief system “en toto”, and because you cannot refute the evidence that even a teenager could understand, you resort to submitting this physiological mish-mash to ease your guilty conscience, thinking you have accomplished something grand. Your conscience is horrified that you are utterly unable to get over the implications that if Trent was wrong…(AND THEY MOST CERTAINLY WERE, AS ANY JUDGE AND JURY WOULD AGREE), then absolutely everything they taught, including the Eucharist, is FALSE. I told you that God specifically says to reject all claimants to be inspired by God if what they say contain error! You will not and cannot accept this, and are, in essence, telling God to SHUT UP and “don’t confuse me with the facts”. While I am sorry you feel humiliated, it is better you be humiliated and dejected here and now, rather than you and your wife coming to the Judgment Seat and finding the smile you and she have in the picture, will fade into horror when you come to find out by the Lord himself that I TOLD YOU THE TRUTH, but you would not listen.
    Thus, I advise you to get up off your lazy butt and review my post from 6/10 at 4:48 and examine the simple evidence again. The facts are irrefutable, and that being so, to continue to believe that swallowing the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, only shows you to be willfully ignorant, unconcerned with truth and a false professor of the faith.

    Mr. T: Bulldog’s criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented.

    C.P.O. I most certainly DID put you out of your misery. Your pious rant on the “holiness” of those who ingest the Eucharist was countered and refuted entirely.

    Mr. T: Instead, his criticisms are based solely on emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Bulldog’s “I think … I believe … I feel” game.

    C.P.O. Now you’re being downright foolish to the EXTREME. I GAVE YOU FACTS concerning the non-infallibility of Trent, and not just, “I believe this to be true”. You are obviously so emotionally and spiritually crushed by this revelation that you need to compose a worthless rant against me to make yourself feel better and close your eyes to reality so you can carry on in your religious-cannibalistic dream world, which may more accurately be described as a pseudo-intellectual sham.
    Indeed, if there is any body I would guess at this moment who I was convinced God was choosing to send “strong delusion” to (per 2 Thess 2 :11-12), it would be YOU.

    Reply

    1. A few more words are in order on Trent which Catholics are typically unaware of, so as to seal their fate as a non-infallible council. In addition to already establishing their outrageous pronouncement that Christ did not even OBLIGE us by any divine command to partake of both bread and wine, we now refer to their unbridled madness as to how they justify their actions. Self-appointing themselves king of Christendom, they boast in chapter two that they may “order or change whatever she judges”, and justifies her authority by throwing Christ’s command under the bus by quoting the apostle Paul where he says, “About the other things, I will give directions when I come”.

       Huh??????????

       From that ONE SENTENCE (!!!) conveying the idea that Paul had the authority to give directions (!!!) we gasp for breath that they have the nerve to manipulate a mere reference to authority in ONE PLACE, and turn it into an opportunity to make burnt toast out of Christ’s instruction to partake of BOTH bread and wine. Thinking all the while that this act of treachery is in perfect harmony with the Last Supper account, they announce, “Therefore, Holy Mother Church, aware of this her authority with respect to the administration of the sacraments…approved this custom under one kind and decreed that it should be considered a law…”

       Even if Transubstantiation was the goal, we are quite sure Jesus would not take kindly to whitewashing His words, but rather insist that both instruments are essential to preserve the integrity of whatever it was He had intended. Comically, we read that the apostle Paul, “always respected the duality of the Eucharistic elements” (“The Bible & Morality”, #79).

       Yes, he did. What a pity the church at Rome does not.

       Equally infuriating is that by taking the sledgehammer to Christ’s command and retaining only one of its parts, they still plead innocent to all charges of either adding to or subtracting from Scripture. Naturally, we are expecting some sleazy excuse to justify their disobedience, and as usual, Catholic representatives do not disappoint. Five hundred years ago, Trent put on their bulletproof vest and thought they were safe by quoting Jesus from chapter 6:
       “If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch. 1).
       They assumed that because the Lord ***ONLY MENTIONS BREAD*** in this verse, and not wine, then (whala!) receiving Communion in either form is sufficient!

       However, this only proves that the bulletproof vest Trent wears is padded with feathers, and that this type of shot-gun apologetic will never get past the “blazing eyes of fire” waiting for them on Judgment Day (Rev 1:14; 19:12). We easily pierce through the armor of their argument by saying that it’s as common as the noonday sun to speak on any given topic, while taking for granted things that are not mentioned. For instance, everyone agrees that just because drinking is not mentioned in, “Give us this day our daily bread”, that this is a prayer that we die of thirst. Consequently, Trent’s disgraceful attempt at logic to defend their position, is not indicative of infallibility at all, but rather “scripture twisting” at its worst (2 Peter 3:16).

       Reply

       1. I give God praise that he has called certain individuals to “go sell all that you have, give to the poor and come follow me”. And throughout Christian history, some of these also became leaders of His holy Church, and we find this through not only reading history, but also the letters of these same saints and pastors, because that was the primary means of communication throughout the Roman Empire at that time. So, God raised shepherds from the very beginning, and we can trace these souls throughout Church History, and particularly through their own writings; but also through other literally works such as the Didache, the writings and sayings of the Desert Fathers, the words and lives of the Early Church Martyrs (i.e.. Chpt.8 of Eusebius Church History, etc…)The rules of life written, i.e., by saints such as St. Pachomius, St. Augustine and St. Benedict; and the history of the conversion of pagan kingdoms, such as the Britons and the Anglo Saxons, etc…. And in all of this we can witness and examine the growth of the Church of Christ in the first 600 years of it’s existence.

          And even when the Church had scandals and conflicts, such as happened at the Council of Jerusalem concerning the Judaizers, and then with heretical groups, and frauds, such as the Didache warns of when writing of false apostles, there is still much to be learned in HOW they dealt with such conflicts, and heresies, and especially how much effort they spent on maintaining unity and universality in the Church. The writings of these Fathers exude the virtues that Christians all should foster, both in their depth of theological gravity, as well as their motive for writing and the deep Christian charity driving them. The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians is a good example of this, wherein his great charity for his brothers in Corinth is manifest in every page he writes. It is a spiritual masterpiece of Christian love and correction.

          So, God chose leaders for his Church ever since He chose Apostles to build the Church after His example. He taught them:

          “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

          And so we note in Church history how Christ raised up pastors for His flock, knowing that many of His lambs were not capable of such leadership roles, that many were slaves, widows, illiterate laborers, barbarians without an alphabet, etc… and that only a few would be able to dedicate their lives to shepherding the flock of Christ, even as He did so for His apostles and early disciples.

          And we need to have faith that Christ’s methodology in all of this would have positive results for the Kingdom of God, and that these shepherds would not lose, or permit to be destroyed, all of the sheep and lambs that were under their care. This is to say, that Jesus NEVER taught that something such as a Bible would replace such shepherds in their leadership duties, and whom He Himself would call…even as He called St. Paul to the task of shepherding. And these very early shepherds also knew this, they knew that a ‘scripture alone’ would never be sufficient, but it was the LIVING CHURCH, the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST and FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT that would perform the functions of spreading and building Christ’s Kingdom until the end of the world. If Jesust wanted, He Himself could have easily penned the greatest Gospel account for all humanity until the end of the world. But He chose to choose men such as fishermen instead, to perform these task of teaching and preaching and expanding His kingdom.

          So I give God praise that not everyone has been called to shepherd the sheep and to be bishops, popes and theologians. But we, the sheep an lambs of Christs flock are to have great faith and love for these same leaders, bishops, saints and pastors that God has raised up for us to guide and shepherd, and molded after his own image, who is “meek and humble of heart”.

          The problem I see with ‘sola scriptura’, is that people like B. Bulldog, who is lacking a unified, holy, universal and apostolic based Church to follow, need to become their own theologians, bishops and popes. They need to do the job that it took thousands of former shepherds to do over the last 2000 years. And since they believe only in the Bible as authority and inspiration, they need to make judgements on every issue of theology, which is akin to writing their OWN catechism of the Christian faith ( a monumental and difficult task to get right!). And moreover, they expect that every other Christian in history should have done the same, lest they be damned to hell for neglecting to do so. And this is how B. Bull dog teaches and implies in virtually all of his comments. But this is not how Christ started His Church, as a reading of Eusebius can surely demonstrate. He established it with great order, and great charity amongst it’s members, even when they were subject to intense persecutions. The ancient writings and accounts of the martyrs prove this. Even in spreading the Church according to geographical locations and boundaries ( in cities and territories, with a bishop at each particular location, and with responsibilities only in that place)…this itself is a sign of great order and organization that the Early Church and which continued and expanded throughout the centuries to this very day. That is, the Church today operates even as it did back in the first three centuries of it’s founding spread though bishoprics in particular geographic locations..

          How different is this from the chaotic, largely disorganized, spiritually anarchical ecclesiology found in most of the Protestant world today? Where is the unity that was found in the first centuries of Christianity? Where is the focus on maintaining apostolicity, and true holiness of life through virtuous living? And how, also, is it that Protestantism can ignore a type of celibate life that impacted the entire of Western Civilization, that is, those institutions that were based on the Desert Fathers, and the rules of life they instituted and spread in every century throughout the world thereafter…to the great expanse of Christ’s Church and of true Christian believers throughout the world?

          So, again, I give God thanks that He has established His Church in the way that it has unfolded throughout the last 2000 years; the same Church that was very careful to catalogue so much of it’s history (including the New Testament) for all to be able to read and study in the future. It also has highlighted it’s greatest shepherds, men who have converted pagan kings and nations, such as St. Patrick, St. Augustine (600AD to the Anglo Saxons), St. Boniface, St. Francis Xavier, St. Francis Solanus (in the new world), etc…

          Where do we find such protestants in history? Which pagan nations have they converted? Where is their detailed written history for all to study. Where is their equivalent to the Vatican library? Where are the details of their ‘unified and universal’ faith creeds and doctrines…that Christ wanted His Church to have? But it’s almost nowhere to be found. There are so few examples of Protestant belief in Church history that it’s like a little plant growing in the middle of the Sahara Desert. But the Catholic faith is as lush as the Garden of Eden and is very visible for all to see and study. And I guess this is why B. Bulldog likes to study it, even though he is intent on chopping down a few of these luscious shrubs growing there (holy teachings and histories)….because Protestantism has nothing like it to even criticise. They didn’t have enough interest to bother to write things down and keep for all generations, throughout the centuries. And even Martin Luther, their primary founder of their doctrines is left in ‘the dust of history’, and his personal story and biography almost completely neglected by the entire Protestant population.

          I thank God for His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic faith that He Himself guides and protects until the end of the world.

          Best to all,

          – Al

          Reply

          1. Al – interesting you should say this:

             “And even Martin Luther, their primary founder of their doctrines is left in ‘the dust of history’, and his personal story and biography almost completely neglected by the entire Protestant population.”

             I have been in a few discussions with evangelicals who say, clearly, “who cares what that Luther feller said anyway? He waren’t no Christian like me and mine….”

             Spiritual bankruptcy is glaring in a theology that is allowed to deny, even vilify, it’s founder.

             Reply

             1. I read a 600 page book on him, and want to read it again… it’s that good. And yet I can’t even find one Protestant who knows anything(in detail) about him. And I’ve come across similar opinions when talking to Protestants as you relate. And even Irked, sort of disowns him in a similar fashion as you relate ….in various of his comments that he has made on Shameless Popery. It’s as if the smart Protestants see his many errors and psychological eccentricities even better than the Catholics, but they still like to cherry pick his doctrines to suit their own purposes. This has been going on since Luther was alive, and even surprised him. “How can they start their own Churches, those dirty heretics?!”…he thought. 🙂

                Best to you in the Lord.

             2. 600 pages? This is everything you need to know about Martin Luther in 15 minutes! (recorded pre-catechism obviously)

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45on-2LZGZo

             3. AK: Martin Luther, [is the] primary founder of their doctrines.

                C.P.O. Which just goes to show your knowledge of history is on the same level as a mentally challenged bloke in the nearest psychiatric ward.

                We are assuming that you refer to the doctrines of “faith alone” and “Scripture alone”. However, I can produce for you at least 25 quotes from those who ***preceded*** Luther who used the very terminology of “faith alone”, and another 25 who promoted the superiority of Scripture over any other source. I will not be giving you the names here because it is not the topic of this thread. Nevertheless, your continued irresponsible facts of history must be met head on, especially with the fact that the word “alone” was inserted in ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLES in Romans 3:28 ***before*** Luther was even born. Your revision of history will be blindly accepted by those who don’t take the time to check you out, but for those like me who know what I’m talking about and have the facts squarely on my side, Catholic objections are and always will be, easily dismissed.

          2. OK, Parstard…..

             You claim we haven’t answered your specious, invented assertions about anything on this thread associated with the concept of Transubstantiation.

             Awlms and I have both refuted your assertions about the catholic origins of Scriptural canonicity. Crickets in return. I have demonstrated how you cherry-picked Schaff writings on Augustine to flat lie that Augustine did not believe in Transubstantiation, and refuted same with other quotes from Schaff. I also provided quotes from the writings of other **Protestant* scholars (F.L. Cross) on the fact that Transubstantiation was accepted from the earliest days of the Church. Numerous of us have pointed out, with references, your misuse of the canons of Trent. These were the mainstays of your spew. On those points, I/we didn’t even get a dog-f**t in response.

             What we all did get, was more of the repetitive, circuitous, invective-laden crap, perfectly described in Proverbs 26:11, that I heard from those two spiritually-bankrupt fellow parstards, and still hear (albeit these days, a lot less) from your Westboro cousins. And now, you are attacking one of your own, irked…irked, who has been on here for ages, ably and devoutly defending his Reformed theology, but in a civil manner that invites debate and reasoned enlightenment for all involved. You, sir, theologically are a junkyard dog in a kennel of thoroughbred racers and hunters. You keep going from one to the other, attempting to pass on the stunted and warped genes of your beliefs, but keep getting rejected for the doctrinal mongrel you are. The most you can accomplish is finding a forlorn leg here and there, to hump until you’re shaken off in storied annoyance.

             Just leave…..do a Matt 10:14, back to your bunker, and we’ll all go take a shower ….

             Reply

             1. Oh, forgot one…pointing out how a murderously vicious atheist, a sworn enemy of Christianity – Voltaire – is your spiritual mentor after you tried to deny it.

                Again….in response, only the sound of Barry the Dog attempting another theologically deflectionary leg-hump.

                Leave….

             2. AK: You claim we haven’t answered your specious, invented assertions about anything on this thread associated with the concept of Transubstantiation. Awlms and I have both refuted your assertions about the catholic origins of Scriptural canonicity. Crickets in return.

                C.P.O. You keep digging yourself further into the mud each time you post. The observant reader will notice that the topic of this thread is the Eucharist and its requirement for salvation—and NOT the canon of the Bible! Hellooooo! You deserved crickets in return and will GET nothing but crickets in return as it relates to that issue because it’s quite clear that you wish to blow smoke over the topic at hand and bring up other matters because you cannot face the fact that you have been made fools of by the infallibility claims of Trent.

             3. On the contrary, the question of the canon clearly shows the central flaw to your argument. That you do not wish to address it does not help your case.

          3. AW: The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians… is a spiritual masterpiece of Christian love and correction.

             C.P.O. What you amusingly fail to realize is that Clement categorically states that “we are NOT justified by…WORKS DONE IN HOLINESS OF HEART, but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men.”
             Get a grip on it then: Works done in holiness of heart is the FOUNT and APEX of the modern Catholic mode of justification! (CCC 16, 1821). Since one of your supposedly first popes rejects that notion, your syrupy tribute to him is delusionary. As usual, Catholics want to have it both ways and never, but NEVER see any contradiction in anything THEY or anyone ELSE has to say when defending their church. But I have broken through your “impenetrable fortress” by using your own catechism and contrasting it with the very quotes you provide, resulting in your personal belief system to be in a shambles.
             Anyway, your entire essay of “praise to God” was completely off topic once again, proving for the 10th time that you are unable to deal with the bogus claims of Trent in relation to the allegedly salvific merits of the Eucharist, so you desperately seek to change topic hoping no one will notice.
             You have failed.

             You are refuted.

             Reply

             1. Hey, Parstard Homer…put down the sheep, quit taking things out of context, swallow your meds and read….from the same letter…:

                Chap. XXXIII. But let us not give up the practice of good works and love. God Himself is an example to us of good works.

                “For thus says God: “Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.”[1] Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.” We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.”

                Chap. XXXIV. Great is the reward of good works with God. Joined together in harmony, let us implore that reward from him.

                “Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. ”

                Faith **and** works, Parstard, as any good Catholic will tell you. Sola Fide is the lazy man’s faith, and is **not** of God.

                I have your refutation, right here.

             2. AK: Hey, Parstard

                C.P.O. I will kindly ask you to SHUT UP with this nonsense word “parstard” which I have no idea WHAT the helicopter it means and no desire to know. You’re acting like an ignoramus. I trust you know what THAT word means?

                Now what you submitted from Clement does not in the LEAST refute my comments about the man. He did NOT believe that works done in holiness of heart save anyone and would not have anything whatsoever to do with Catholicism if he were raised from the dead. “Works done in holiness of heart” is the bedrock of the false gospel of Catholicism. The word of God could not be any more glaringly obvious than the sun up in the sky. We read that we ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which we have, but by his mercy he saved us! Look it up and be ashamed.

                AK: Chap. XXXIII. But let us not give up the practice of good works and love.

                C.P.O. This proves nothing. I probably have more good works under my belt than you will ever have completed by the time you die. I store up for myself treasures in heaven, as we are told to do, knowing he will not forget even a cup of water given in his name. Yet I do not put my trust in any ONE OF THEM. The reason Catholics believe a false gospel is because they attach a SALVIFIC EFFICACY to those good works, just as those self-proclaiming Christians in Matt 7 did, and were consequently issued a passport to hell.
                This likewise will be your fate if you don’t get off the medication you’ve been swallowing from the Vatican pharmacy.

                AK: Chap. XXXIV. Great is the reward of good works with God.

                C.P.O. Again, so what? You simply don’t get it do you? The diabolical catechism says in #1821 that “good works done in God’s grace” opens heaven’s gate.
                NOT SO!
                NOWHERE in Scripture do we read such a bombastic thought. Instead of looking at grace as God’s unmerited favor, Catholics take it to mean to be some sort of metaphysical SUBSTANCE that is shot into your arm via the sacraments, which then gives you the power to run around the globe doing good works which then MERIT HEAVEN. Yikes! This is Satan’s masterpiece to be sure, an exquisite, eloquent twisting of the grace of God into an oxymoronic “grace-produced-works-salvation” topped off with the further requirement of consuming the physical body parts of Jesus Christ! I guarantee you that to believe such buffoonery will send you to hell in a heartbeat.

                AK: Sola Fide is the lazy man’s faith, and is **not** of God.

                C.P.O. Oh really?

                John Paul II signed a joint declaration with Protestants that have the Catholic side agreeing to the resolution that justification is by faith alone!
                “Justification takes place ”by grace alone’ (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works”

                See section 2C, Annex of the Joint Declaration…as follows

                http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-annex_en.html

                Benedict then followed by jumping on the bandwagon by saying Luther was correct. Would you like me to provide that statement as well?

                Oh my, I wonder what you will do now, Mr. Lazy Man?

                In any case, you are refuted yet again.

             3. Anytime you want to make me shut up, you just come right on over to Colorado Springs. We can do some good works together…you….and me….;)

                Try reading 2, again, you insulting, condescending microbe (is that better)?

                2. “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works“(JD 15).”

                Get it? GRACE! Which is a gift of God granted freely to His Elect by their faith **and** works together! That concept is shot through the entire document. No mention of Sola Fide…just like you to rape an honest effort between two faiths, born in so much strife, to find common ground. Ho, Satanas.

                OK. Mr. Scripture, I am sure you have some twisto for the clear message of Matthew 25: 31-46, which as I recall, doesn’t refer to your fellow yokels wandering around screamin’ “Ah Bin Sayyy-yyyyved!”

             4. From the Urban Dictionary:
                Parstard: . Any pastor that tries too hard, is too young or goes door to door trying to convince you that there’s an invisible man in the sky that talks to him.

                You are welcome, Bare.

             5. Margo, I knew there was a reason I love ya 😉

             6. AK – And I to you, with, in, of and for the Eucharist. God bless.

             7. Amen, Lady, Amen….

                Sometimes in the midst of all this chaos I forget that it’s the most confused and hard-hearted amongst us that need prayer the most.

                Al is a real role model for all that…..

             8. Bare –

                Your statement from the Annex of the Joint Declaration is incomplete. It continues,

                “…it is nevertheless the responsibility of the justified not to waste this grace but to live in it. The exhortation to do good works is the exhortation to practice the faith (cf. BSLK 197,45). The good works of the justified „should be done in order to confirm their call, that is, lest they fall from their call by sinning again“ (Apol. XX,13, BSLK 316,18-24; with reference to 2 Pet. 1:10. Cf. also FC SD IV,33; BSLK 948,9-23).”

             9. Further, Parstard,

                A joint declaration is a statement of commonalities. It is not Catholic Church -in-stone dogma. Here is a more complete Catholic position.

                BIBLE SAYS FAITH AND WORKS NEEDED FOR SALVATION
                (by Sal Ciresi)

                During the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s, a familiar term regarding salvation was “sola fide,” Latin for “by faith alone.” The reformers, at that time, accused the Catholic Church of departing from the “simple purity of the Gospel” of Jesus Christ. They stated it was faith alone, without works of any kind, that brought a believer to eternal life. They defined this faith as “the confidence of man, associated with the certainty of salvation, because the merciful Father will forgive sins because of Christ’s sake.”
                This view of salvation is a crucial issue because it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches that we are not saved by faith alone. The Church has taught this since 30 A.D. as part of the Divine Revelation. The truth of the Catholic Church’s teaching can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture alone.
                All who claim the title “Christian” will be able to agree on the following two truths: salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). These biblical facts will be our foundation as we explain the teaching of the Catholic Church.
                If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word “faith,” we come up with an undeniable fact the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). The epistle of James only mentions it in the negative sense.
                The Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). Yet is faith nothing more than believing and trusting? Searching the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God’s truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6). These points appeared to be missed by the reformers, yet they are just as crucial as believing and trusting. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) should be heeded by all it’s certainly an attention grabber.
                Paul speaks of faith as a life-long process, never as a one-time experience (Philippians 2:12). He never assumes he has nothing to worry about. If he did, his words in (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) would be nonsensical. He reiterates the same point again in his second letter to Corinth (2 Corinthians 13:5). He takes nothing for granted, yet all would agree if anyone was “born again” it certainly was Paul. Our Lord and Savior spoke of the same thing by “remaining in Him” (John 15:1-11).
                Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a “waiver” that exempts them from these verses.
                Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
                Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was “declared righteous” before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by “believing” faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith “working in love” (Galatians 5:6). Isn’t this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by “works of law” (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He’s condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn’t justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham’s life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God’s providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he’s “declared righteous” (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
                The Catholic Church has never taught we “earn” our salvation. It is an inheritance (Galatians 5:21), freely given to anyone who becomes a child of God (1 John 3:1), so long as they remain that way (John 15:1-11). You can’t earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
                The reformer’s position cannot be reconciled with the Bible. That is why the Catholic Church has taught otherwise for over 1,960 years.
                Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me.”
                (Sal Ciresi has lectured on apologetics in the diocese of Arlington, VA and has resided in Northern Virginia since his discharge from the Marine Corps in 1991.)

                Provided Courtesy of:
                Eternal Word Television Network
                5817 Old Leeds Road
                Irondale, AL 35210
                http://www.ewtn.com

             10. Hey Barry – here’s the way to answer Margo’s latest:

                 *************************

                 I read your post. I understand your point, but disagree with you on the following points, with references:

                 – A
                 – B
                 – C

                 OK…there it is for your consideration. I am standing by for your response. God Bless.
                 **********************

                 So, Barry the “Bulldog,” this is the way to engage a debate AND remain a good Christian And a positive influence on those around you. You may not convince anyone here of anything, but you will have made some friends, earned respect and maybe a welcome back.

                 Your move….

             11. Margo: Further, Parstard,

                 C.P.O. I am not answering either yours or AK’s post because you insist on using that stupid name. I will also not be side-tracked into a discussion on F.A. when the issue on this thread is something else entirely. The fact remains that the phrase “FAITH ALONE” was approved by the last two Popes and there is not a thing in the world you can do about it. We all know that in the secret recesses of your heart, OH how you wish, that those 2 Popes would just have CLAMMED UP, just as you wish Frank did not make that ludicrous trip to Switzerland to have tea with the Lutherans, then set up a statue of Luther in the Vatican, then posing for photographers as if he had won an Oscar upon receiving a jumbo copy of Luther’s 95 gripes against the RCC, and NOW (oh my, when will the madness end?) he wishes to have a POSTAGE STAMP issued to commemorate the Reformation! Late night talk show hosts have had a field day with this Pope who cannot even identify his spiritual enemies. And anyone who cannot do so, is certainly bound to fail, being unable to fire a weapon in the right direction.

                 In any case, the Catholic delusion of attaching a salvific efficacy to good works is the earmark of a false gospel, which in fact, the gospel itself verifies. If we are justified by faith APART FROM WORKS, that means we are justified by faith alone. There are no other options. When I have 2 apples in my hand, and I give one to my neighbor, I have one apple in my hand. Does that make it any easier?
                 Anyway, all Catholic doctrines in fact can be classified as false because they are built on the ignominious premise that Jesus gave the RCC the gift of of infallibility. Which brings us back to the real issue. Having already established how Trent has desecrated the Lord’s Supper by giving us the OPTION of either bread or wine (something Christ did NOT do)… in essence, spitting in his face, I am going to repeat again the main elementary point proving their claim to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was BOGUS. It MUST sink into your mind so that when you lay down to sleep, it will make you UNABLE to sleep.
                 The catechism quotes Trent…
                 “Christ our Redeemer said that it was ***truly*** His body He was offering under the species of bread” [at the Last Supper] (CCC 1376).
                 NO!
                 Jesus put no emphasis anywhere on the elements being “truly” His body at the Last Supper! On page one of their decree on the Eucharist, Trent claims they are being taught by the Holy Spirit, but Trent got it wrong! The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here. They expose their non-infallibility by showing their confusion between where he did say, “Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” in John 6:53, but ERRONEOUSLY transporting it over to the Last Supper account, where he did not “truly” affirm that at all.
                 Hence, this little stone of truth, is in the very same category as the stone in David’s bag which he shot Goliath with, rendering him dead. What I have just told you is irrefutable and instantly renders all RC claims…DEAD. You have given yourself over to counterfeited Christianity and are embracing “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Cor 11:4.
                 If you cannot admit it, I must leave you to your delusion, but you have been given the facts and have avoided them like the plague. You may avoid them here, but you may not do so on Judgment Day.

             12. “Late night talk show hosts…’

                 Guess we know where you get your theology. Why am i not surprised.

                 You keep…stepping..in..your-own-dog droppings….

             13. AK: You keep…stepping..in..your-own-dog droppings….

                 C.P.O. Let the alert reader beware that the above slop is all the Roman devotee can fight with to take down the established thesis that the Council of Trent was without a doubt, not infallible. Consequently, her Eucharistic christ is a fraud.
                 As a result of the Catholic’s obvious inability to admit they have been deceived, in just the same manner as the victims of Bernie Madoff were deceived, the Vatican Goliath is slaughtered.

             14. Hey Margo, awlms, Mary, etc….do you feel….slaughtered? Of for that matter, like Goliath?

             15. Great references and comments to set the Catholic/Lutheran record straight, AK and Margo. 🙂

             16. Hi Al, CK, Duane, etc.,

                 Did you note BB Dog purveying his image of the Lord? So our belief is condemned? We RCC call those of BB’s ilk Christians and brethren.

                 Barry the Bulldog says:
                 June 11, 2017 at 6:46 pm

                 “Methinks the reason Christ purposely and with “malice aforethought” used metaphor…”

                 BB sees us RCC as condemned by the malice of Christ. Apparently BB’s ilk see our belief in the Lord (is it somehow different than theirs?) as non-salvific inasmuch as we act on that belief. And yet we RCC still call those of BB’s ilk Christians and brethren.

                 There is a chilly draft in the room where I sit.

                 I cannot meet Christ too soon. In the Mass, at Eucharist. For there I know His love for me as well as for those who hate me.

11. Oh Barry. Please, I cannot stop laughing. I have heard better arguments coming from third graders than you give. Please keep it up.

    You refuse to address the Protestant problem of phago and trogo. Nor have you addressed how to metaphorically eat someone in the Old Testament always meant to persecute, abuse, and destroy one’s character.

    Lol. Call me all the names you want, I have heard worse from others.

    I rename you Barry the Chihuaha, because you are always nipping at the heels.

    Reply

    1. D: I cannot stop laughing. I have heard better arguments coming from third graders than you give. Please keep it up.

       C.P.O. Everyone knows you have never in your life heard an argument in favor of Catholicism from a 3 year old, so it must be that you are outright lying at worst, or wish to speak metaphorically at most. What a pity you can’t recognize metaphorical speech when it comes out of the mouth of the Creator of the universe.

       D: You refuse to address the Protestant problem of phago and trogo.

       C.P.O. I do not refuse to do anything such thing, O crystal ball gazer! The post you included that challenge on was part of your vain attempt to justify Trent. I wrote you a VERY lengthy response on 6/11 @ 12:37 and simply did not have time, NONE OF WHICH you responded to I might add, and yet you have the nerve telling me “I refuse to answer”. Yikes! The hypocrisy of you people knows no end. Anyway, ALL CATHOLIC ARGUMENTS, bar none, are easily met with a little study and are always vanquished. I noticed in that post of yours you had quoted Michael Taylor, so allow me to glean from his wonderful argument relating to this matter.

       Now in recent times, Roman sympathizers have made some noise about Jesus switching from the word “eat” (esthio) to the more graphic “to chew” (trogo) in John 6:54-58. They say this switch in terminology proves that Jesus was speaking literally rather than metaphorically. Karl Keating supposes, without proof, that the word “to chew” (trogo) “is not the language of metaphor” (“C & F”, p. 247). We simply ask, “Why not?” — Why would a switch in terminology demand we conclude a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical one?

       Apparently, these men believe the word “chew” cannot be the language of metaphor because it is far more graphic or vivid than the more mundane “to eat.” The truth is, however, there is nothing intrinsically literal about the word “chew” that would lead us into the territory of Transubstantiation, and thus, this hypothesis is unwarranted. What you do not consider is…

       A. Esthio is used in all of the Last Supper passages (“take and eat”, not chew).

       B. By the time of John’s gospel, the Greek word for “chew” (trogo) had become synonymous with the ordinary word for “eat” (esthio). Originally, trogo was used of animals and conveyed chewing, or mastication. But over time, the word had gradually begun to replace the more common “to eat” (esthio). According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “John…seems to follow a usage, which generally replaces esthio with trogo. (Leonhard Goppelt, Gerhard Friedrich, editor, Vol. 8, p. 236-237).

       C. The simple possibility of stylistic variance. For example, when one wishes to make the same theological point; as was made with Lazarus being described as “asleep”, but who was, in reality, dead. We also note in John 21:15-17 that Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?” In the first two questions, He uses the Greek word “agapeo” for love. In the last question, he switches to “phileo”. Greek scholars have long noted that there is no essential difference between the terms and are used interchangeably. In the very same passage, Jesus also varies his metaphors. “Tend my sheep” is used twice. “Feed my lambs” is used once. Why the switch? Once again, the simple solution is probably the best solution. Both metaphors use pastoral imagery to make the same theological point; namely, that Peter is given a pastoral responsibility for the flock. Therefore, the difference between tending sheep and feeding lambs is most likely a stylistic variance, rather than what the Roman church would have us believe; namely, a theological variance. When all is said and done, the variance between “to eat” and “to chew” does not in any way imply that the object of our chewing is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!”
       You are refuted.

       D: Do you really think Jesus meant “He that persecutes Me has eternal life”?

       C.P.O. You are referring to the ancient Israelites, as well as to Arabs today, who use the phrase “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of someone, and which indeed did have a symbolic meaning; it meant to hate or cause someone injury (Psalm 27:2, Micah 3:1-3). So you conclude, “I doubt that Jesus meant to say: “He who hates me has eternal life…”
       ANSWER: First of all, this complaint ignores that in His lifetime, Jesus did indeed receive a double dose of physical, as well as psychological abuse by those seeking to “eat his flesh” in a detrimental sense. That being so, the objection vanishes because by “eating His flesh” in a metaphorical sense, we reap the benefits of that abuse by believing the Lord’s report (Isaiah 53:1). And what was that report? That the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all by means of the physical and psychological abuse inflicted on him by his enemies! (Isaiah 53:2-12).

       Second, the objection is disingenuous, in that while it acknowledges that eating flesh and drinking blood can be metaphors for contempt, it leaves the impression that they can ONLY be metaphors for contempt.
       As a matter of fact, any given word or words can be used metaphorically in a number of ways. Consider, for example, the word “sword.” In Luke 2:35, a “sword” will pierce Mary’s heart. Clearly, “sword” is a metaphor for sorrow. But in Revelation, the “sword” in Jesus’ mouth is a metaphor for judgment (cf. Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21). In Matthew 10:34, “sword” is a metaphor for division and violence, whereas in Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12, the “sword” is a metaphor for the Word of God. Hence, Catholicism cannot escape the absolute truth that “metaphorical believing” under the auspices of “eating flesh and blood” is indeed a viable alternative to their position, for, like the word “sword”, it can have more than one metaphorical meaning! Thus, contrary to the Catholic insinuation, eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphorical in other ways besides hating or causing someone injury. Sometimes eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors of distress under persecution (Lev 26:29; Deut 28:53; Jer 19:9). Sometimes they metaphorically express divine justice or giving someone their just desserts (Numbers 23:24; Isaiah 49:26; Rev 16:6). Other uses are found in Ezekiel 39:17-21, 2 Samuel 23:17, Isa 49:26… and James speaks of eating flesh as a metaphor for greed (5:3).

       So while Scripture can shed light on how “flesh-eating” has been metaphorically used, the determining criterion for a proper exegesis of those terms is the immediate context of John’s gospel. Thus, the context makes it clear that eating flesh and drinking blood are being used in an unprecedented way, and linguistically, we err if we think the Lord was somehow bound to previous usage of those terms. Ergo, they must be metaphors that bid us to embrace the benefits that come directly from believing in the life and death of Jesus Christ, per Romans 5:10.

       You are refuted.

       Reply

       1. Just wow…pretzeling the Word of God to make a contrived point in ways that would amaze the most supple yogini. Metaphor when convenient to the Pas-tard’s collection plate. This from the fundies who screech at Catholics “don’t interpret, just read Scrip-cha literally as written; anything else is of Say-tan.”

          Hope your echo chamber is comfy. Because no one is buying this.

          Reply

          1. AK: no one is buying this.

             C.P.O. “No one is buying this” reflects the ability to read minds, which of course you don’t have, and is just another over-zealous attempt to express your disgust with the word of God which refutes your belief system. Duane pulled the same trick not even one hour ago by saying he has heard better arguments from a 3 year old….which of course never happened just as your ability to read minds never happened. All of this huff and puff is nothing but an outlet to vent off steam under the realization that you have been defeated.

             Reply

             1. “No one is buying this” reflects the ability to read minds,…”

                Can you read the posts here? Found one poster in agreement? Thought not.

                Even your fellow Protestants think you’re an abusive, laughable, psychopath.

                I am sure your echo chamber is working at 110% efficiency.

                Now segue away from the theme and tell me how it doesn’t matter if you are vilified, because you are “of Jesus” and then perversely quote Luke 6:22….

                Clown.

       2. Barry, can you read? I said third grader, not three year old.

          Your commentary on trogo is a red herring. Nowhere, in any Greek writing, has anyone been able to find trogo used metaphorically. You would have us believe that only in this one instance the sacred writer broke the norms for use of the word trogo. Ask yourself, if you were a first century Greek Christian, and you were reading John 6, where he used a word phago, which everyone admits is normally used literally, but can be used metaphorically, and John switches to a word trogo, which even Protestant scholars admit cannot be found ever to be used metaphorically, why would you suddenly believe that Jesus is being metaphorical, when John uses a word you have only ever seen used literally?

          The immediate context of John’s Gospel is literal, as the Church that Christ founded has taught for two thousand years.

          As far as your weak attempt at OT scholarship, you are saying we reap the benefits by abusing him. But Jesus says we must love Him, not abuse him. You are refuted again.

          Time for me to go listen to a third grader expound on the Scriptures, much more clarity with them, than anything you will ever write.

          Reply

          1. D: Barry, can you read? I said third grader, not three year old.

             C.P.O. BIG DEAL! Is that the extent of your criticism?

             D: John switches to a word trogo,

             C.P.O. BIG DEAL! This tirade that Catholics are making over trogo is, at its core, delirious! You are making a…BIG DEAL… over the CHEWING, BITING and MASTICATION aspect of the your precious wafer, when in fact, 100% of Catholics do not do any such thing. Rather, they let it MELT IN THEIR MOUTH like an M & M since its substance is so feather-like, there is practically nothing to bite down and chew on ANYWAY. That being true, your frantic attempts to vindicate chewing and biting, as if THAT proves Jesus wants us to bite and chew on him for salvation, is madness personified, and shows at once the desperate situation RC apologists are in. You have no choice but to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find your theology and base it on the flimsiest and most FEATHER-LIKE of implications indeed.

             D: The immediate context of John’s Gospel is literal

             C.P.O. Wrong again big boy! People misunderstood Jesus in John chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5……7, 8, 10, 11 and 16. Why shouldn’t we take chapter 6 as being part of this pattern as well? Answer? There is no reason not to!
             The pattern that emerges is unmistakable. When the Jews cackled among themselves, wondering, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”, we are practically SET UP to expect that once again, His audience was about to make the same mistake as those who came before and would come after them: i.e., they were on track to be confounded by the symbolic application His words demanded.
             Look at John 16:25: “These things have I spoken unto you in figurative language; but an hour is coming when I shall no more speak unto you in figurative language, but I shall show you plainly…”

             Did you get that?
             Of course you didn’t. Because no one ever told you before that 16:25 completely demolishes the RC take on their Eucharist. Ready for a bombshell?

             When we consider that the episode of John 6 took place ***before*** Jesus’s “hour to speak plainly”, then we may rightfully expect Him to be speaking more often in figurative language!
             Read that sentence again.
             Thus, any allusion to chewing on head, hands, arms and feet, would have to be the farthest thing from his mind. As a matter of fact, even after the discourse in John 6, the Jews came right out and said, “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24).

             Since the determining factor of the entire gospel of John was to believe in Christ, and eating and drinking are metaphors for JUST THAT VERY THING, this was an invitation they could accept ON THE SPOT (”unless you eat”, present tense) that is, if he chose to open their eyes to his metaphor (Luke 24:45). The RC view does not and CANNOT answer the challenge that if Jesus wanted them to eat them, how were they to do this right there on the spot? Answer? They could not do any such thing. Does Jesus give commands that are impossible? No. Therefore, he did NOT want them to eat him, he wanted them to BELIEVE on him, period, end of story.
             To believe something, is to accept, internalize and absorb that data into our soul. This is exactly what eating does. Our bodies accept the food through the mouth, and it gets absorbed through digestion. Jesus categorically told them that the type of eating He was talking about was, “NOT as your fathers did eat manna and are now dead” (6:58), but rather, it was a type of flesh-eating where they were to digest the truth of His WORDS, not eat Him alive, for he explicitly implied that to eat His actual flesh would profit them zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. Nothing.
             As the prophet said: “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jeremiah 15:16).

             You are refuted.

             Reply

             1. “People misunderstood Jesus in John chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5……7, 8, 10, 11 and 16. Why shouldn’t we take chapter 6 as being part of this pattern as well? Answer? There is no reason not to!
                The pattern that emerges is unmistakable. ”

                Your opinion. Along with everything else you either ignore or invent. Means naught except to you and your echo chamber.

             2. “BIG DEAL! This tirade that Catholics are making over trogo is, at its core, delirious!”

                This is the cornerstone of Parstard Barry the Leg Humper’s argument…if by ridicule (having failed at debate, engage Alinsky Rule #5) and by bullying he can get you to disbelieve the clear, obvious, and literal wording of Scripture, then he has you. Of course, that’s like up is down, right is left, and 2+2=5. Not gonna happen here. Too many real Christians with the true Armor of God.

                And guess who is behind the perversion of Scripture? Anyone have any doubts who – or what – has taken control of our sad, loquacious puppy’s side of the debate?

                Calling Father Damien…..

             3. AK: [That’s] your opinion.

                C.P.O. My opinion is based on the symmetry of Scripture. The Catholic rubric has no symmetry, but rather, only offers a tangled web of lies, deceit and pulling doctrines like a rabbit out of a hat.
                Moreover, the reader will notice the silent treatment you gave me in response to my sermonette on John 16:25. And that’s not “my opinion” either. Those are the direct words of the Creator of the universe who tells us, as if on a neon sign, that he was speaking figuratively in chapter 6. That one verse alone has the power to overthrow ALL arguments relating to the obnoxious apologetic attributed to “trogo”. The trogo defense may sound nice to the Roman ear, but Christ’s word DEBUNKS it.

             4. “My opinion is based on the symmetry of Scripture. The Catholic rubric has no symmetry, but rather, only offers a tangled web of lies, deceit and pulling doctrines like a rabbit out of a hat.”

                That’s your opinion.

             5. AK: by bullying [you suppose you can get us] to disbelieve the clear, obvious, and literal wording of Scripture

                C.P.O. Excuse me, but is it not true that by… “bullying”… you expect us to disbelieve the clear, obvious and literal dictate that “ALL HAVE SINNED” and that there are “NONE righteous, NO NOT ONE”…by making an exception to this dictate in the person of Mary???
                Those with any common sense would tell you the Lord will say to you at Judgment, “what part of “NO, NOT ONE” did you not understand?”

                Honestly AK, everything you say can easily be met with a grenade that turns your words into mush. And as I said elsewhere, I’m responding to you so that onlookers may see the depth of your perverse defense tactics.

                As anyone can see, your insults to me are unwarranted and your reasoning is woefully flawed and hypocritical as usual.

                Now, If there be such a thing as false ministers of the gospel walking around as “angels of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), then Catholic authorities fit the job description perfectly. The fact is, when Jesus used those cannibalistic words in chapter 6, HE KNEW VERY WELL that this form of ambiguous speech was sure to set off a firestorm. It was therefore, under no circumstances whatsoever, meant to be “clear and obvious”. People were going to have to use their brain on this one, which is why he…ummm…gave us a brain. And do not for a moment tell me it was so clear and obvious to you the first time around, because if Catholics wish to spend a good portion of their lives giving us a sermon as to why we should not believe the “clear, obvious and literal” meaning that “ALL” have sinned, then I automatically have the right to give you a sermon as to why Christ was speaking metaphorically! Naturally, I have already given many reasons why this is, so I will continue because the reasons are long and persuasive.
                Methinks the reason Christ purposely and with “malice aforethought” used metaphor was to very frankly, separate the sheep from the goats. Those who understood the the way he had intended (whatever way that was) would be his sheep, and those who took him the wrong way, would be the goats and LOST forever.
                We of course say that the Roman elite have failed to follow the tapestry of the Bible which contains a treasure chest of metaphorical, symbolic and parabolic expressions that were designed to startle and stimulate us into spiritual reality. Whether he was speaking about the new birth, water, sheep, shepherd, sower, plants, fruit, bread or a door; it was meant to convey a spiritual truth through the physical object of which He spoke and was NOT to be taken literally. Never, however, did He suggest that the physical thing itself had any spiritual power. This is the absolute travesty of sacramentalism, and is why there is no power whatsoever in the Eucharist as is claimed. As a matter of fact, Transubstantiation overthrows the nature of a sacrament because a sacrament is, by definition, a sign of something, but this teaching turns the sacrament into the VERY THING it is supposed to signify or stand for (i.e., Jesus Christ).

             6. “then I automatically have the right to give you a sermon as to why Christ was speaking metaphorically! ”

                No one is stopping you from expressing your baseless opinion on an invented religious paradigm. Feel free….as if you haven’t already.

                And a simple “thing” (like Christian Domestic Discipline, an evangelical specialty)…if you don’t believe in Transubstantiation, why then, don’t become Catholic. No one but fellow …ummm…believers in your one-of-40,000 whatever are going to buy your labyrinthine twists of non-logic to get around the simple literal and truth of Scripture, the message of John 6, and the fact of Transubstantiation.

             7. “by making an exception to this dictate in the person of Mary???”

                I thought we were talking about Transubstantiation…the Immaculate Conception is off topic, which is why you didn’t want to address my point about the Canon of Scripture, where awlms and I rubbed your hairy forehead in the dirt.

                Moving the theological and debate goalposts again, which is accepted Protestant practice? And no, I don’t expect an answer…..complete refutation is a hard thing from which to recover.

                By the way…Mary had her sin wiped out at the moment of conception, which is why she is termed “Immaculate Conception”…a most singular privilege of grace afforded the New Ark and Theotokos. If I were you, I would not mess with Jesus’ mother…do so at your peril; you have been warned.

             8. AK: I thought we were talking about Transubstantiation…the Immaculate Conception is off topic…

                C.P.O. The depth of your ignorance runs deep indeed. As anyone (except you) reading my post can see, the only reason I brought up Mary was in connection to your Eucharist claim, which you believe is “clearly and literally” laid out in Scripture. I exposed your hypocrisy by reminding you of the “clear and literal” dictate that there are NO EXCEPTIONS to all mankind having sinned, which must naturally include Maria Marvelous. Otherwise, HE WOULD HAVE TOLD US right there in the Text, for I can point out to you no less than 20 examples of exceptions the Holy Spirit makes in other less important matters. But he doesn’t do the same in the case of Mary, something the RCC demands is necessary for salvation?
                NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

                AK: By the way…Mary had her sin wiped out at the moment of conception..

                C.P.O. Oh stop it. The Bible refutes you by saying we are not to think about men above that which is written (1 Cor 4:6). What you have just asserted is “above that which is written” about Mary, and you are to be condemned.

             9. AK: I thought we were talking about Transubstantiation…the Immaculate Conception is off topic

                C.P.O. As anyone can see (except you) the only reason I brought up the sinlessness of Mary was in response to your Eucharist claims which you say are “clearly and literally” spelled out in Scripture. Since you are such a big fan of things being clearly and literally expressed, how is it that you don’t believe the Holy Spirit which tells us that ALL HAVE SINNED and there are no exceptions, NO NOT ONE? You reject his witness and say Mary is an exception, instantly making any objection you have to my position, null and void due to your hypocritical stand.

                AK: By the way…Mary had her sin wiped out at the moment of conception

                C.P.O. Your “by the way” will send you by the way to hell. Since your church demands still yet another requirement of salvation, such as believing Mary was sinless, we reject the RCC in light of the fact Paul blew a fit in the book of Galatians that even ONE thing was being considered to be added to the gospel. So would he condemn the RCC today, which has added FAR MORE. Not to mention being told we were not to think about men “above that which is written” (1 Cor 4:6)… since the sinlessness of M is not mentioned in Scripture, this goes beyond the Text and therefore God does NOT require it for salvation.

             10. Funny I don’t feel refuted.

                 Guess what Barry? I chew the host, and smack my lips, and lick my fingers. So much for 100%.

                 Yes the prophet did say he ate the words. Does that passage in Jeremiah say the words are true flesh?

                 Jesus specifically said eating His flesh would give someone eternal life, now you say He said eating His flesh would profit them nothing.

                 Bingo. You are refuted once again. Keep it coming Barry, this is a lot of fun.

             11. D. Yes the prophet did say he ate the words. Does that passage in Jeremiah say the words are true flesh?

                 C.P.O. I’ve already answered that in regards to the TRUE VINE and the TRUE LIGHT not being literal, so TRUE FLESH isn’t literal either, You are only being willfully ignorant and refuse the biblical criteria to compare Scripture with Scripture to understand Jesus correctly. You most certainly are refuted.

                 D. Funny I don’t feel refuted.

                 C.P.O. That’s because your senses are dulled by all that medication you’re taking from the Vatican pharmacy.

                 D. Jesus specifically said eating His flesh would give someone eternal life, now you say He said eating His flesh would profit them nothing.

                 C.P.O. ***I*** was not the one who said the flesh profits nothing. Try and guess who did.

                 Moreover, when one looks at eating flesh as metaphorical, eternal life is easily understood as I have proved here time and again. You just sweep all the evidence under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist.

                 I also noticed that as usual, you ignored key points that utterly overthrow your position; namely, that John 6 came BEFORE John 16:25. That being so, when we read in 16:25 that UP TO THAT POINT, Jesus said he would be speaking more often in figurative terms, the Catholic position collapses. Thus, the Protestant who “eats his flesh” by BELIEVING in him, has eternal life, and all RC foot soldiers are LOST.

                 It is a FACT that “eating and drinking” are synonymous with “believing in Christ” because they both produce the same result: eternal life! In John 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47 we read that believing in Him results in everlasting life. Compare with verse 54 and we learn that eating His flesh and drinking His blood also brings eternal life.
                 Again, comparing Scripture with Scripture, an admonition the Catholic typically despises because they know they will lose.

                 Stated in plain language: “…everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:40)
                 Stated in figurative language: “whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).

                 What Jesus states literally in vs. 40, He states metaphorically in vs. 54. Hence, these are merely two ways of saying the same thing, as in another example, “Lazarus sleepeth, but I go to awake him out of sleep”. The disciples said not to bother, let him enjoy his rest. Jesus then said, “Lazarus is dead” (John 11:11).
                 The evidence shows that having only ONE thought in mind, and expressing it in two ways, cannot be denied. Lazarus was either asleep or he was dead, not both. Jesus wants us to either eat His flesh or to believe in Him, NOT BOTH.

                 You are refuted.

             12. “As anyone can see (except you) the only reason I brought up the sinlessness of Mary..”

                 Translation, oops, got caught on that one….backtrack, obfuscate, deflect…damn, these papists are smarter than Parstard White told me they’d be….

             13. Jesus never says His flesh profits nothing. Schaaf, who I consider a sloppy historian, himself points that out. If His flesh profited nothing, why did he become incarnate? So you are in essence saying his sacrifice of His flesh on the cross profited nothing. Dang, you are one crazy chihuaha. You are refuted again.

                 Until you can answer why John, writing at least thirty years after the death of Christ, uses a word for eating that has never before, or since, been used metaphorically, it has only been used literally, and there are Protestant scholars who admit this, when just a few verses before John used a word for eating that can be used metaphorically, you are refuted. So far none of your answers have answered why, and have all been laughable.

                 If as you would have us believe, that John in this one instance broke the rules of grammar for this one word, why should I believe he did not break the rules elsewhere? Perhaps they are using the word crucifixion metaphorically, and that Jesus was never put to death. That is what you would have us believe.

             14. Duane – bingo! See my post – you know, all Christ’s miracles were metaphors, object lessons for people to just be nice to each other.

             15. “I also noticed that as usual, you ignored key points that utterly overthrow your position; namely, that John 6 came BEFORE John 16:25. That being so, when we read in 16:25 that UP TO THAT POINT, Jesus said he would be speaking more often in figurative terms”

                 Ummmm…toss your KJV (Lord, a Bible that a half-forgotten English king named after **himself**…sounds like blasphemy to me), get a Bible like Douay-Rheims closer to the original Greek, and you’d see that “figurative” properly is replaced with “proverbs.” Proverbs, Mr. Many Droppings….and John 6 was most emphatically NOT a proverb. The “Eat My Flesh” language of John 6 was clear, direct, literal, double-delivered emphatic, and ….

                 …..wait for it….

                 …..fundamental.

             16. Good argument on the importance of the ‘flesh’, i.e…through ‘the incarnation and the cross’, Duane.

             17. “BIG DEAL!”

                 Then why did you do it? If it’s unimportant you would not have made the error in the first place.

       3. “. I have heard better arguments coming from third graders than you give”

          ” Everyone knows you have never in your life heard an argument in favor of Catholicism from a 3 year old, ”

          I point this out as an indicator of the serious problem you are having in reading.

          Reply

12. Any religious experience built of thought will inevitably deteriorate in to just this kind of pointless arcane squabbling. The problem is not in any of the particular ideas being expressed above, but rather arises from the inherently divisive nature of that which all ideas are made of.

    To join the squabble 🙂 the concept of salvation is a denial of an ever present God. If, as Catholicism teaches, God is ever present everywhere at all times, then there is no where one can be but with God, thus one can not be divided from God, thus the concept of salvation taken literally is nonsensical.

    What’s not nonsensical is that we all suffer from the illusion that we are separate from God. Even Jesus suffered from this illusion on the cross, when he asked God why he was being forsaken. Separation from God is an illusion, but the illusion itself can be very real, and very painful. Religion can not bring us closer to God, but it can in some cases help heal the illusion that we are separate.

    Regrettably, to the degree one pursues religion through the processes of thought, one is fueling the very thing causing the illusion that we are separate from God. This thread provides solid evidence of that. Each of us is trying to “figure it out” and the more we do that, the more we become divided from each other.

    Reply

    1. Oh my God…it’s **you** again…..

       Shall we stop thinking, defund the Church per your previous advice and have a popular vote on the clergy? You and Parster Barry the Dog will have lots to talk about.

       Reply

       1. You rag on “pointless and arcane” yet you’re ready to feed us another ration of that Esalen Institute – Werner Erhard New Age tie-dyed BS? How well did that go for you last time you were here?

          Respectfully, what you’re selling is no “solution” to the minor issue of one unhinged evangelical mucking up the debate floor here…far from it.

          But since I believe you and Barry have the same source of inspiration, you should get along nicely.

          Reply

13. AK, I welcome your challenges, or anybody challenges, but….

    Could you please try to share thoughtful reasoned challenges which attempt to add something of value to the conversation? As example, see Joe’s articles. I often don’t agree with Joe, but observe how he takes the time to make his case in an intelligent articulate manner.

    Reply

    1. Same condescending attitude, and I’ll assume the same debate technique, say the same thing over and over, with the recurring theme “if you only were on my level, you’d get it, so just please listen slowly….”

       Try not to be obnoxious….but maybe, it’s so ingrained you don’t realize it. There are models to follow….for example, see Joe’s articles….

       Reply

14. Al,

    I “begged over and over again to be excommunicated” because that is exactly what Joe’s article suggested as the appropriate Catholic action to be taken in response to those like myself who willingly disagree with the clergy orthodoxy, and decline to be corrected.

    I was AGREEING with Joe, and AGREEING with Catholic doctrine, and COOPERATING with the process, and still you have to argue and insult me.

    It’s not really me that you are arguing with, but your own chosen faith. If you agreed with Joe’s teaching on this Catholic doctrine you would have thanked me for helping to implement it.

    Reply

    1. Dear Pope, I’m surprised you didn’t know:

       Excommunication is exercised only when one is a member of the Church.

       https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/excommunication

       Reply

       1. Baptized and confirmed here. It’s possible I’ve been officially Catholic longer than anybody on this blog.

          The point of my excommunication hysteria 🙂 Margo was to demonstrate that you guys don’t really care about these doctrines you claim such loyalty to. What you care about is your mutual validation transaction club. Anybody who will join the club gets a pass no matter what they say, and anybody who won’t join the club is wrong no matter what they say.

          To be fair to you guys, it’s the same all over the Catholic web, indeed, all over the Internet on pretty much any subject. The whole process is really about ego psychology, not spirituality.

          It’s true for everyone on the Net, except me of course, because I am the most egoless person on the Net by far, and the winner of the 2016 Most Humble Man Competition.

          Reply

          1. Phil, at the risk of being unoriginal, you do know the definition of insanity? Well, you’re doing the exact-same-thing you did some months back, in the same forum, with essentially the same audience…are you really expecting a different result?

             Reply

             1. AK, I’ve solved the problem of being constantly pummeled with new post emails with yet another of your very many low quality contributions. I learned how to filter them all to the trash in my email program. Yea! So I won’t be lecturing you about clogging the blog with your emotional baggage anymore, so you get a benefit too. So fire away dude, have fun!

    2. All I can say is…How are the squirrels doing?

       Reply

       1. I wonder if Phil can be so 70’s-addled and detached from reality that he thinks we don’t remember the philosophical crap sandwich he brought the last time, with the accompanying condiments of arrogance and condescension? How vigorously and universally it was rejected? And how it looks like he took it out of the freezer, defrosted it, and is trying to serve it up again?

          Reply

          1. I still pray for both BullDog and Pope Phil. We want to see everyone in Heaven. 🙂

             Reply

       2. 😂

          Reply

15. I’m glad to know I will be in heaven with a bulldog, thanks to Al and his xeroxed holy literature. Thanks Al! 🙂

    So, what is heaven?

    We could say union with God, but according to the Catholic doctrine “God is ever present everywhere” there is no other place we can be but united with God. So we are already united, but we don’t really feel united most of the time. That’s the problem, we don’t feel the unity.

    So let’s change our definition of heaven to… the EXPERIENCE of unity with God.

    So we say, I want to experience unity with God. Let’s edit that sentence a bit to shine a light on what’s happening, so it reads like this….

    “I” want to experience unity with “God”.

    Do you see the problem yet? Our minds conceive of “I” as being one thing, and “God” as being another thing. So the harder we say, “I want God, I want God, I want God etc” the more we are reinforcing the APPARENT division.

    This APPARENT division between “me” and “God” is not caused by incorrect thoughts. It’s caused by thought itself, which operates by a process of division. Thought observes a single unified reality often called God, and breaks it up in to conceptual parts. “Me” is one of those conceptual parts, and “God” is another part.

    The APPARENT division between “me” and “God” is not real, it’s an illusion created by the lens we are observing reality through, thought. It’s just like how when you’re wearing sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. The tint is not a property of reality, but rather of the tool being used to observe reality.

    So long as we are wearing the “thought sunglasses” we are going to see division everywhere we look. And so when we look to God we’re going to see “me” trying to unite with “God”, two different things.

    This can not be solved within theology, because theology is made of thought, and the more we think the more division we create. If you doubt this, just read any theological thread anywhere on the Net, and watch the division unfold.

    The solution is to…. die to be reborn.

    If we die to “me” then there are no longer two things, but only one thing, God.

    “Me” can not grasp and own this experience, because to the degree “me” is present, the experience of unity is impossible.

    Dying to be reborn is typically accomplished by two methods. In the Western Christian tradition, the focus is on love. In Eastern traditions, “me” is often erased through meditation. Some people combine the methods. Whatever works is good.

    Reply

    1. Yep, the-same-thing….different day…..even the quality of the insults…difference is, now we see it coming.

       Reply

       1. And you CAN’T WAIT to read it, which you prove beyond all doubt with your very many replies to pretty much anything I type.

          Here’s the state of your logic AK.

          1) All of Phil’s utterly worthless comments totally suck.

          2) Which is why I, member AK, read every single one of them.

          Watch. You’ll read this one too. And you’ll reply to it also, just as you have to all the rest of them. You can’t help yourself.

          Pope Philbert has control of your mind AK, and he can make you post any time he wants to. You are my blog slave. 🙂

          Reply

          1. Your attempts at reverse psychology and manipulation are as transparent and boring as they are weak, and indicative of what we’ve all observed, your sublime and blinding level of arrogance that assumes no one can see-right-through…..

             I read them because they come to my inbox. You apparently read mine even though, hey, you’ve configured to go direct to spam. Interesting, that.

             Unlike you, though, I know the definition of insanity and choose not to re-engage. I just wanted to set the stage, and it seems everyone here remembers you just as you were, and are. And thus, are inoculated. So fire up the bong and the keyboard, and pound away. Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, page2…you and Barry.

             Reply

16. You choose not to engage? Ok, good, let’s do that. I promise not to reply to any of your comments so long as you don’t reply to any of mine.

    And I bet you a case of holy crackers that you will be the first to break the truce.

    Reply

17. The net is overwhelmingly tribal. Whatever the topic, people want to gather in little circles of the like minded where their own perspective will be validated and reinforced.

    This phenomena is as true on the Catholic web as anywhere else. Catholics really only want to talk to other Catholics, and everyone else is viewed as an outsider who must somehow be controlled, suppressed, ignored, shunned etc.

    This is an odd phenomena across the Christian web. Presumably a key focus of Christianity is supposed to be to “share the good news”, and so one wonders how this is to be accomplished if Christians are only willing to talk with people who already agree with them.

    As example, please show us the Catholic site which has been set up explicitly so as to dialog with non-Catholics. Note the word “dialog”, which implies a conversation, not a sermon. As best i can tell, no such sites exist.

    I see this defensive circling of the wagons as a function of fear. Catholics are afraid to interact with non-Catholics anywhere except in venues which the Catholics control.

    This is what happens to any religious experience which is built primarily of ideas. Ideas are created by human beings, and any idea created by one human can be ripped to shreds by some other human. The fear arises not from false ideas, or from the human weakness of the individual people involved, but from the fact that any religious experience built of ideas is a religion built on sand. It doesn’t matter what the ideas are.

    If a new religion was built from the ideas of His Flatulence Pope Philbert, the very same thing would happen. The Philbertists would gather together in little defensive circles to validate each other’s “rightness” and then do what they could to sweep everyone else aside.

    Reply

18. In all this chatter, I haven’t seen much that improves on Joe’s original post. Some of the defenses raised by such as awlms and Mary and Margo and Duane (forgive me if I left anyone out) add very valuable background, but the theological correctness and purity of the table set out by Joe stands well all by itself.

    Joe, another home run helping Catholics and the civil, open-minded of other faiths, understand what we believe on the truth and beauty of the Eucharist.

    Reply

    1. Ditto.

       Also, with runners on all bases, Joe’s homer scored as a grand slam.

       And David’s stone? It happens to be the Rock.

       Reply

19. You like Joe’s post because Joe is part of your mutual validation transaction society. Well, in the case of this blog, he’s the leader of the pack.

    If I had written Joe’s post you’d all be muttering and sputtering and rolling your eyes about how wrong it is, because I’m not part of your mutual validation club, I’m an outsider. But, if you then learned that I was a priest, you’d pretend you were just kidding and immediately jump back over to liking the article.

    The fact that you have to focus your time in places where the group consensus agrees with you shows that underneath all the adamantly proclaimed certainty, you aren’t really all that certain after all. It feels safe to participate here, because when a heretic challenger comes along you know your pals will help shun them and shout them down etc.

    If you truly were certain that you had “The Truth”, you wouldn’t be spending your time talking with people who already agree with you, because that makes no sense.

    YOU’D BE DOING WHAT THE APOSTLES DID….

    …and traveling to other communities outside of your little group and sharing your message there.

    Here’s an experiment for you to try if you are brave enough. Go to some other site where you will, on your own, by yourself, share your perspective with a group of people who all disagree with you. As example, try an atheist forum. Just like an ancient Christian, it will be you against the mob, and they will all start stoning you pretty much without delay.

    And then you will find out whether you really believe what you are saying.

    But for now, you’re like scared little children hiding behind each other’s skirts. What’s that got to do with Catholicism, the mighty religion that totally dominated every corner of Western culture for 1,000 unbroken years?

    Reply

20. It looks like we have 3 major positions on the Eucharist/ Communion/ Excommunication here: 1 is the Catholic position BASED on the universal faith of the early Church which was transmitted through the apostles of Jesus, and then to their successors; the model of which is shown demonstrated in the book of Revelation and reinforced by the likes of St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp , Pope St. Clement, Justin Martyr and many others. The history can be clearly read in Eusebius’ Church history written in about 310 AD.

    Number 2, is the position of Barry the Bulldog who does not trust such a history, as he believes apostasy occurred in the Early Church before the year 146 AD, when St. Justin was writing. But Barry still believes in the authority of the Bible, the history of the canon of which is amply described by Eusebius in his above History, but which Barry doesn’t believe because Eusebius is already an apostate, and has no credibility. Only the Bible is credible.

    And last we have the position of His eminence, Pope Phil, who has an even greater distrust of the early Church, and even a distrust of all mankind and ‘thought’ itself. So, he can in no way believe in the Bible, which is completely ridiculous to him, nor the early Church as they are mere fallible men not knowing what they are teaching, nor the words of Jesus either because they were transmitted by men who used ‘thought’ to form their idea, which to Phil is a big ‘no no’. Maybe this position can be described as a sort of an annihilist position, as everything boils down to merely God and a person, and needing nothing else, and no thinking, but only ‘experience’ (…if that is actually even possible?).

    Being that the Catholic position on the Eucharist, Excommunication etc…is based not only on the Gospel, but also on the apostles’ teachings and practices… and passed down to their successors, the history of the Early Church provides many proofs of what the Eucharist actually is, and how it was practiced in the early Church liturgies, and using priests and altars at the same time. So, Catholics have proofs from the practice of the early Christian communities on the subject matter.

    Barry’s position # 2 has little proof of what the Eucharist is, except for his own interpretation of scripture, and he gives the easiest explanation to understand, needing no historical proofs, and that is that the Eucharist is a METAPHOR ONLY; used by Jesus on the night before He died to teach and focus peoples attention on what He was going to do the next day for them, that is, to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of they sins. So, position 2 is an easy one to hold because it is more natural, as a metaphor is really a very common thing and doesn’t involve anything miraculous or out of the ordinary. It needs no physical support system such as priests and altars and liturgies for the accompaniment of the Eucharist. For Barry, the cross is the ONLY focus, because it is THIS that effects the salvation of believers. The physical consumption of the bread and wine are mere REMINDER of this.

    Phils position, #3, doesn’t matter anymore, because as Phil would agree, any further explanation is ridiculous….as it uses ‘thought’…and this is the first great error. It is where apostasy begins. So, anything after the ‘experience’ of God, any thought or reflection, is mere recreation and meaningless. The teachings of Christ, the Eucharist, the spread of Christianity throughout the world are all fantasies, and so, no more conversation on the subject of the Eucharist is possible for Phil. All is mere recreation and ‘vanity of vanities’. This ideology is far more similar to Bhuddhism, than anything Jesus Christ taught. And so, his conversation/recreation must end there, and he must get on with his anti-thought ‘experience’. A good career choice for such a proponent of this philosophy seems to be one of ‘Brain Surgeon’, as maybe there is a way to remove parts of the brain so that no thought is possible, thereby helping the disciples of Pope Phil achieve their ultimate mission? Lobotomies on a mass scale might be a good first start for them?

    So, every ideology regarding the Eucharist depends on who you are going to trust to teach on the subject. As Phil is off ‘experiencing’ and can’t think about such things, only the Catholics and Barry the Bull Dog are left here to consider the Eucharist.

    Barry, not trusting in the Early Church after 146 AD, is limited in his study to some of the sacred scriptures and to a very short period after they were written..about 80 years, or so. And, even then, he has big problems, such as:

    1. If the Eucharist is only a metaphor, like many others that Jesus used, why would there be so much emphasis on it, and such a harsh penalty on those who do not receive the Eucharist, or are excommunicated?

    Jesus says, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you”. If He was talking ONLY of a METAPHOR, such as Bulldog claims, then why would He need to state or do anything more? Why would Jesus associate it with bread and wine? Why not just leave it as a metaphor?

    And on top of that we have St. Paul talking on the subject also.

    St. Paul says that the ‘cup of blessing’ is the ‘participation in the blood of Christ’ and ‘the bread we break is the participation in the body of Christ’ (1Corinthians 10:16). The key words here are PARTICIPATION in the BLOOD AND BODY OF CHRIST. And St. Paul reinforces the GRAVITY of receiving the Eucharist by stating ” whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord UNWORTHILY will be GUILTY of the body and blood of the Lord; and any one who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). How can eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious? And what does discerning the body mean, if not the true body of Christ? It only makes sense if bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ, even as Jesus said: “Take and Eat, this is my body” and “Take and Drink this is My Blood”.

    Then, in the early Church we read of St. Ignatius and St. Justin Martyr discussing the Eucharist in a similar way as St. Paul. In about 100 AD Ignatius writes:

    “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110) A.D.

    “Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.” (“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110) A.D.

    “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” (-Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.)

    “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” (-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.)

    ******************

    Now Joe already posted on the relation of the ‘Book of Revelation’ and St. Ignatius of Antioch (and St. Polycarp also). And he noted the closeness of the time frame between the letters of Ignatius and the writing of the Book of Revelation. Thus, Ignatius is certainly an excellent witness for the Catholic position…#1, above. for he says right above:

    “for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

    And you might notice in relation to the ‘body and blood’, Ignatius’ use of the word ‘altar’.

    If the Body and blood were only symbolic metaphors…would there be any need for…an ALTAR?

    And then, of course Justin Martyr reinforces the teachings on the Eucharist even more, and contrary to poision #2 of Barry Bulldog. He wrote in 146 AD:

    “And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

    For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” – (First Apology, 66)

    These are most excellent proofs for Position 1, the Catholic position, and held for the last twenty centuries of Church history. Are reasonable Christians to just discard these early quotes and teachings as if these were made by ‘apostates’? And where is their proof in early Christian History to prove their position? Just their interpretation of what they consider a metaphor? Again, are ‘altars’ used in conjunction with metaphors, as stated by St. Ignatius, love?

    Reply

    1. “And where is their proof in early Christian History to prove their position? ”

       The fact is, anyone who studies early Church history openly and its entirety is likely to swim the Tiber. Nowhere was this better illustrated than at North Carolina’s Southern Evangelical Seminary, where the rector, Norman Geisler, was fond of the early Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas. Over the course of a decade, over two dozen faculty, alumni, and seminarians – Evangelicism’s best and brightest – converted to Catholicism. Their stores, told in first person, were well-documentred in the book “Evangelical exodus.” As an aside, Geisler, after coming under intense criticism, defended himself by saying, “we (Evangelicism) are still getting Catholic converts…all we lost were a few eggheads.”

       I read that as, we get the improperly catechized, confused, and vulnerable, while losing thoughtful, intelligent future leaders.

       Reply

       1. Thanks AK for the book recommendation. I’ll look into it.

          Reply

          1. It really is inspiring….these folks are **really smart** and all tell riveting stories.

             Reply

    2. CPO: I will not argue with anyone who considers you holy. But that is only because I found so many holes in your essay.

       AW: [The Eucharist] is based on the apostles’ teachings

       CPO: There is not the slightest indication that the apostles taught Transubstantiation. You are reading back
       INTO the Text your preconceived notions, but they will never work because the word of God is like a volcano ready to explode it’s lava all over you.

       AW: [the early church] used priests and altars

       CPO: Excuse me, but no longer should we rely on priests continuing on an altar what Jesus finished on the cross!
       I don’t give a RAT’S TAIL if there were those who used “priests” in the early church. THE BIBLE REFUTES THEM, and as usual, you don’t give a rat’s tail WHAT the Bible says.
       Now let’s get serious: void of proof, Trent claims that, “Christ instituted a new passover, namely the offering of Himself by the church through its priests under visible signs” (Session 22, ch. 1). Really? Where oh WHERE do we read that Christ instituted a dynastic succession of celibate, sacerdotal “priests” who were assigned to preside over the metamorphosis of bread and wine so that it could be given up in sacrifice so that our sins could be forgiven via the MOUTH???
       Answer?
       NO WHERE.
       Obviously, the natural antecedent to any discussion on Transubstantiation is the question of whether a sacerdotal, New Testament priesthood was EVER established by Jesus Christ in the first place. If there is no New Testament priesthood, then there is no power to transubstantiate the bread and wine. The Bible is filled with abundant information pertaining to priests. We would certainly expect then, that when we read about life in the New Testament church, SOMETHING ought to be mentioned relating to a Catholic priesthood if the claim is legitimate. Yet out of nowhere, Rome manipulates the Last Supper into a sacramental priesthood by brazenly asserting that right there at table, Jesus ordained the apostles as Catholic “priests”! (CCC 1337). Now we need not argue about whether the term “priest” may be applied to the ministers of the gospel, for it is true that the “priesthood of all believers” is a fact (1 Peter 2:5 & 2:9, Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6). However, the issue at hand regards the DUTIES of these ministers and what the Bible says they are to do. So we must refer to those passages regarding “priestly duties” and here they are: Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8, 23-6; 6:2-4; 20:28; 1 Cor 4:1-2; 12:27-31; 14:6, 26-33; 2 Cor 5:18-21; Eph 4:11-16; 1 Tim 3:1; Titus 1:5-9.
       In all of these, there is found no discourse, no word, no syllable, nor even a whisper that the ministers of the New Testament should engage in a theatrical re-presentation of the cross where a past event is jettisoned into the future, and wherein they were to preside over the metamorphosis of bread and wine to offer the body and blood of our Savior as a propitiatory sacrifice to blot out the sins of the living and the dead (!!!). The RCC has put together an elaborate, one-act play where the histrionics of the priest take center stage. Various gestures, motions and actions over the bread and wine are employed such as genuflecting, bowing, stretching out hands, drawing the arms back, turning around, speaking loudly, speaking softly, looking up high, then hanging the head forward, moving to the right, moving to the left, pointing with the finger, breathing on the bread and the cup, elevating them, putting them down, breaking the bread, putting it in the cup, smiting the breast with the fist, sighing, closing his eyes, kissing the altar and on it goes! Can any student of the Bible really keep a straight face in light of the sweeping deductions the RCC makes from “This is my body”??????????????????

       AW: Barry’s position has little proof of what the Eucharist is

       CPO: Ummmm…WHATEVER the Eucharist is, one may safely conclude that it NOT what the RCC defines it as, as I have conclusively proved that their claim of being under the direction of the Holy Spirit was flat-out BOGUS, and that being so, God says we are to unhesitatingly reject them (Deut 18:22). You and everyone else on this thread are unable to deal with it and will hold on to the papacy until your dying breath. So be it. However, I might remind you that the papacy will do you no good in hell.

       AW: Barry’s position is that the Eucharist is a METAPHOR ONLY; used by Jesus on the night before He died to teach and focus peoples attention on what He was going to do the next day for them, that is, to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of their sins.

       CPO: Yes, because that is all he ever asked of us! The RC position demands the absolutely ludicrous scenario that Jesus did NOT first die on the cross the next day, but rather, he gave Himself up at the Last Supper BEFORE (!!!) he went to the cross, says the Council of Trent. Not only is the Catholic position absurd on its face, but lest we forget, Trent has been exposed as a bunch of religious monsters. Needless to say then, my position must stand supreme.

       AW: He says the physical consumption of the bread and wine are mere REMINDERS of this.

       CPO: Which I explicitly proved TO YOU in particular on 6/10 @ 10:32, to which you had no reply!

       AW: So, every ideology regarding the Eucharist depends on who you are going to trust to teach on the subject.

       CPO: Must I say it again? Since the Council of Trent has proven NOT to have earned our trust when they submitted their “Decree on the Eucharist”, we must conclude you are bordering on the brink of dementia to put all your trust in.. THEM!

       AW: If the Eucharist is only a metaphor, like many others that Jesus used, why would there be so much emphasis on it

       CPO: FYI, there is NO in-depth dissertation on the Eucharist in Holy Writ, so your claim that “there is soooo much emphasis on it” is an embarrassing, bold-faced lie and a LEAP of monumental proportions which do NOT align with the Scriptural record. You desperately want SO MUCH for there to be SO MUCH emphasis on your flatbread, but the fact is, the Bible simply will not come to your rescue. The Holy Spirit has placed just the right amount of emphasis on it that we need, and every speck of that emphasis coincides with the Protestant position.

       AW: Jesus says, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you”. If He was talking ONLY of a METAPHOR, such as Bulldog claims, then why would He need to state or do anything more? Why would Jesus associate it with bread and wine? Why not just leave it as a metaphor?

       CPO: What is so disgusting about this little sermon of yours is that I have already taken the time to address these questions and you pretend that they have been left unanswered. This only goes to show that there is a God-ordained delusion on you, that I of course can’t deal with, but I CAN witness the power of his hand who, at this time, has obviously no interest in including you as one of the elect. Readers may look at my comments on “stylistic variance” on 6/11 @ 2:06.

       AW: And on top of that we have St. Paul talking on the subject also.
       St. Paul says that the ‘cup of blessing’ is the ‘participation in the blood of Christ’ and ‘the bread we break is the participation in the body of Christ’ (1Corinthians 10:16). The key words here are PARTICIPATION in the BLOOD AND BODY OF CHRIST.
       And St. Paul reinforces the GRAVITY of receiving the Eucharist by stating ” whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord UNWORTHILY will be GUILTY of the body and blood of the Lord; and any one who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). How can eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious? And what does discerning the body mean, if not the true body of Christ? It only makes sense if bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ, even as Jesus said: “Take and Eat, this is my body” and “Take and Drink this is My Blood”.

       CPO: Get an education

       http://www.justforcatholics.org/a39.htm

       AW: Then, in the early Church we read of St. Ignatius

       CPO: Get an education

       http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

       AW: [I have presented] most excellent proofs for [the Catholic] Position

       CPO: You have failed most miserably.

       Reply

21. A humble addition: positions 2 and 3 are based not on revelation, but on agenda. Why indeed would Catholics put such store of importance on the Eucharist if it were just a metaphor, or an gedanken experiment? In the case of position 2, the agenda is defending the rice bowl of another and contrived faith, based not on divine revelation but on the machinations of men who originally were called to holiness and helping to course correct human error but chose the arrogance of self over the clear message of Scripture and their divine calling. The arguments for metaphor really hold no water, unless one subjects the entirety of Scripture to the metaphor test – for example Christ’s miracles didn’t really happen, they were just metaphors for how people are supposed to take care of each other (this argument could also apply to position 3).

    Position #3 is again, a human-centered paradigm, where transactional and organizational dynamics prevail over divine revelation – which is just an imaginary human construct, as is the concept of a God and an earthly Church. All of which default to a syncretic “I’m OK, You’re OK” relativism which completely ignores the necessity of a divinely transcendent referent as the prime determinant of morality. Else, what or who is the referee when I define my morality as, putting your subhuman a$$ on a boxcar to extermination because protecting the gene pool of my tribe is the highest good imaginable…might makes right….

    Reply

    1. And, one can see clearly that God is not a God of chaos, but of order, beauty, goodness, and truth, so He would not tolerate a situation as I described in my last sentence without intervention. Which he has throughout history first and most directly through His Chosen people and now, His One True Church.

       Reply

       1. Thanks for the additions, AK. I’m sure there are many more like it, and actually it would probably take several entire books to catalogue them all. Phil position is the easiest, though, as He does not practice what he teaches. He believes that any thought at all impedes the worship God. So he has no way to teach such worship except to tell everyone to stop doing what they’re doing and ‘shut up’. Yet, he himself is arguing this theology with both thought and many arguments, incoherent and contradictory as they are. For as he also would admit: If we are not to believe in Jesus Himself, or a Church, or any other human being for that matter….then why on Earth should you believe in Pope Phil when he speaks of these very things? So, it is a hypocritical position. His message is: “You should not listen to me (…and if you do you are a fool)”. And so we ask: So then, why are you speaking to us? Pope Phil’s philosophy is patently absurd.

          Reply

          1. Al – you are spot-on. You’ll notice I still spar a bit with BarryDawg, because there is at least a Scriptural and theological foundation to our debate, rancorous as it has been, something related to Divine revelation. Phil…I disengaged because it is as you said, absurd..I learn nothing from it as I do while researching answers to Barry’s pokes. That’s why I referenced Macbeth, specifically the line about “a tale told by an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Interestingly, the whole Macbeth soliloquy is a lament to the meaninglessness of life, a despairing position which perfectly fits Phil’s relativist, secularist philosophy. Try to be nice because nothing you do has any meaning anyway. That’s great Phil feels that way, but the next guy may be more on the line of Ted Bundy…and without that transcendent referent, who is the ultimate arbiter of which morality prevails?

             Reply

             1. It looks like Pope Philbert came riding into the argument blowing his bugel…like the calvary to the rescue (one rider only though this calvary be..), wherein ‘the Bulldog’ could find a few minutes to digging route escape into the wilderness, away from the arrows of Catholic faith and truth.

                But I agree, the Dog at least had an argument, and not just: ‘Thought is useless for aquiring knowledge of God’. In this, Pope Philbert might out do Descartes quote when He wrote: “I think, therefore I am.” Pope Philbert teaches “I think, therefore I know not God.”

             2. AK: Al – you are spot-on. You’ll notice I still spar a bit with BarryDawg, because there is at least a Scriptural and theological foundation to our debate,

                C.P.O. You may be sparring a bit, but your performance does not even deserve a booby prize.
                Incidentally, there is no Scriptural foundation for the infallibility of the RCC as you outrageously suppose and which I have thoroughly disproven.

             3. Booby is a bad word. You’re going to h**l…

             4. “…there is no Scriptural foundation for the infallibility of the RCC as you outrageously suppose and which I have thoroughly disproven”.

                Bull Dog, have you never read this teaching of Christ regarding His Church? He gives the Catholic Church ( Christ’s Church built on the foundation of ROCK/ PETER), power not only on here on Earth, but in Heaven as well. :

                “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever THOU SHALT BIND upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also IN HEAVEN.”

          2. awlms, that was all a metaphor. Don’t you git it yet? Yer goin’ ta HAIL. Roast like a broiler chicken….

             Sincerely, Parstard Barry

             Reply

       2. AK: His Chosen people… His One True Church.

          C.P.O. Shall I say it again? Jesus no more founded the Roman Catholic Church than crickets eat snakes. I have conclusively proven that their claimed gift of infallibility is a fraud, and now that you are aware of the evidence, you WILL be held responsible for what you do with it.
          I see by your comment you have decided ignore it and prefer rather, to check your brains in with the Vatican hat-check girl and go mindlessly in to join hands with the Pope.
          Face it. You are religious, yes, but unsaved and lost.

          Reply

          1. The case is closed AK. If anyone asks, you can tell them that you are unsaved and lost because Dr. Barry the Bulldog will have it so! There he stands, he can do no other.

             Reply

          2. “Shall I say it again?”

             Why not – it’s the one thing you do well. Might was well showcase your one talent.

             “Vatican hat-check girl…”

             Been there and didn’t see her. You and I must have visited at different times. Is she cute? And did she return your brain to you? Probably didn’t notice a difference one way or the other.

             “You are religious, yes, but unsaved and lost..”

             Sigh…Matt 7:1-3…..

             Reply

          3. “…than crickets eat snakes..”

             Didja hear that, Elmer? No more pythons for youuu-uuuu….

             **sad cricket…**

             Reply

    2. AK: [Protestant] agenda is based not on divine revelation but on the machinations of men

       CPO: It actually makes my stomach turn reading your syrupy slop, but I will respond for the onlookers sake who must stand aghast at the worthlessness of your comments. After I have broken my back to disprove the “divine revelation” of the “machinations” of the men at Trent, wherein they quote Jesus OUT OF CONTEXT, you still wish to rest your soul on their “divine revelation” regarding the Eucharist. One can only feel sorry for you.

       AK [They have] chosen the arrogance of self over the clear message of Scripture

       CPO: Oh gimme a break. Vatican 1 portrayed the “arrogance of self” in spades, by ARROGANTLY and officially taking it upon themselves to self-appoint the RCC as “infallible”– ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVENTY YEARS after Christ left this earth. This bombastic claim is no more believable than 14 year old Joseph Smith getting a vision in the woods circa 1830 saying all churches were wrong and “I want UUUUUU to set them straight.” To be sure, Satan was having a good ‘ol time in the 1800’s.
       Moreover, as I have said previously, while Catholic piety asks us to believe in “the clear message of Scripture”, their plea rings totally FALSE in light of their NOT believing the clear message of Scripture when we read that “ALL” have sinned, by making an exception for Mary….. and in light of the clear message of Scripture that “there are now “NO MORE OFFERINGS FOR SIN” by their endless “offerings” in the Mass, and by their refusing to believe that Jesus has “PURGED” our sins as we read in the book of Hebrews, by spitting in Christ’s face and creating the torture chamber of PURGATORY.

       Reply

       1. “Vatican 1 portrayed the “arrogance of self” in spades, by ARROGANTLY and officially taking it upon themselves to self-appoint the RCC as “infallible”– ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVENTY YEARS after Christ left this earth. This bombastic claim…”

          Getting soft, to have left your own self so open. Since my capslock key still works (apparently yours doesn’t) I’ll just calmly say the very selfsame thing, with ol’ Martin/Calvin/Servetus/Hus, out of heretical arrogance vice patient humility and honor to their vows, inventing their own religion 1517 years after Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the first Pope, Petros/Cephas/Peter…which would make the Vatican 1 declaration true from Day 1, just belatedly announced.

          See? Simple enough, even for you.

          And OBTW…you ‘Murrican fundatards don’t even **like** Calvin/Luther/Hus etc., these days….what do you believe anyway? Or is it indescribably morph-able the way an amoeba changes shape every moment? That would explain 40,000 and counting….

          Suppertime!

          Reply

          1. Put it this way, Parster. Make it really easy for you to understand…

             Before God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, was it OK to steal? Lie? Commit murder or adultery? Fornicate? Dishonor God? For you, trick question….

             Of course not….because those principles, though unstated in stone, were a pre-existent morality, God’s rules for order in a human world. If that wasn’t the case, God would not have sent a flood nor nuked Sodom.

             So it was with Vatican 1’s statement of Papal infallibility in matters of faith, under very set conditions, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Everything in it’s due time….

             You may replace the dunce cap, after you answer this – you based a **whole set of your arguments against Transubstantiation** on John 16:25 and Jesus pronouncement of ‘speaking figuratively…” when I showed you the correct translation is NOT “figuratively,” but “in proverbs.” Jesus most certainly did NOT offer a proverb in John 6, but spoke, to quote myself, literally, directly, and double-emphatically to ‘Eat his Flesh…’

             Blew your whole argument out of the water, with nary a tic, like that snake-gorged cricket…maybe you want to email Parster White and see if he can twist something up to get you out of this…..

             Reply

22. Another beautiful post that enlightens and strengthens our faith – thank you Joe.

    Reply

23. Al said….

    “Pope Philbert teaches “I think, therefore I know not God.”

    Thank you for reading my posts Al. And thank you _not_ for misquoting them as is your lazy habit. But ok, the possibility does exist that you are sincerely trying to understand my points, but I haven’t make them clear enough. What I’m referring to is admittedly unfamiliar to many people.

    To be clear, I never said that anyone who thinks can not know God. Everybody thinks, so such a conception would be meaningless.

    I do say that _in any moment_ when our attention is focused on thoughts in our head, what we are experiencing is not God, but symbols about God.

    It’s the simplest thing. The word God is not God, it is a word. Ideas about God are not God, they are ideas. Your name is not you, it’s just a name, just a symbol.

    God is not a symbol, idea or word.

    God is real.

    When you say “knowing God” what you mean is “knowing ideas about God”. When I say “knowing God” what I mean is “experiencing God”.

    Knowing as you mean it is standing back at a safe distance. Knowing as I mean it is dying to be reborn.

    The primary obstacle to experiencing God is the distraction presented by all the symbols swirling around in our heads. The central symbol running that show is “me”. Dying to be reborn means letting go of all the symbols, if only for a moment.

    Reply

    1. Jesus sums up what you write pretty simply saying: “If you have seen me, you have seen The Father”.

       So, what we need to discover is what does He mean by ‘seen me”. The most obvious and simplest answer is one that any child can even understand, as that is how they learn when they are very young and with very little verbal skills…they observe everything around them and especially everything about their parents, and then also their brothers and sisters. So, the words ‘If you have seen me’ is a very rich saying. It is comprehensive. It includes everything about Jesus, His words, His miracles, His appearance, His actions in public, His actions in private, His actions with His friends, His actions with those who hate Him,..etc… Observing all of these things, and meditating on them deeply is “to see” Jesus…and to therefore also “see” the Father, Creator of All Things.

       This is also to say, that ‘seeing Jesus’ is not such a simple thing, as there are many aspects to it that need to be considered. There are His words and actions, but also the stories of Him that were only known to others in His life such as His mother Mary, and St. Joseph. And these need to be considered and trusted. And also, some things were experienced by those that were healed by Him, and at times that the apostles or other disciples were not around (like the blind man that defended Him against the Pharisees after Jesus healed his blindness), these stories also add information on Christ, and therefore information on God the Father.

       So, according to Christ, to experience God most perfectly, to see Him most clearly, you must also experience Christ more perfectly and ‘see’ Him, Jesus, more clearly. Lucky we are that Christ is most kind and loving in all this, because it make studying Him a pleasant experience; as He personally says of Himself:

       “Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”

       So, God the Father must be the same as Jesus, according to Christ’s previous teaching, above, regarding ‘seeing Him is also seeing the Father’.

       And what a consoling teaching; that God would be ‘meek and humble of heart’ and actively seeking to refresh us from our labors and burdens. Who can complain with that?

       Reply

       1. Al, and Margo, and Matthewp, etc….

          Matt – you are right and I should have taken my own advice a few dozen posts ago.

          It’s relatively easy to recognize, usually within a post/response or two, who is here to discourse, who is here to disrupt, and who has been here before to do either. Phil, well, he wasn’t hiding what he is, and Barry was looking like Micah also from post 1. It’s time to recognize right off who is Matt 10:14 fodder, and ignore them – completely. The tribble rule applies….stop feeding to stop breeding.

          Reply

          1. It’s the only way we are going to do justice to Joe and to this blog. I take full measure of responsibility for the way I have contributed to the chaos.

             Reply

          2. AK and all,

             I too fell short.

             As AK says, the first few posts say so much. The very first sentence in response to Joe’s article reveals much.

             I question whether Barry and Phil are two different people. They are cut from such similar cloth. A little linguistic analysis could show so much…but what would be the point….

             God bless.

             Reply

             1. And I again apologize for my bad example.

24. Please note that what I’ve just described above need not have anything at all to do with Eastern mysticism, new age ideas, or any religion or philosophy other than Catholicism. You have everything you need already right in your own religion, there’s no need to go anywhere else.

    It was Jesus who most famously said, “Die to be reborn”. ACTS of love are a perfectly fine vehicle for such a dying, as Jesus wisely advised. But please note the emphasis on “ACTS”. Talk about love and dying to be reborn etc is just another pile of symbols. Thus…

    Agreeing with this post will get you nowhere. You have to act on it to receive any benefit, because it is the acting which takes us out of the symbolic realm, and in to the real world, where God exists.

    Reply

    1. Hi Phil,

       I think I’ve mentioned this to you a few times before. What you write is nothing new. It is really common sense to everyone who prays to God as Jesus taught. So, I don’t mean to insult you, but this is literally 5th grade catechism stuff, not some new theological revelation or breakthrough. What you say here is already Catholic. Christ taught it. It is from the ‘depths of the heart’ that words are formed (though some hearts are not very deep), be they of love and truth…or of sin, lies and evil.

       Listen to Jesus very well:

       ” But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.”

       This pretty much says it all. It is the interior of man that is essential, even as it is the meaning of the word that is essential, and NOT the ‘type font’ used to print the word.

       And to give another teaching on the subject, listen to St. Paul….who says that words themselves are very deficient for expressing theological experiences, and needs the Holy Spirit to help:

       “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God. And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.” (Rom. 8:26)

       So, when you insinuate that Catholics are mere exterior ‘babble’ worshippers of God, you are highly mistaken (though, of course…some actually are). It negativity towards Catholics may be due to a negative past impression, but it is far from true. Just read the Life of St. Francis for instance, or the Confessions of St. Augustine, and you will undoubtably come in contact with authentic followers of Christ. They are anything BUT exterior, numb or spiritually paralyzed Christians. Rather they burn with love for God in almost everything they do and say, just like all Christians should be doing. It’s amazing that you don’t recognize true piety in this world. I have seen it in so many people that I cannot count. The memory of their piety is etched into my brain, the holy expression of their faces (one of which was very close to death) and the tone of the voice….is remembered well after very many years. Just looking into the eyes of a very old Mother Superior at the convent of Perpetual Adoration in San Francisco, a few years before she died, is also etched into my memory. Not even needing words, her very eyes conveyed very deep holiness, peace and love…and I knew then why she had been re-elected superior every 3 years about 20 or more times over. She was simply a very holy person. It might be like the glow on Moses face that was so strong that the Israelites couldn’t even stand it. So, Catholics have this, and I have seen it in them many times (but not to the degree described of Moses).

       Anyway, that’s my opinion on what i would consider rather common mystical experiences that words can’t sufficiently convey. I hope the quotes provided lend some support to the idea that it is the heart that is important, and the words coming from them are mere tools trying to convey the thoughts of the heart. And as St. Paul says, some of these are mere groanings …with no verbal expression possible.

       – Al

       Reply

       1. AW: It is really common sense to everyone who prays to God as Jesus taught.

          CPO: Spare us your babble about praying to God. Your horrific catechism babbles and demands that we bring “ALL”…again….”ALL”…our cares to Mary (2677), which, by definition, leaves no room for God. Don’t even bother with any babbling excuses for this inexcusable flop. No true Christian could EVER think of writing such a babbling, anti-christ thought. It is a flat out contradiction to Phil 4:6-7, 1 Pet 5:7 and Heb 4:15-16 and the RCC once again proves they are nothing but a babbling synagogue of Satan.

          AW: So, I don’t mean to insult you, but this is literally 5th grade catechism stuff

          CPO: What you mean to say, is that the editor’s of the catechism have a 5th grade education.

          AW: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God” (Rom. 8:26)

          CPO: Your babbling on of the virtues of the Holy Spirit RINGS FALSE in light of your rejecting this gift that Jesus promised in his physical ABSENCE. You over-ride the Spirit by demanding the physical PRESENCE of Christ right after he no less than 10x said such presence was “going away” and NO WHERE promised to give.

          AW: So, when you insinuate that Catholics are mere exterior ‘babble’ worshippers of God, you are highly mistaken

          CPO: Au contrair Pierre….Catholics are babble worshippers INDEED.

          Reply

          1. I counted some permutation of the word ‘babble’ seven times.

             You really should learn to use the ‘synonyms’ function or just simply diversify your vocabulary.

             Maybe you’re just too pissed off because your arguments keep getting shot down, and you know your next stop is RCIA.

             Reply

             1. AK: I counted some permutation of the word ‘babble’ seven times.
                You really should learn to use the ‘synonyms’ function or just simply diversify your vocabulary.

                CPO: OH THOU FOOL! I PURPOSELY set it up that way because the writer had ended off by saying Catholics weren’t a bunch of babblers. By the time I got to his concluding thought, the point was that they WERE.
                Apparently, you never took a class in creative writing.
                And as you well know by what I have submitted, my vocabulary is JUST FINE THANK YOU, so this quirky quip is still yet another attempt to blow smoke over the fact that infallibility is a sham and hoax, and what Trent had to say on the Eucharist then cannot be true.
                We thank God that the head honchos arrogated to themselves this phony gift because it has made it that much easier to catch them red handed according to Deut 18:22.

             2. “OH THOU FOOL!”

                Matt 5:22

                See you in Hell, Johnny Reb….

             3. Oh, and Parster…you never addressed this…three times and counting….cut/paste from an earlier post:

                You may replace the dunce cap, after you answer this – you based a **whole set of your arguments against Transubstantiation** on John 16:25 and Jesus pronouncement of ‘speaking figuratively…” when I showed you the correct translation is NOT “figuratively,” but “in proverbs.” Jesus most certainly did NOT offer a proverb in John 6, but spoke, to quote myself, literally, directly, and double-emphatically to ‘Eat his Flesh…’

                Your Delta Tau Chi name is…..Flounder….

          2. Even Phil speaks the truth clearer than you, because at least he is trying to be honest with what he believes, and trying to teach. And his complaints are usually ‘humorous’, whereas yours are ‘venomous’. Moreover you consider yourself a ‘saved’ Christian.

             And you also seem to have an venomous attitude towards Mary, the mother of Jesus, the mother of God, when you shouldn’t. In the very scriptures you rely on, the mother of Jesus prophesied of herself: “…from this day all generations will call me blessed”. Yet you seem to denigrate her at every turn. Catholics indeed call her ‘blessed’…and call her that every day. Moreover, an angel of God called her “Hail, Full of Grace”. Do you have a problem with this scripture? Was there ever anyone else called ‘full of Grace’ in the scriptures? or even after the scriptures were written??

             So, your allergy to Mary is one of your problems. On the cross Jesus gave his mother to His beloved disciple saying: “Behold they son” and to John “behold thy Mother”. If all true Christians are ‘brothers’ as Jesus said they were (and are), is then Mary NOT our mother also? Can’t you put two and two together concerning the ‘mystical body of Christ’? Or, is it ‘over your head’? And even as it was a commandment for Jesus to honor His own mother…so too was it a commandment for John the beloved disciple to honor his ‘new’ mother, also. And we, being Christian ‘brothers’ of John, are therefore commanded to ‘love our mother’ also: the mother of Christ, the mother of John, the Mother of the apostles and the mother of the Church, The Blessed Virgin MARY (by extension).

             Now mind you…we are not saying ADORE Mary. Adoration is for God Alone (read our catechism). But we do say VENERATE, HONOR and LOVE. We do this because Jesus also loved His mother, and we are the brothers of Jesus as He Himself described us many times .

             So, you should get off your brainwashed hang-up regarding Catholics ‘adoring Mary’. Rather, we fulfill the prophesy about her and say: “Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is with you. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb Jesus”. And all of this is true.

             Alleluia.

             Reply

             1. I took one glance on your sermon on Mary and stopped reading at “venomous”. Spare me your over-exaggerated insults.
                Your sermon on Maria is off topic and I will not be side-tracked. I am refuting you step by step regarding the issue at hand and you can’t take it.

       2. Al – Phil claims to have been baptized and confirmed – the latter meaning some level of catechesis – and he refers to the Eucharist as “holy crackers.” That, the history in the previous post, and the many manifestations of pervasive condescension tells me all I need to know.

          As for Barry, well, he’s just angry like so many loveless, joyless fundamentalists I’ve known. Trying to administer Christian Domestic Discipline to us the way they do it at home, and frustrated it’s not working (probably doesn’t work there, either). I held out an olive branch earlier in this thread and got no response. Just sad in so many ways.

          Reply

25. By the way, anyone who wants to get a real look at the true nature of “Swami Phil” and his smooth maunderings on the nature of faith, God, and thought….just wander over to the previous Popery blog-post “Why Must Catholic Clergy Be Called by the Church.”

    You’ll get a snootful of his contempt for Holy Scripture, religion in general, Catholicism in particular, the clergy, the fact of divine revelation, his condescending engagement with the faithful, and pervasive arrogance…not to mention the veneer of ‘you can keep your Catholicism if you like your Catholicism’ while slicking into a New Age – yes, New Age – cesspit of time-and-practice discredited Werner Erhard-oid/Esalen-out-of-the-70’s beliefs, platitudes and practices. He seems to advocate for good works, but scratch the surface and you’ll see he’s for defunding the clergy, closing churches, and oh by the way, Catholic Charities is a right wing shill, covering for a rigged economy owned by the top 1% with no validity to act as a conduit for good works. Occupy with a tie-dyed 70’s twist. Whatever you’ve seen here so far, it’s not the real Phil, yet. Want to know the reality, and now, look at the referenced blog.

    I report, you decide.

    Reply

26. Hey Al, if what I’m saying is nothing new and already embraced fully by Catholic teachings, then why is everybody on the blog arguing with every word I write?

    That said, I do agree there is a some overlap between Catholic doctrines and what I’m writing, which is why I’m writing here on this blog. As example, the bit about God being ever present comes straight out of my Catholic upbringing, so agreed, nothing new there.

    What’s new (to this blog, not all of humanity) is that I’m taking that doctrine to it’s logical conclusion. As seems typical for the Catholic web, members seem to have little interest in following the trail presented by “God is ever present” and just want to chant such phrases. As your post illustrates, you’re not really interested in the investigation, but only in proclaiming official Catholic doctrines superior to everything and everybody. But I don’t take it personally, because I see members doing the same thing with Barry the Bullfrog, and anybody else who won’t chant the company line as certified by the clergy.

    To be fair to my fellow members of this blog, the situation is little better on sites where all members are Catholic academics with Phds in theology. Nobody anywhere on the Catholic web, no matter how fully educated, seems to really want to dig in to doctrines such as “God is ever present” and explore the implications of what that might really mean.

    As example, in the context of Joe’s article, nobody seems to care that if God is ever present everywhere, then it would seem there’s no need to worry about salvation, because there’s no where one can be but with God. If that’s true, then salvation is about overcoming the ILLUSION of separation from God, overcoming a false perception. That’s something entirely different than being separated in reality.

    Instead of such a thoughtful inquiry, all we get is an endlessly combative head butting over holy crackers.

    Reply

    1. Hi Phil,

       I’m not implying that EVERYTHING you say is taught by Christ or the Church, but was focusing on what you wrote above, that is:

       ******************************************
       “To be clear, I never said that anyone who thinks can not know God. Everybody thinks, so such a conception would be meaningless.

       I do say that _in any moment_ when our attention is focused on thoughts in our head, what we are experiencing is not God, but symbols about God. It’s the simplest thing. The word God is not God, it is a word. Ideas about God are not God, they are ideas. Your name is not you, it’s just a name, just a symbol.

       God is not a symbol, idea or word.

       God is real.

       When you say “knowing God” what you mean is “knowing ideas about God”. When I say “knowing God” what I mean is “experiencing God”.
       ***********************************

       And regarding this statement of yours, I posted this saying of Christ that addresses the ‘interior life of a person’ and ‘the thoughts of the Heart’ as compared to ‘exterior religious practice’ which happened to be the vice most attacked by Christ, primarily against the Pharisees:

       ” But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.”

       Regarding the importance of the interior life, which saints and theologians also refer to as ‘Christian contemplation’ and ‘mysticism’ this is found thoughout Christian history in the writings and biographies of the Saints. So many saints detail such mysticism that it’s hard to count them all. The ‘Desert Fathers’ are some of the first, they pretty much invented Christian monasticism, but following Jesus’ and John the Baptists’ examples. Then there are saints such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Bonaventure, St. Louis De Montfort…etc.. all of whom particularly focus on the inner life of Christians, which has also a profound effect on the exterior life (as you sometimes term ‘walking the walk’).

       And besides the quotes I posted earlier, of Jesus saying that evil and good come from INSIDE a man, as compared to exterior origins, Christ also teaches something similar regarding prayer. He says:

       “And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard. Be not you therefore like to them, for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.”

       So, when I said that you were discussing items that were “Catholic”, and also “common”…it is because these items are taught by Christ in the quotes that I provided. For people who read the Gospel these are very common themes. But then again, nobody can force a person to study the words of Christ, so many Catholics don’t follow them either. However, the saints throughout the ages preached, wrote,taught and gave good examples in their acts and deeds… of these items relating to the ‘interior life’ of a Christian. And even little children can get an idea of this also, naturally, and by observation, because they haven’t yet started upon a life filled with sin and vanity yet. In their innocence the can recognize many things that adults have forgotten due to their vice filled habits. So, this also is why I referred to ‘5th grade catechesis’ …to get across the idea that much of this is already provided to us by God due to ourselves being ‘made in the image of God’. That is, a lot of Christian spirituality is innate to begin with. Jesus even said regarding this: “Unless you become like little children you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven”. And then later, as the child grows… inspiration and graces are amplified through learning from others, and the reception of the sacraments, as Christ taught.

       So, I hope this explains better what I wrote earlier.

       – Al

       Reply

       1. Al, I take your point to be that whatever I might say, somebody in the Catholic chain of command said it first. Ok, I get it. The comparisons and quotes you’re sharing illustrate that you don’t really get my points, but if so, I must take some responsibility for that as the writer of those points.

          What I’m proposing is that theology is not the path to God, but for people like us, the primary obstacle. I’m pretty sure this is not being taught in Catholic confirmation classes.

          A parable to illustrate…

          Imagine you’re reading a book, and your friend comes in to the room to speak to you. You’re friend starts talking, but you’re only half listening and not really paying attention because your focus is on what you’re reading. You’re focused on symbols, instead of the reality of your friend.

          The solution is to put the book down and shift your attention from the symbolic realm (the book) to the real world (your friend). Why? Because your friend, being real, contains more value than can be found in any piles of symbols, however engaging those symbols might be.

          God is what appears when we shift our attention from the little pile of human created symbols in our minds to the real world, the book that God wrote. God is always there, but we’re rarely paying attention, distracted as we are by the thought circus going round in our heads.

          All theology books are created by men.

          A handful of dirt is created by God.

          Thus, a handful of dirt is the “book” we should be studying.

          How to study? By shifting our attention from that which we have created to that which God has created.

          Reply

          1. Hi Phil,

             I have a few questions:

             After one studies ‘the dirt’, so to say, does one talk about these things with others? Or, is this a solitary study like maybe the ‘Desert Fathers’ and hermits of Egypt did in 300-500 AD? And would one ‘talk’ about God with his wife? Or is the subject ‘off limits’ in all social settings? And, one last question. If evil still exists in an ideal society that might follow your ideology, do people who hate evil deeds talk to those who commit crimes, i.e.. stealing, killing, drug peddling, raping, etc…trying to convince them not to do these things? And are laws against vice good to enforce? I’m just curious how your your philosophy works in the real world. In the past I read some literature that were devoted to pondering such alternative living situations and philosophies. Three of them were “Utopia” (More), “Utopia II” (Skinner) and “Walden’s Pond” (Thoreau). So I’m accustomed to thinking about such novel social living and existing scenarios.

             Any answers for me on these topics?

             Reply

27. There’s definitely a troll/imposter here signing in with fraudulent names and I hope he’s not using Joe Heschmeyer’s name, also. But regardless, the point is well taken. Courtesy and civility should be the rule in ALL cases on a Christian blog. Moreover, the Lord Himself warned us:

    “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.” (Mat. 12:36)

    So, it’s something to consider.

    Reply

28. Hey all,

    It’s finals season here, and this comments thread has filled up quickly over the last few days, so I hope you’ll forgive me for not keeping a close eye on it. Unfortunately, it looks like two things have happened: (1) the tone is much less charitable than usual; and (2) someone is impersonating other commenters and saying rude and even vulgar things.

    So know this:

    1. Sorry I didn’t catch it earlier, and thank you to Barry for bringing (2) to my attention.

    2. If you’re going to post, do it with charity. You shouldn’t need me to be moderator. You’re adults, and we’ve got a Moderator in Heaven, Who tells us: “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).

    3. Know that when you lose your temper, you lose the argument, even if you’re right. Have you ever been persuaded by being berated on the Internet? I haven’t, either. So if you’re right, that’s all the more reason to keep your cool, even if nobody else is.

    4. Contrary to what Barry says, we’re not “spiritual enemies.” As St. Paul reminds us, “we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). The person you’re berating is probably your brother or sister in Christ. Treat them as such. (And if they’re not Christian, remember that they’re still a person God created and for whom He died).

    5. As a housekeeping point, I have found that short and targeted comments addressing one or two particular areas are much more productive than diatribes that seek to address every point made in the post or in a comment. Do with that what you will, but that’s certainly been my own experience. [This comment sort of violates (and perhaps proves) my own point.]

    6. If you are the one impersonating people, stop immediately. Don’t make me ban your IP. And please don’t make me switch to a verified commenting system, because that would be a real loss and would stifle the dialogue that often makes this blog so fruitful.

    7. I deleted the impersonated comments that I found (and their replies), but if I have missed any, please let me know.

    8. You were bought at a price.

    9. The occasional low points like this are a reminder, by their very rarity, of what a great community has formed around this blog. I’m very grateful for all of you, both Catholics and non-Catholics. God bless you.

    Joe

    Reply

    1. Thank you.

       Reply

    2. All the personality conflict wars going on above could be converted in to something useful if we were to conduct a thoughtful investigation in to trying to discover the source of such phenomena. Here’s a start…

       Every ideology ever created has inevitably split in to warring internal factions. The fact that even a religion explicitly about bringing people together in love has experienced this same phenomena should be a big clue to us that peace will never be achieved through ANY ideology. If that were the case, humanity would have long ago found the ideology capable of solving such conflicts, and we’d now be living in utopia.

       This is really hard for holy warriors of any flavor to face, but even if everybody on Earth converted to their point of view (whatever it might be), it would only be a matter of days before divisions appeared and conflict resumed.

       Once we face the fact that peace can not be found by editing the content of thought, by finding the “one correct ideology”, the door is open for a deeper investigation.

       The clue we should be looking at is that these conflicts happen no matter what the ideology is. That is, the source of the conflict must be something all humans have in common, whatever their ideology or time and place etc.

       The something that we all have in common is thought itself. Thought operates by a process of division. It divides “me” from “my thoughts” inside of our own minds, which gives rise to all kinds of internal conflict. That internal conflict then radiates out in to the world in many different forms. It’s not fundamentally a moral issue, but a mechanical process, which can be addressed at least in part by mechanical means.

       The insight that the source of human conflict is thought itself has huge implications for our relationship with theology. But such implications are rarely welcomed by theologians, particularly those who think they own “The Truth”.

       Reply

       1. A big part of he problem that you describe is caused by ‘Free Will”. Some men will freely choose to do evil, and some men will freely seek to do good. Even Jesus could not control the ‘free will’ of His disciples and His enemies. But He did teach to “love your enemy, do good to those who hate you.” So, this was one of Christ’s strategies in dealing with the ‘free will’ of others. this is to say, free will makes existence complicated. Thus, we have so many theories on how to deal with it.

          Reply

          1. No offense Al, but you simply have no idea what I’m talking about. As the writer of my points, I share the fault with you.

             Reply

29. Joe – I think the “Barry” post of 13 June at 8:08 is also an impersonation. FYI.

    Reply

    1. Good catch, thanks!

       Reply

       1. You’re welcome.

          To Barry: This ought to make it abundantly clear, whatever else you think of me, I was **not** your impersonator. Or anyone else’s.

          Reply

       2. Joe,

          I’m pretty sure every word written on the blog by any of us is really somebody else’s idea that we are now claiming as our own creation. Could you have somebody erase the blog please? Let’s clean this place up and get rid of all these darn imposters! 🙂

          Reply

30. If AK is not the poster who was forging my name, then so be it. It was a guess on my part based on where the post was positioned.

    Moving right along, AK is making some noise here that he has asked me a question 3 times and I did not answer. Yet…oh my…is it not true as any reader can see, that the point I have been making about the non-infallibility of the Council of Trent in regards to the Eucharist has SILENCED each and every one of the Catholics on this board? I simply cannot get over the NERVE of AK scolding ME, who has answered 99% of everything directed to him, and decides to try and “catch me” on the 1%. It is disgraceful.
    Nevertheless, so that I may now go on record for answering 100% of all RC objections, I will refer to this pesky little complaint so he may then mount his high horse and ride off into the sunset.

    AK is rattled over my argument regarding John 16:25. To begin with, I am first told to

    AK: toss your KJV (Lord, a Bible that a half-forgotten English king named after **himself**…sounds like blasphemy to me), get a Bible like Douay-Rheims closer to the original Greek

    CPO: Ummmm…. let the reader beware that it izzzzzz the KJV which has the word “proverbs” in 16:25 (!!!) and AK wishes me to get…RID OF IT???
    Whoops. Obviously, he goofed, and based on this goof from the get-go, everything else he says must be suspect as well. Sorry to humiliate you, but the serious issue of eternal life is at stake here and a sloppy mistake like that is going to factor in to your credibility. When the Lord told certain ones to go in to destroy the enemy, he meant JUST THAT, and so if I smell a rat, I must set the trap to vanquish it out of my house.

    Now this is what I wrote regarding 16:25:

    “Look at John 16:25: “These things have I spoken unto you in figurative language; but an hour is coming when I shall no more speak unto you in figurative language, but I shall show you plainly…” When we consider that the episode of John 6 took place ***before*** Jesus’s “hour to speak plainly”, then we may rightfully expect Him to be speaking more often in figurative language! Thus, any allusion to chewing on head, hands, arms and feet, would have to be the farthest thing from his mind. As a matter of fact, even after the discourse in John 6, the Jews came right out and said, “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24).”

    AK says the word “figuratively” is best rendered “proverbs”, and since Jesus wan’t giving us a proverb in chapter 6, my argument fails. More on that in a minute.

    The first point to note is right there in 10:24. The Jews were obviously a little miffed that Christ was not speaking… “plainly”, which is conformed in 16:25. As a result of this cryptic form of speech, one can discern that there would not be any fundamental difference whether Christ was speaking “figuratively” proper, or “proverbial” in particular because the intention WAS to puzzle his audience on many occasions and for his own good reasons. AK retorts that

    AK: The “Eat My Flesh” language of John 6 was clear, direct, literal, double-delivered [and] emphatic

    CPO: OH I BEG TO DIFFER INDEED, as would those who said “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?”. They certainly didn’t know WHAT the helicopter he was talking about. It was already prophecied that the Messiah would use “cryptic” speech in the OT, and Jesus did not fail to do that very thing. The question is, did he do it in chapter 6 and the Last Supper?
    As Augustine said,

    If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure…

    —–NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).

    Thank you Auggie for those kind words.

    We can DEFINITELY assert at the very least that what the Lord said certainly APPEARED criminal, and therefore must immediately fall into the category of those “dark sayings” he said he’d be using most often, right UP TO his statement in 16:25. Chapter 6 comes BEFORE chapter 16, and we conclude he was speaking metaphorically. Simple. Since the Council of Trent was not infallible, there are no other options.

    Furthermore, I found this on-line regarding 16:25

    Tau’ta ejn paroimivai” lelavlhka uJmi’n ….There is some difficulty in defining “paroimivai” precisely: a translation like “parables” does not convey accurately the meaning. BAGD (629) suggest in general “proverb,” “maxim,” but for Johannine usage “dark saying,” “figure of speech, in which especially lofty ideas are concealed”. In the LXX this word is used to translate the Hebrew lvm (mashal ) which covers a WIDE RANGE of figurative speech [emphasis mine] often containing obscure or enigmatic elements.

    Hence, we now understand why we see “figurative” used in one Bible and “proverbs” used in another. AK is being unreasonably and crudely rigid in his determination to insist that even if we were to suppose Jesus was speaking “figuratively”, he was certainly not giving us a “proverb” in it’s strict definition. But at the end of the day, we must reject AK’s erroneous suppositions because the undercurrent of meaning flowing below, on top and on the side of that word translated in 16:25 is a, “veiled, pointed statement; a dark saying where a lofty idea is concealed”. Thus, this then presents NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER to our assertion that Jesus was using metaphor. At the very least, my view is just as credible as AK’s because scholars agree “there is some difficulty” in defining the word. Where are AK’s credentials that show he is qualified to make the judgment against me? Will he refer to the “infallible” Council of Trent, which we have already proved to be UNINSPIRED?
    I doubt it.
    Even from a commentary circa 1700, we read, “That by ‘proverbs’ is meant any dark saying, is plain simply by the opposition in the Text of that term “plainly”. The point being that it was Christ’s intention to often times NOT speak plainly, and therefore, my original thesis on 16:25 STANDS. Hence, we may definitely look back in time from that point in 16:25, to chapter 6 and see that Christ was not speaking “plainly” at all, contrary to AK.
    It is conclusive then: Jesus stated 4 times it was imperative to believe on Him (plainly!),and reinforced that very thought (metaphorically!) by repeating 4 times it was imperative to “eat his flesh”. This was characteristic of him. It was simply two ways of saying the same thing, as in “Lazarus is asleep”, when in reality L was dead. We all know L was either asleep or dead. NOT BOTH. Jesus wants us to either believe in him, or eat his flesh…NOT BOTH

    Reply

    1. “So be it” and “moving right along” atonement for false accusation. So be it.

       Is anyone here able to follow all that strung-together stuff? Me neither.

       Not even worth addressing the steaming and painfully twisted pile of convolution that is required to subsidize Reformed confirmation bias whenever an Evangelical is presented with the clear language of Scripture and the emphatic words of Jesus. I once again could show you, from learned Protestants such as F.L. Cross why you are engaging in self-delusion regarding Scriptural literality, but it wouldn’t make any difference. After all, you searched for the past 12 hours and ‘found it online.’ The bottom line here, is, not through any reasoned, logical, follow-able proof, but ‘because I said so,’ and ‘searched until you found something that sorta might be in the ballpark.’ Spiced with more Alinskyite Rule #5 derision leavened with ‘what the helicopter down-home-ism’s. Whatever works for you.

       So much for dedication to literal reading of Scripture by evangelical fundamentalists.

       Reply

       1. And prompted by Joe’s good counsel, I offer my apologies for adopting Barry’s anger as my own and the invective I used.

          Barry, you are right. The KJV uses the word ‘proverbs.’ I was looking at another version of the Bible on the list. My grievous error.

          But…that Hamlet and petard-hoist thing again. The Bible version used most generally by American fundamentalists, the version most bruited around the world by the container-shipload…says “proverb.” Don’t you realize how, given your unwavering fundamentalist literal interpretation of Scripture, you’ve undercut your own argument? Your explanation of how “proverbs” really isn’t, is interminable, incomprehensible, and an affront to everyone who strives to take Scripture literally. Like most of your apologetics on Transubstantiation.

          Reply

          1. AK: Your explanation of how “proverbs” really “isn’t”, is interminable, incomprehensible, and an affront to everyone who strives to take Scripture literally.

             B: You are obviously over-exaggerating to say that my position is incomprehensible, now don’t be silly. Oh? And Transubstantiation is the easiest thing in the world to understand? In fact, it is SOOO confusing that up to 70% of Catholics do not “get it”. One RC apologist who has written a book on the subject admits,

             “Poll after poll in recent years has confirmed that more and more Catholics are mistaken… they have misguided views about the Eucharist. [These] polls suggest that sometimes up to fifty percent depending on how the question is phrased, [and] sometimes as many as seventy percent of Catholics can’t identify that core Catholic belief…”

             The above statement is found in the first 5 minutes of this audio…

             http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/3970

             The problem with your response is that you have not furnished any way to know for sure WHICH word should be included in 16:25. Indeed, NO ONE ON EARTH CAN! I have already told you there is disagreement on this by the translators, which is why we see two different renditions. So let’s be blunt: I understand your position perfectly: You prefer the word “proverb” because it tends to minimize my case for John 16:25 in that what Jesus said in chapter 6 is not a strict proverb by definition, so he would not be referring to chapter 6 when he said he would more often be speaking “in proverbs”.
             *** I*** say it simply doesn’t matter because we have Jesus all over the map speaking figuratively, stating he would more often NOT be speaking plainly at least ***UP TO*** 16:25. Even his detractors said to get the marbles out of his mouth very close by in chapter 10. Hence, all that has come before 16:25 MUST be included in his modus operandi of NOT speaking plainly. No one can deny that this is MORE than reasonable. Even Augustine noticed that figurative speech was going on in chapter 6 and so it cannot be out of order to render the verse “figuratively speaking” which has already been done in Bible versions by those smarter than you and me. You also know as well as I do that the RCC has not “infallibly” defined that verse at all, nor has she, for that matter, “infallibly” defined 95% of the Bible! This makes their so-called “gift”, for all practical purposes, useless. As the Lord says,

             “Like clouds and wind without rain is one who boasts of gifts never given” (Prov 25:14).

             Because then, there is no sure way to know which word God would prefer, we must very simply resort to the evidence that leads us to conclude that Jesus was indeed including chapter 6 in his systematic on not speaking plainly in 16:25. I’d say my argument carries more weight than you give it credit for. When we consider that Trent misquoted Jesus at the Last Supper, that makes the RC ship sink to the bottom of the ocean, and those looking for salvation must then swim AWAY from the Tiber.

             Reply

             1. “The problem with your response is that you have not furnished any way to know for sure WHICH word should be included in 16:25. Indeed, NO ONE ON EARTH CAN! I have already told you there is disagreement on this by the translators, which is why we see two different renditions. ”

                By this argument, the entirety of Scripture can be called into question. “Way, Truth, and the Life.” Whatever does that mean? Whatever (literally or metaphorically, depending on my agenda) I want it to mean. Which is what you have been doing for several days of strung out posts. Which Protestantism has been doing for 500 years. Good luck with that. You and the tens of thousands of squabbling sects, which in your ‘noting the mote’ of the supposed number of improperly catechized Catholics – no one really knows – you conveniently ignore the beam.

             2. Trent is not quoting Jesus. Nor do they pretend they are. They are giving the synopsis of what He said. If you had read other sessions, Trent makes it clear when they are quoting verbatim.

                I wonder why you took issue with Trent saying truly. You could have also said Jesus never said species of bread.

             3. Barry did me a favor. He introduced me to at least one historian who, though mediocre and easy to shoot down, is well-respected in fundamentalist circles. When in a debate, I see, for example, Phillip Schaff being quoted on St. Augustine in support of a Reformed argument, I’ll know an easy target..

             4. D: Trent is not quoting Jesus.

                B: When will the madness end with Catholics making idiotic statements in the face of reality?
                Kindly inform me what does “Christ SAID” mean to you?

                This is how I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God has indeed blinded your eyes as he specifically says he will do to those he has not chosen for his own good reasons (Matt 11:25-26; Jn 9:39).

                D: Nor do they pretend they are.

                B: Let the reader gasp at the glory of God as he blinds the heart of one of the unselect to say “they did not even pretend they were quoting Christ”.

                D: If you had read other sessions, Trent makes it clear when they are quoting verbatim.

                B: I just can’t get over these miserable excuses to EXCUSE Trent from quoting Christ! EXCUUUUSE me, but one does not need to read the other session to see when they quote verbatim! Needless to say, “CHRIST SAID” is enough to stand on its own.

                D: I wonder why you took issue with Trent saying truly. You could have also said Jesus never said species of bread.

                B: There may be a glimmer of hope for you Duane and perhaps your own observation will be the wake-up call you need. Briefly, you are 100% correct that Christ never said he was offering his body under the species of bread, which demands that they mean Transubstantiation had taken place. As you know, he simply said, “This is my body”, so it is WRONG for Trent to put words in the mouth of the Lord as an apologetic for their doctrine. It is downright deceitful and thus, this makes Trent DOUBLY wrong, and the final nail in their non-infallible coffin.

             5. Barry, all you’ve offered so far is one-after-another steaming pile of subjective, poorly substantiated opinion, misused, inappropriate references from questionable sources – which, which called on, you humorously backtrack (“oh, who knows what John 16:25 really means *anyway*”) – and the self-congratulatory graveyard-whistling bombast of desperation. John 16:25 is clearly Jesus speaking about his parables, no way around it, as John 6, in conjunction with other Last Supper Gospel accounts, is about the literal reality of Transubstantiation. Nothing you have said or will say changes that, not your tortured logic, nor your insulting pronouncements.

                I know you hold your nativist anti-Catholicism deeply and close; we all get that. But none of that holds water in a debate, here, with intellectual peers (not gullible, vulnerable big-tent flocks). So, being sure you know all that already, it seems your presence here is only to disrupt and maybe shut down a Catholic-based blog.

                .

             6. AK: Barry, all you’ve offered so far is one-after-another steaming pile of subjective, poorly substantiated opinion, misused, inappropriate references from questionable sources

                B: All Catholicism has EVER done is base her doctrines one after the other on a steaming pile of subjective, poorly substantiated opinion, misused, inappropriate references from the Bible, which leads them to the horrific conclusion that
                1) Papal subordination is necessary for salvation
                2) Swallowing the Eucharist is NFS
                3) Baptism is NFS
                4) A “grace-produced-works-agenda is NFS (CCC 1821)
                5) Being a member of the RCC is NFS
                6) Proper conduct is NFS (CCC 16)
                7) Keeping all the commandments is NFS (CCC 2016)

                Aside from the fact that not one Catholic has ever been able to fulfill all of the RC’s requirements requirements, nor could ever know if it was ever enough, Paul blew a fit over the Galatians supposing to add even ONE thing to the sanctity of the cross-work of Christ. How much more enraged he would be with RCism, which has added FAR MORE???

          2. AK: By this argument, the entirety of Scripture can be called into question. “Way, Truth, and the Life.” Whatever does that mean? Whatever (literally or metaphorically, depending on my agenda) I want it to mean. Which is what you have been doing for several days of strung out posts.

             B: God has given us a mind and he expects us to exercise our brains on the Text in far too many places to list here. When we peel back the layer of your Roman onion, we see that essentially, you are referring to the authority of the Roman church (which the Bible no where mentions, not even in the book of Rooooomans). You imagine that because God always speaks with cotton balls in his mouth, that he decided to set up an infallible interpreter of his word because of his affinity for cotton balls. The problem with this theory tho is that after going the first step to declare themselves infallible circa 1870, the RCC has still left 98% of the Bible UNINTERPRETED. Instead, we are to believe that he gave this gift of infallibility to Christendom so that they could primarily tell the world that Mary did not sleep with her husband. Hence, Catholicism is a religion gone a muck.

             Having exposed the gift of infallibility here and elsewhere as a fraud, the bottom line is that Catholics are on the very same level as anyone else in their dealings with the Bible and we will all be judged by how we exercised our brains on the Text. There is in fact LOTS of agreement on what Scripture says, so your insinuation that “oh what would we do without the RCC to know what the Bible means” falls flat. God does not EXPECT us to know it all, but he has DEFINITELY given enough to understand and be saved, as even Timothy knew. We are told even “from a little child” he knew that the Scriptures would suffice for salvation. EVEN FROM A CHILD! And THAT’s what’s important! Not a “child-ISH” faith in Christ, but a child-LIKE faith, that indeed can be known, even form a child.
             Yourrrrr argument may be likened to not knowing what the numbers 666 means in Revelation, and “oh heavens to betsy what am I to do, everyone has their opinion on it and me oh my I simply MUST know what 666 means and even tho the RCC can’t tell me, what I do know is that because Protestants have so many opinions on 666, they must be of the devil”
             You may squabble about all of that till kingdom come, but ***I*** will be the one who is in heaven (and getting the answer to 666), while you will be in hell because you placed your… ADULT-like faith and trust in papal subordination, baptism, eucharist & good works to be saved!

             Reply

       2. Dear AK:

          Your response does not interact with any of the points I made other than to scoff at it. Therefore, I stand behind everything I say. And FYI, I didn’t spend 12 hours “searching”. I was able to find that quote I provided in less than 5 minutes on Google! You say:

          “I once again could show you, from learned Protestants such as F.L. Cross why you are engaging in self-delusion regarding Scriptural literality, but it wouldn’t make any difference.”

          Yet shockingly, you once again do not even realize your own hypocrisy by making such a challenge. I have bent over backwards to repeat repeat repeat repeat my evidence for the non-infallibility of Trent, and what, pray tell, has been the end result amongst a total of 300 replies on this thread? IT HAS NOT MADE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE! So why should I bow my knee to F.L. Cross at this time? Mr. Heschmeyer has at least e-mailed me a paragraph of what he thought right on the spot, which is more than anyone here has done. So kindly do spare me that I am so closed minded that nothing would make a difference to MEEEE, when the lock on your door seems to be perpetually shut. In actuality, I’m ALWAYS very open to correction when I can see I have erred, but I have 300 witnesses on this thread who are NOT open to correction.

          AK: So much for dedication to literal reading of Scripture by evangelical fundamentalists.

          CPO: All Christians take the Bible and as a matter of fact, the whole English LANGUAGE literally,
          except when there is due cause not to, just as Augustine realized in the quote I provided, which of course, you had to ignore also. You tell me in another combo that Auggie believed in the Real Presence. Look! I BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE TOO, in that God is everywhere and there is no way to escape him, but I DO NOT believe in Transubstantiation. Scholars agree that Auggie was hard to figure out at times and inconsistent,like that business about “Christ held himself in his own hands at the Last Supper”. I will NOT spend my life sweating over Augustine and try to figure out exactly what he means there, NORRRRR will I worry about making sure my theology lines up with his. The ONLY point I was trying to make by quoting him was to show you that he, AT THE VERY LEAST, was aware that there is good and sufficient evidence to perceive that Christ was speaking figuratively based on the “criminal” aspects in his words, and I totally agree. Thus, your adamant stand that what we read in chapter 6 was so obviously “literal, clear, direct and doubly emphatic” as the sun up in the sky, is WRONG, when so much mitigating evidence refutes it.

          Let’s see now, while I have you on the line, let’s get back to basics…

          “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” (John 6:56).

          God’s word swings the wrecking ball at the catechism’s interpretation of “abiding in Christ” when they quote verse 56 in their catechism. It claims, without proof, that “the principal fruit” of ingesting the Eucharist results in abiding in Christ “more intimately” (790, 1391, 1406). Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? But in fact, this is nothing but a sacramental, sanctimonious scam. By biblical definition, abiding
          ***IN CHRIST*** has nothing whatsoever to do with consuming the Eucharist. This two word phrase is used over 25 times and they all refer to being in union with Him by faith alone, with the Eucharist nowhere in sight (See 1 John 2:5; 3:24, Romans 3:24, 8:1, 8:39, Eph 1:3, 2:13, 3:11-12, Phil 3:9; 14, 4:19, 1 Tim 3:13, 2 Tim 1:1, 1:9, 1:13 , 2:1, 2:10, 3:15, 1 Cor 1:2, 1:30, Col 1:28; 2:6, 1 Thess 1:1, 2:14, 1 Peter 5:14). Read for example, Colossians 2:6: “As you therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him”. How then are we to walk “in Him”? Answer: “As we received Him”. And how did we receive Him? Answer: By faith alone! When that happens, the Holy Spirit comes to abide in us and ipso facto, we abide in Christ “more intimately”, and are “complete in Him” (Colossians 2:10).

          Might I remind you that the catechism informs us that the real presence, “endures ***ONLY*** as long as the Eucharistic species subsists” (CCC 1377). “This real presence only remains while the blessed sacrament still continues undestroyed, which lasts for a few minutes at most” (“How to Become a Catholic” by Fr. George Searle). We are to believe that these few minutes amount to MORE INTIMATE UNION????????????

          Nonsense.

          Notice that the magisterium issues only a temporary visa to “jesus”, allowing him to immigrate into the stomach only until the digestive juices begin their attack. The moment he senses persecution from this acidic war zone, he must get out of the country and become a refugee, going who knows where after doing who knows what after crossing the border into the Catholic belly.

          At the end of the day, the Catholic “jesus” enters “whole and entire”, and a minute later leaves “whole and entire” (CCC 1374) somewhat like a piece of bubble gum which enters the mouth whole and entire and then leaves whole and entire. What, pray tell, is to be accomplished in the secrecy of those 60 seconds is anyone’s guess.
          We are convinced that this “bubble-gum-christ” is, “another jesus and another gospel” according to 2 Corinthians 11:4. The real Jesus says that, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:55-56). Well then…at the very LEAST, we may safely conclude the word “abides” means to “remain and endure.” The Catholic “jesus” does NOT remain, endure or abide. After getting chewed up like bubble gum, he cancels his reservation after a minute or two, not to return, technically, until the next Mass. The Bible says the real Jesus would REMAIN. Rome says He does not.

          Still bound and determined, the Pope teaches that, “Eucharistic Communion brings about in a sublime way, the mutual “abiding” of Christ and each of His followers, [saying] “Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except you abide in me” (John 15:4; taken from Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 2). On the contrary, Scripture is crystal clear that we do not abide in Christ by virtue of ingesting a solid or a liquid. It is just the opposite: READ IT!
          “HEREBY WE KNOW THAT HE ABIDES IN US; BY THE SPIRIT WHICH HE HATH GIVEN US” (1 John 3:24).
          Kindly read that verse again so I need not waste my finger power to repeat.
          Consequently, the reason we don’t have to literally eat him is because he ALREADY dwells with us by the promise of the Holy Spirit. To boot, we read, “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love” (John 15:10). This is a very important verse because it explains that OBEDIENCE, not the Eucharist, is what it means to abide in Christ. Compare chapter 15 with, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” (6:56). Conclusion? The command to believe in Him, as symmmmmbolized by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, is equivalent to abiding in Him, which we just learned from chapter 15 is not a call to Transubstantiation, but to obeying His words! The Evangelical position elicits harmony between 15:10 and 6:51. If we were to interpret 6:51 literally, as the RCC does, the result of “abiding more intimately” as a result of eating His flesh, would completely contradict 15:10.

          Reply

    2. Barry,

       I think you would have a lot more credibility if you had the humility to admit when you were wrong… as was clearly the case here.

       Reply

       1. I was wrrrrrrrrong Mr. Hesch, if it’ll make you feel any better. But I’m one step ahead of you. I think it was Margo I told a few days ago that even if I were to demonstrate a pristine charity that would shock even Tinkerbell, she and everyone else on here would be the FIRST to turn up the heat sooner or later by referring to me as psychotic, which has already been done. This would not take place on the first 1 or 2 posts, but by the time they realized I had a little bit more ammunition than they expected. Thus, Tinkerbell or not, “Oh but darling, you’re so wrong” is not to be hoped for. At the end of the day, I would still be called psychotic. One wonders then, who cares about credibility? Technically, I am still going to hell according to Trent no matter how sincere I am, and technically, that is precisely where I think Catholics are headed. Once at that destination, then what? All our “credibility” will count for nothing. Therefore, I think it’s best to occasionally turn on the heat as Jesus did so that our outrage against our opponents will be a catalyst to the other for further study. The resident “forger” was apparently QUITE ticked off at what I had to say, obviously never having realized there was so much against the doctrine of T. Not knowing what else to do, they decided to go for the jugular.
          Character assassination. It happens every time

          Reply

          1. Not true. Look at the past discourses involving Irked, who is a devout and learned Baptist. Vigorous, but nothing like the disrespect you’ve given and gotten. I said as much earlier in this blog.

             Reply

       2. Joe, the only people on this blog who should be giving lectures about humility are those who aren’t posting. You, me, and the rest of the gang here, no way.

          Well, I guess I’m an exception to that though, given that I am the most humble man of all time by far.

          Reply

31. “—–NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).”

    BTW, you’re only partially quoting Schaff again. I pointed this out way earlier. Schaff admits Augustine believed in the real presence and I provided the references.

    Reply

32. Everyone,

    It’s time we all shake the dust from our feet regarding both Phil and Barry. St. John Chrysostom said that those who despise the Priesthood by which we are given the Prescious Body and Blood of Christ are sordid souls under the influence of the devil (On The Priesthood, book 3). May God have mercy on both of their souls.

    Reply

    1. Matt: It’s time we all shake the dust from our feet regarding both Phil and Barry. St. John Chrysostom said that those who despise the Priesthood by which we are given the Prescious Body and Blood of Christ are sordid souls under the influence of the devil (On The Priesthood, book 3). May God have mercy on both of their souls.

       B: Rather, may God have mercy on YOUR soul Matt because the Catholic priesthood is categorically unbiblical and you are living in a dreamworld. I invite you to look at my reply on 6/12 at 6:38 where I begin by saying we should no longer rely on priests continuing on an altar what Jesus finished on the cross!

       Good Day!

       Reply

       1. So the choice is do I believe St. John Chrysostom or your opinion? The choice is clear. Good day.

          Reply

    2. Thank you for your sanctimonious phony holy claptrap Mathew. Thank you for praying for us while you insult us. Thank you for being so blatantly hypocritical to your own stated position that nobody has to wonder where you’re at.

       Reply

    3. You note Phil seems to attack you, Matt, for your condemnation, but ignores Barry’s damnation-to-hellfire-and-brimstone in pretty much every one of his posts.

       A little angrily-delivered selective contempt for Catholics? Ya think? Not that I didn’t get a bellyful in past encounters, shockingly juxtaposed with Guru Phil’s syrupy (Barry’s word – thanks!) lysergic dream of Scripture-and-Church-free peace-light-love (“imagine no whatever…”).

       Reply

33. Furthermore, Barry is quite possibly identical to a poster last year named Micah. In many different instances, he is saying the same things verbatim to then. He also shares the same venomous and boorish attitude. It’s simply not worth discussing these matters to those who are too arrogant and in love with their own opinions to listen.

    Reply

    1. Matt: Furthermore, Barry is quite possibly identical to a poster last year named Micah. In many different instances, he is saying the same things verbatim to then. He also shares the same venomous and boorish attitude. It’s simply not worth discussing these matters to those who are too arrogant and in love with their own opinions to listen.

       B: More character assassination! As if there is not anyone else on earth, JUST ME, that disagrees with RC doctrine! Now I’ve heard everything.

       Matt: It’s simply not worth discussing these matters to those who are too arrogant and in love with their own opinions to listen.

       B: But of course it isn’t worth discussing! That, as you know, was exactly the attitude of your forefathers, who did not want to hear their opponents views either, but rather, decided to do God a favor (as Jesus predicted these deluded monsters would do in John 16:2) and tie them up to a stake and light a match!
       Honestly, Matt, do you think for one minute you intimidate those of us who know a little history…not to mention the Bible AND your catechism to boot? I know I must be a fly in your soup, but guess what? I could not care less.

       Now, having said that, if you have anything relevant to say, I will be more than happy to deal with your objections. As you can see, I am more than up to the task. Let me tell you this much: EVERY argument you bring to the table…and I do mean each and every last one of them, simply CANNOT be in God’s favor, because at the end of the day, you will want to us to DENY the very senses God gave us by believing in T. I SAY, God no where tells us to do away with our sense and walk around with our “eyes wide shut”. Briefly, he has given us eyes, ears, nose, mouth and a sense of touch, ALL OF WHICH deny there is anything miraculous about the Eucharist.

       The ball is in your court.
       (I speak…metaphorically of course!).

       Reply

34. I tend to agree. Joe suggested, point 4, brevity in a comment. Then Joe suggested the appropriateness of an apology.

    Putting aside the substance of the concerned party’s comments, the tone and the ridicule, the ‘bulldog’ attitude is counterproductive to civil discourse. Questionable too is whether there is any real desire or ability to understand another’s position. Finally, the idea that Christ “with malice aforethought” predestined believers in the real presence is, in and of itself, a fait accompli.

    Reply

    1. Stop lecturing Margo, you’re no different than any of the rest of us here. All most of you guys care about is protecting your little mutual validation society so you can continue in the dream of fantasy holiness.

       Reply

35. M: Questionable too is whether there is any real desire or ability to understand another’s position.

    B: In other words, I do not understand the RC position and have no desire to do so.
    YOU ARE 100% wrong and are just trying to come up with some reason to brand me as psychotic, having no other need than to waste my time. You are a foolish woman indeed. A psychotic person would not be able to write the things I have written and you know it. Nor can you prove that I do not understand your doctrine, especially when practically every page in your catechism is highlighted right here on my desk—- and may we assume that yours is being used as a coaster for your Miller-lite?

    The intro to the catechism says it was written for those who want to know what the RCC believes. Are you saying that I do not understand RC doctrine after I consistently quote it back to you? If so, then the Pope has miserably failed in his mission.

    Reply

    1. BB: “Questionable too is whether there is any real desire or ability to understand another’s position.”

       Good point Barry Bullfrog, yea, I don’t see (or experience) much desire of that type. The Catholic web is a cultural phenomena based on the mass production of sanctimonious platitudes. It’s all about playing the role of great teacher, giving the holy sermon, being the spiritual parent instructing the spiritual children, staking out a position as a moral authority, and so on etc. It’s all about talking, not listening. Neither you nor I are immune from this syndrome. This is my great holy teaching to you BB! 🙂

       Reply

    2. Bare –
       To keep the record straight:

       1) My Coaster is not the Catechism and my drink is not Miller-Lite.
       2) I prefer wine, and I use a placemat.
       3) I am not a foolish woman (but you are free to believe whatever you like).
       4) I did not brand you as psychotic.
       5) I am not 100% wrong.
       6) I am not trying to find a reason to find you psychotic…….others have done that already for me.
       7) I am not trying to prove that you do not understand my doctrine. Understanding is contingent on one’s desire to understand. I’m glad you have a Catechism and happy to hear your Sharpie is kept sharp.

       Who insults whom here?

       Okay. Since you seem to claim a knowledge of the catechism, please explain how the Pope has failed in his mission of your understanding RC doctrine.

       Best.

       Reply

36. Hi Phil.

    Two comments before Joe’s first intervention here…about 26 comments back, I sought some more clarification on your idea that the study of theology is not the way to find God. I asked a few questions to find out if your theory might actually work in the real world, and especially whether it is good, in your opinion, to talk about God at any time to others, even family members? And, is it good to enforce moral laws in society, punishing vice and supporting charity and ‘good living’, so to say. How does your theory work in the real world, and if we are to start a new society patterned after a type of Utopia, what would a realistic Utopia of Phil’s philosophy look like. S. Thomas More, a Catholic saint actually coined the name Utopia in his book on the subject. And B.F. Skinner wrote Utopia II to give his ideas. I was interested enough on alternative societies to read these, and listen to others on the subject, so I am an example of one here who is OPEN to understand your ‘position’. But what I would want is a little more practical details, on how it would work in America in 2017. So far, it seems a bit ‘ethereal’ in scope. So, I’m open for more explanation. But I already know the generalities, such as ‘theology is useless’, etc… I want to know if it’s good or bad to be talking about God with others at all? If there is any value in it both for ourselves and others…to discuss God with them?

    If you have an idea on these questions, and the others also , please provide it am open and listening (contrary to your assumption that Catholics don’t care).

    Reply

37. If, as some say Jesus was just saying believe in Him in The Bread of Life Discourse, as He had so many times before, why is it this time that the disciples say this “this saying is hard, who can accept it?” Why is believing in Him hard now, when He is teaching the same message of believe in Him, according to Prots, when it was not hard earlier? The Eucharist as metaphor makes absolutely no sense.

    Here is an address of to an article which examines this issue in detail. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6response.html

    Reply

    1. Great posts, Mary and Matt….it is obvious that Barry screwed himself by even bringing up John 16:25. His desperation is reflected in the level of all-caps bombast, which can’t hide the fact Jesus here meant “parables,” that no amount of tortured logic and poor references will hide. Not the first time I have seen this, and I am sure the same for you. And of course, the same situation applies to the plain language of John 6. Metaphor, indeed…..

       Reply

    2. D: If, as some say Jesus was just saying believe in Him in The Bread of Life Discourse,

       B: Correct

       D: why is it this time that the disciples say “this saying is hard, who can accept it?”

       B: Simply because they were fair weather followers who at heart, did NOT believe in him! The Lord has the ability to read their minds, as is even said in chapter 6. Have you even read chapter 6?
       So they came right out and asked him, “What shall we do?” And he replied, BELIEVE. Why? Because THEY DIDN’T!
       Consequently, the four times they were told to believe in him (literally) were reinforced with four times to eat his flesh (metaphorically). BOTH mean the same thing. Even if Transubstantiation were true, he would NOT allow them to graduate to high school (Transubstantiation) without them first finishing elementary school (Believing in him).
       Therefore, in all eight verses, he was not saying two things, but the SAME thing, only in two different ways; both literally and metaphorically.
       Their statement that this was a hard saying proves nothing for your case. It WAS a hard saying for those whose eyes he did not see fit to open.

       Reply

       1. Barry- Just to make sure that we are on the same page. The Apostles were asked to believe in Him. What exactly did the Apostles not believe in?

          Reply

          1. Even Jesus didn’t believe in his own teachings on occasion, such as when he famously asked, “God, why has thou forsaken me?”

             Point being, Jesus was either human, or divine in human form. Thus, he could make mistakes.

             Same for the apostles.

             Same for the clergy.

             Same for you, same for me.

             Same for every human being ever born.

             Thus, even if one of you should be able to prove BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER!!!! what a particular part of scripture intended to mean, you’re still no closer to proving that you are right.

             Thus, the vast majority of this thread is entirely pointless.

             Reply

             1. We believe that all humans have been made in God’s image. We all contain his imprint, his seal. All people of all faiths and at all times in recorded history, we believe, have been made in God’s image with his imprint. This includes conscience and natural reason with a desire which seeks to understand a purpose within the mystery of the universe and our existence. This imprint is strengthened with additional gifts and graces upon Baptism and made further strong upon the reception of other sacraments.

                Christ contained both human nature (all of the above) but also a divine nature (all that we do not completely comprehend as His transcendental distance is metaphysically far beyond our ability to reason or understanding unless by a very special and rare gift of His Holy Unifying Spirit to those who are fortunate to achieve a blessed level of holiness). But through the human nature form of Jesus, we have been taught of His great love for us through the very fact of that Incarnation, his dying, and the Miracle of His Resurrection. He loved us so much that he chose to first become like us, just as he first showed His love by making us in some ways in His image.

                Jesus could not make any mistake despite his human nature. His divine nature ruled. He undoubtedly was human, as his discussion with his Father in the Garden of Gethesemane revealed His asking that the cup of His father’s will be taken from Him. His words of apparent abandonment at his death reveal the tearing, the schism, the ripping, the separating, the wounding and the burning which results to humans because sin is so unlike God He does not countenance it. It is so against God’s nature. This is why God came heal us, to save us from our own rips and tears and crimes. For God to countenance sin opposes His very nature. His very nature is so good we humans have difficult in comprehending. With this Jesus wrestled as he died upon the cross. As if God Himself were if he could be torn from Himself.

                Your statement that Jesus didn’t believe in his own teachings simply is without any basis. It is akin to Barry’s statement that God, with malice aforethought, decided to let catholics delude themselves because He was not good from the beginning. Which proves a thing or two about your beliefs aligning with Barry’s. How many persons exist within your human frame?

             2. “Thus, the vast majority of this thread is entirely pointless.”

                As are all your comments.

             3. He made us in His image, then we sinned, distorting that image. He then made Himself in our form so that we could again reclaim our original sinless state. That is LOVE IN ACTION which your words attempt to deny.

          2. Barry –

             Let’s assume the disciples are not adequately believing in Jesus, as you suggest perhaps they aren’t (which I don’t buy, but I’m willing to suspend that disbelief for this moment, this discourse.) So Jesus commands them literally and repeats His command four times: “Believe in me.”

             Does it make sense that Jesus would intersperse metaphorical commands (about some different topic?) four times about one subject with four literal commands on another?

             In the economy of salvation, seems that Jesus would just keep it clear and simple. Adding metaphor in the midst of a literal intention is adding confusion.

             Reply

       2. “So they came right out and asked him, “What shall we do?” And he replied, BELIEVE. Why? Because THEY DIDN’T!
          Consequently, the four times they were told to believe in him (literally) were reinforced with four times to eat his flesh (metaphorically).”

          That’s so tortured, do you even believe it?

          “Even if Transubstantiation were true, he would NOT allow them to graduate to high school (Transubstantiation) without them first finishing elementary school (Believing in him).”

          Correct – very good, Barry! That’s why Catholicism requires education (for example for adults, RCIA) – which inculcates understanding and belief – before one may receive the Eucharist. Elementary 😉

          Reply

          1. AK – Barry has been parsed with the likes of Father Phil.

             Reply

             1. Margo…I don’t know, I have sparred with both Phil and the character Micah on previous threads, and Barry is *much* more like Micah. Vicious hater of Catholics (most likely one of many hates), a follower of the like of Pastor James White, twisted convoluted beliefs, the kind of folks who build little inbred tribal communities in places like the Ozarks. I have some family experience with that, niece who ran screaming with the kids from her violence-crazed fundie parster hubby. Were it not for the internet, you’d never know they existed until they pull a Westboro at a funeral, or someone escapes to the news and LE looking for help. They foray out to attack Catholic sites as it’s the most they can do in their social and theological isolation and impotence. Barry and Micah both sound like these to me.

                Phil? I think he is just a guy who read a self-help book once or went to an EST seminar and thinks he’s found The Truth. Harmless but annoying. The ego I have run into in past encounters will continue passing Age of Aquarius mystic crystal revelation gas on this blog as long as there’s apparent interest. I have no interest in this, so I don’t engage. IMHO, *way* different than Barry.

             2. AK – Using linguistic tools (syntax, grammar, usage, style analysis), many commonalities exist. On the eyeball level, these appear to be statistically significant. Of course this may be some weird fluke of coincidence. It makes no real difference in any event, does it?

             3. Margo – you’re a helluva woman – heck, I’ll defer to your obvious expertise here…could be that extreme pride (leavened, perhaps with insecurity) produces common modes of expression….

                But again, as you said, no real difference, one way or the other, as both stand in opposition to the One True Church, albeit from differing perspectives (New Age and post-Second Great Awakening fundamentalist Protestantism).

          2. AK: That’s so tortured, do you even believe it?

             B: The question was a breeze to answer and is 100% accurate and correct. Considering it is an earmark of your replies to simply scoff at a person’s answer with nothing to offer in its place, the alert reader should be smart enough to dismiss your drival out of hand. Sadly, you are creating even more problems to the already convoluted doctrine to which you adhere.

             Reply

38. Hi Al, sorry to miss your earlier comment. Regrettably, blog software becomes somewhat worthless for this level of engagement.

    To address your question…

    First, theology is not entirely useless, and I’ve probably exaggerated that point. Perhaps we might put it this way…

    Theology is to experience of God, as a photograph is to the real life person depicted in the photo.

    Photographs are not evil. They have their uses. However, we might carefully note that they derive their value from that which they point to. As example, photos of total strangers are typically boring, because we have no connection with the people involved. The value in a photo comes primarily from the real world experience it reminds us of. No real world experience typically equals a symbol of little value.

    Thus, to refine my argument, I propose that the overwhelming majority of religion should be directed at having the real world experience. Of course people are going to talk about their experience, but the talk should be seen as something secondary, not so important in itself. If the theory is seen as not so important, there will be fewer ideological shootouts such as seen above.

    But in the real world of religion 2017 which interests you, the focus is typically the opposite of that. Everybody wants to talk the talk, talk the talk, talk the talk. The theory is seen as very important! Here’s why. Talking the talk is easy, and it gives the illusion of religious experience at a very low price. It’s not evil, but it’s kind of like having a diet based on junk food because junk food is cheap. And, as you’ve seen above in this thread, talking the talk typically has little to do with surrender, love, dying to be reborn, and is usually more a vehicle for the opposite, ego inflation. That’s another reason why talking the talk is so popular.

    My suggestion is that to the degree we focus on the experience of God, instead of talk about God, social engineering will largely take care of itself. I’m not trying to design a utopia, and don’t feel that is possible anyway. I’m more interested in the practical business of ordinary people imperfectly managing thought in our day to day lives.

    Thought is not the road to experience of God. Thought is the big obstacle in the middle of the road.

    Hope something in there makes this clearer. Sorry I didn’t insult anyone, will try harder next time. 🙂

    Reply

    1. Hi Phil,

       Why I said your theory is Catholic, earlier, is because this very thing you wrote above is ‘simple’ Catholicism. Since there are generalizations and few details provided in this summary of your belief system, it just indicates that the contemplative life, the interior life, the life of wisdom and communion with the Creator, the life of charity and consideration for others, is more important than external observance of religious practices…”going through the religious motions” such as a parrot might do when he recites his trained dialog. And, As I said before on many occasions, both Jesus and the Catholic Church teach the avoidance of this very thing, over and over again…but people, even Catholics have free will to either follow or not follow. Bu the Church definitely stresses it. And as said before, this is probably the MOST discussed topic or theme in the entirety of the Scripture. For instance, what do you think Jesus was complaining about when He said these things:

       ” Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

       So we see, Christ teaches ‘interior’ religion and spiritual life, as compared to ‘whited sepulchers’ of the ‘phony religion’ that you describe.
       In all of it’s generality….your teaching above, and Jesus’ here…are the same thing.

       And Christ reiterates these things over and over again in different forms, just to get the message across better. Here is another sample, focusing on your concept of people needing to ‘walking the walk’ as you frequently state:

       ” Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets. But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you. And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every one that asketh thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. And if you love them that love you, what thanks are to you? for sinners also love those that love them. And if you do good to them who do good to you, what thanks are to you? for sinners also do this. And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much. [35] But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. Give, and it shall be given to you: good measure and pressed down and shaken together and running over shall they give into your bosom. For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again. And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master.”

       ********************

       So, what Jesus does here, is give your same teachings in different words, and with quite a bit more detail and more emphasis also. And so, I can only wonder: If Jesus is saying the exact thing that you are trying to convey…then why not just point people to Him and His same teachings? This is what Christians do when they teach the ‘Good News” …they give people these same teachings, either vocally or in writing form. So, why be such a critic and complainer against Christianity? Why not just go out and recommend people to live by these same teachings of Christ….as He coveys your idea in a much more lucid way than you do??

       Unless there are more details that you are not revealing about your philosophy?

       Reply

39. Hi again Father Al,

    Perhaps this will help? I’m Catholic, but not in the way you or most people might use the word. I have no particular loyalty to Jesus or the Vatican, so it would be reasonable to say I’m not Catholic at all. However, what I do have is an incurable interest in the kinds of topics that Catholics investigate, a level of interest which exceeds most “real Catholics” by a wide margin, a level of interest which is beyond choice.

    So how about this? If you feel what I’m saying should be labeled “Catholic”, ok, no complaint. If someone else says it’s not Catholic at all, no complaints there either. I honestly don’t care what it’s called because all of that is just more of the ideological competition dance.

    My point is not that Catholicism is wrong and “Philbertism” is right, though admittedly it can often sound like that due to the limitations of my personality and writing style. My point is that _ALL_ ideology, no matter what it is, including Philbertism, is not that important.

    As example, a real world friendship between us would be important. But it’s not that important whether I have a photo of you, or even have your name wrong. What matters is what’s real, much more so than the symbols which point to the real.

    Thus, in respect to religion, what matters is experience of God in the real world. Talk about God is either optional, or more likely, a dangerous distraction.

    Sorry to be argumentative, but I simply don’t buy the notion that “simple Catholicism” is valued by the Church. If it was, why does the clergy produce mountains of doctrines? Why do they spend billions upon billions on churches that sit empty 6 days a week? What’s with all the money the collect? And how bout those scandals which seem to never stop coming? What’s up with the fancy titles and costumes and rituals and all the rest of that? When did Jesus do any of this crap?

    If Jesus was teaching “simple Catholicism” and you value his teachings, then aren’t you required to reject all of the above? Aren’t you really a….

    Protestant??

    Oh dear, uh oh, my post has deteriorated in to wild hysterical insults, so I’d better stop here. 🙂

    Reply

40. Al asks, “Unless there are more details that you are not revealing about your philosophy?”

    Yes, I have plenty more to say on these topics, and I imagine you’ll hear it all in time, should you have the interest and patience. I’m an incurable typoholic on these kinds of topics. If you found all my words interesting you could spend years reading them, digging through an endless series of posts trying to get to the bottom of it all. You could convert to Philbertism and follow me around memorizing every word I say. You could get in to big debates with other people about the correct interpretation of my way too many teachings and so on. That is, you could replicate all the mistakes you’re making with Catholicism, just under a different colored flag…

    OR:

    You could save yourself a TON of time, and skip over me and every other self proclaimed authority with compulsive talking disease, and go straight to the source of it all.

    Step outside your front door. Pick up a handful of dirt. And there He is, waiting patiently to speak with you.

    In other news, just went out to clean the pool pump, and a baby fawn was sleeping under the bush beside the pump. Seriously, so cool. I tried to sell her Philbertism, but she scampered off to greener pastures. 🙂

    Reply

    1. Pope Phil,

       For your recreation (half time… that is), and derived from one of the readings I print and distribute… I’ll demonstrate to you the Catholic way to ‘walk the walk’, that is, putting into practice what you say about living out one’s spirituality to better know God. Consider these two short stories of Br. Juniper, a good friend of St. Francis:

       ******************************************************************************************************************

       “HOW BROTHER JUNIPER GAVE ALL THAT HE HAD TO THE POOR FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

       Brother Juniper was so full of pity and compassion for the poor, that when he saw anyone poor or naked he immediately took off his tunic, or the hood of his clock, and gave it to him. The guardian therefore laid an obedience upon him not to give away his tunic or any part of his habit. A few days afterwards, a poor half-naked man asked an alms of Brother Juniper for the love of God, who answered him with great compassion: “I have nothing which I could give thee but my tunic, and my superior has laid me under obedience not to give it, nor any part of my habit, to anyone. But if thou take it off my back I will not resist thee.” He did not speak to a deaf man; for the begger forthwith stripped him of his tunic, and went off with it. When Brother Juniper returned home, and was asked what had become of his tunic, he replied: “A good man took it off my back, and went away with it.” And as the virtue of compassion increased in him, he was not contented with giving his tunic, but would give books, or clocks, or whatever he could lay his hands on, to the poor. For this reason the brethren took care to leave nothing in the common rooms of the convent, because Brother Juniper gave away everything for the love of God and to the glory of his name.”

       And,

       HOW BROTHER JUNIPER TOOK CERTAIN LITTLE BELLS FROM THE ALTAR, AND GAVE THEM AWAY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

       One Christmas-day Brother Juniper was in deep meditation before the altar at Scesi, the which altar was right fairly and richly adorned; so, at the desire of the sacristan, Brother Juniper remained to keep guard over it while he went to his dinner. And as he was absorbed in devout meditations, a poor woman came asking an alms of him for the love of God. To whom Brother Juniper made answer: “Wait a while, and I will see if I can find anything for thee on this grand altar.” Now there was upon the altar an exceedingly rich and costly frontal of cloth of gold, with silver bells of great value. “These bells,” said Brother Juniper, “are a superfluity”; so he took a knife and cut them off the frontal, and gave them to the poor woman out of compassion. The sacristan, after he had eaten three or four mouthfuls, bethought him of the ways of Brother Juniper, whom he had left in charge; and began exceedingly to doubt whether, in his charitable zeal, he might not do some damage to the costly altar. As soon as the suspicion entered his head, he rose from the table, and went back to the church, to see if any of the ornaments of the altar had been removed or taken away; and when he saw that the frontal had been cut, and the little bells carried off, he was troubled and scandalised beyond measure. Brother Juniper, seeing that he was very angry, said to him: “Be not disturbed about those little bells, for I have given them to a poor woman who had great need of them, and here they were good for nothing but to make a pompous display of worldly vanity.” When the sacristan had heard this, he went with all speed to seek the woman in the church, and throughout the city; but he could neither find her nor meet with anyone who had seen her. So he returned, and in great wrath took the frontal, and carried it to the general, who was at Assisi, saying: “Father general, I demand justice on Brother Juniper, who has spoilt this hanging for me, the very best I had in the sacristy. See how he has destroyed it by cutting away all the silver bells, which he says he has given to a poor woman!” And the general answered him: “It is not Brother Juniper who has done this, but thine own folly; for thou oughtest by this time to have known his ways: and I tell thee, I marvel only that he did not give away the whole frontal. Nevertheless, I will give him a sound correction for this fault.” And having called the brethren together in chapter, he sent for Brother Juniper, and, in the presence of the whole community, reproved him most severely concerning the said bells; and, waxing wrathful as he spoke, he raised his voice till it became hoarse. Brother Juniper cared little or nothing for these words, for he delighted in reproaches, and rejoiced when he received a good humiliation; but his one thought in return was to find a remedy for the general’s hoarseness. So when he had received his reproof, he went straight to the town for flour and butter, to make a good hasty-pudding, with which he returned when the night was far spent; then lighting a candle, he went with his hasty-pudding to the door of the general’s cell and knocked. The general came to open it, and seeing him with a lighted candle and a pipkin in his hand, asked: “Who is there?” Brother Juniper answered him: “Father, when you reproved me to-day for my faults, I perceived that your voice grew hoarse, and I thought it was from over-fatigue. I considered therefore what would be the best remedy, and have had this hasty-pudding made for you; therefore I pray you eat of it, for I tell you that it will ease your throat and your chest.” “What an hour of the night is this.” said the general, “to come and disturb other people!” And Brother Juniper made answer: “See, it has been made for you; I pray you eat of it without more ado, for it will do you good.” But the general being angry at the lateness of the hour, and at Brother Juniper’s persistence, answered him roughly, bidding him go his way, for at such an hour he would not eat. Then Brother Juniper, seeing that neither persuasions nor prayers were of any avail, said: “Father, since you will not eat the pudding which was made for you, at least do this for me: hold the candle for me, and I will eat it.” Then the general, being a devout and kindly man, seeing the piety and simplicity of Brother Juniper, and how he had done all this out of devotion, answered: “Well, since thou will have it so, thou and I will eat together.” And so the two of them ate this hasty-pudding together, out of an importunate charity, and were refreshed by their devotion more than by the food.
       ( From ‘The Little Flowers of St. Francis’ translated by Dom Roger Huddleston)

       **************************************************************************************************************************

       If that’s not ‘walking the walk’…I don’t know what is! 🙂

       Reply

       1. Yes Margo, AK has no interest in Phil, which is why he talks about him in almost every one of his posts.

          Honestly guys, this is so often a logic free zone.

          Reply

          1. Phil,

             Sorry, but I don’t know to what you refer.

             Reply

    2. Phil,

       Your image of God within a handful of dirt is striking. I see dust and dirt everywhere–scrubbing the floor, dusting furniture, washing the car, taking a bath, weeding or planting or harvesting the garden. When I sit at my desk to rest or to type, I see sunlight in a shaft, and there too see the tiny floating particles. Dust is truly everywhere.

       So here is Genesis. God fashions man from dust. On Ash Wednesday, the Church reminds us, being made of dust, to that we shall return. Nevermore to scrub or dust or cleanse ourselves. No more dust in a shaft of light. Dirt around, beneath, above , and dark.

       Jesus asked from the cross, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me…?”

       These words are from Psalm 21. As a good Jew, Jesus would have known it. It also contains these and other verses about death: ”Thou hast laid Me in the dust, to die.”

       That is what man did to God, and God allowed us to do that so that He could prove, three days later, that He Himself shall never die.

       Question (not a trick–just curious to know what you think). Does man die? Is physical death the end of us? Dust? Nothing more?

       Reply

41. Barry, you have another problem with your argument of that passage and infallibility. Trent, and the Catholic Church do not claim many sections of a council are infallible, only her doctrinal decisions, such as her canons. Since that passage is not in any way making a doctrinal decision, Trent does not claim that part is infallible.

    Look up infallibility of councils, and you will see exactly what I have stated.

    Reply

    1. D: Trent, and the Catholic Church do not claim many sections of a council are infallible, only her doctrinal decisions, such as her canons. Since that passage is not in any way making a doctrinal decision, Trent does not claim that part is infallible.

       B: Your religion is Satan’s masterpiece, I must be blunt, and “we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices” says the apostle.
       I will not be intimidated by the constant escape hatches the RCC is ever inventing to rig the outcome in her favor! Now if what you say is true, you will kindly produce the statement wherein TRENT, and I do mean, TRENT (not those who came afterwards to cover the bases) announce to the world that many sections of her decrees are not infallible.
       I will not be holding my breath, because if you were really concerned about this matter you would have gotten up off your lazy legs and provided it here to shame me. Instead, you are bidding me to go and hunt down a document that does not exist.
       You see how easy it is to read human nature? It’s also a good bet that no one here other than perhaps Mr. Heschmeyer has even bothered to read the documents! In case you didn’t know, the very first line in her decree on the Eucharist tells us that they were “assembled in the Holy Spirit” and a few sentences later state they are being “taught by the Holy Spirit day by day bringing to mind all truth”.
       Consequently, if you are going to tell me that ***THIS*** statement is not infallible….well…OK. I can go along with that. That being so, we must conclude that the participants of Trent were either deluded or a pack of liars, and YOU sir, are resting your soul on such people!

       Finally, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Umm, look it up.

       Reply

       1. Barry,

          You are great at creating straw men, and knocking them down.

          This is how the Catholic Church determines which parts are infallible. I know you will not accept it, because to do so would start to crumble the false world you have built, and I have no doubt that would be unacceptable to you.

          It is correct to say that only the statements in the Council which begin with, “If anyone says…” and end with “let him be anathema,” are considered the formally infallible statements, in the canonical sense of the term. That is why they are called canons, since it is the rule of faith that everyone must follow without exception or objection.

          That principle, of course, applies to all the Church’s dogmatic councils, not just the Council of Trent. Vatican I would also be considered a dogmatic council for the same reason, that is, because it contained canons with anathemas. In essence, only when the Church makes a formal, dogmatic and defined statement, that binds the faithful under pain of excommunication, does the statement become infallible and irreformable by the mere nature of its form.

          You cannot get around the fact that the passage you are quoting the Catholic Church has never considered an infallible statement.

          Reply

       2. Hi Barry,

          Quoting you, “you are bidding me to go and hunt down a document that does not exist.”

          To be honest, I think when Duane said to look up “infallibility of Councils” he wasn’t talking about a document but rather a google search.

          But since we’re on this website, I did a search on this site and Joe has four part series on infallibility. The first one is linked here: http://shamelesspopery.com/il-papa-papal-infallibility-part-1-what-it-is-and-isnt/

          Maybe this can help. God bless.

          Reply

          1. T: To be honest, I think when Duane said to look up “infallibility of Councils” he wasn’t talking about a document but rather a google search.

             B: Well, D started off by identifying Trent in particular as not considering that EVERYTHING they had to say was being infallible, and I emphatically deny it, and he cannot prove THAT’S for sure. What he is doing is proposing a document that came along hundreds of years later which makes qualification on infallibility that did not exist at the time of Trent. This way, the RCC has an escape hatch if it ever comes up that anything Trent said was wrong! Now come on.
             The same escape hatch was dug at Vatican 1 with their narrowing down the Pope’s infallibility to ONLY “faith and morals” and not anything else. We ask, “why not everything else if God is looking over you? What have you got to be afraid of?”
             The reason for the meltdown was because of the episode with Galileo, where the hierarchy goofed. Vatican 1 knew that if any future scientific developments came up in the future and they said something about the universe which later turns out to be wrong, they would end up with mud on their face.

             Regarding Joe’s series on the issue, I will try and take a look at it later.

             Reply

             1. Hi Barry,

                Thank you for your response.

                B: Well, D started off by identifying Trent in particular as not considering that EVERYTHING they had to say was being infallible, and I emphatically deny it,

                T: I don’t see any reason to believe that EVERYTHING in the council of Trent has to be infallible. I don’t see anywhere in any of the documents in the Council of Trent that says, something to the effect of EVERYTHING contained within this council is Infallible. And to be honest, it’s really easy to debunk anything if you make the automatic claim for it to be infallible. It’s so easy to pick out something and be like, Ah HAH! This is clearly not infallible. Quite humorous actually.

                But i’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re saying. I guess I entered into the conversation a little late.

42. Except that Trent’s decrees are infallible and logically, nothing Trent says has been proven to be incorrect. All we’ve heard is fallacy upon fallacy and tons of bluster and trolling. But if throwing temper tantrums and pounding the table like a whiny child were enough to win an argument, Barry would be the champion. As it is, he has zero authority at all and no one need take him seriously. He doesn’t even know how to write good polemics.

    Reply

    1. It’s James White apologetics. Scream and abuse if you have no other defensible point to make. Great way to win converts.

       There are two kinds of people who come to this open-style blog. One, the reasoned ones who have something to share, but also want to learn something. I was reading a few blogs back and marveling at the civility and scholarly debate that went one for days between Irked and some of the Catholic regulars – I think you were in on that one.

       The other kind, the monomaniac true believer – is here first to instruct, they have no interest in what you have to say except as something to twist to their use. Second, to disrupt with repetition, condescension and bullying – the more attention they get and responses they garner, the more they dominate the debate and Joe’s good message is obscured. Third, related to number two, is they hate Catholicism, for reasons either personal, theological, societal or philosophical. We have two prime examples in our midst right now. While I have said the best way to deal with these tribbles is not feed them, I all-too-often engage because I have a deep and visceral hatred of bullying and bullies, especially when accompanied by the disdainful arrogance with which these two are infused. I’ll work harder on taking my own advice because not doing so just feeds the bacillus in the Petri dish.

       Reply

       1. AK: It’s James White apologetics.

          B: Kudos to Mr. White for all he’s done. It’s obvious that the only thing you can do is go for the jugular and give us the typical yada yada about “he doesn’t understand Catholicism” routine and then go off on your merry way. Methinks his 300 moderated debates proves you are DEAD IN THE WATER.

          Nevertheless, if you should still think the man simply not playing with a full deck, then name for me ONE non-Catholic who DOES understand Catholicism (yet still chooses not to join the RCC). I will then hop skip and jump over to see if my own personal bones of contention match theirs. If they do (as I suspect), then you will have no choice but to say that I too understand the RCC and choose to reject it.

          AK: they hate Catholicism, for reasons either personal, theological, societal or philosophical.

          B: This is the first thing you have ever said that was true. Why of course we hate it. Where in the world do you get the idea that there’s anything wrong with that? I guess I just have to keep on saying the same thing over and over because Catholics do NOT read their Bible!
          Jesus “HATES” “HATES” “HATES” false doctrine and congratulates those who take the time to examine those who claim they are apostles, but are not, and hast found them liars. It’s right there in the book of Rev.
          Now of course, that in and of itself does not PROVE that my hatred is valid, however, if I perceive that the word of God is being mishandled, I have every right to hate what I perceive to be false and to act accordingly and leave the judgement to him.
          By merely asserting that we hate the RCC for our own personal agenda without tempering your comments with the biblical justification for it, is completely unfair.

          Reply

          1. More strawmen. Never said that White didn’t understand, or implied he was insane. Just enjoys being abusive. Like you. Which to you is OK. Finis est licitus, etiam.

             Whether or not he understands is irrelevant; he mischaracterizes and outright spreads falsehoods – as do you, and poorly at that – and by your own admission it’s out of hatred. 300 debates…why does that mean anything? Anyone can talk, and debates are often just two people talking past each other. Jimmy Akin, Fr. Pacwa, Tim Staples, etc., as far as I am concerned, did very well against the good Parster. Your mileage – opinion – may vary. I could care less. But glad you all but say his style is something you admire. It’s validation for my observations about you.

             Yes, you have every right to your “Christlike” hatred. It’s called free will. Choices have consequences. Good luck with that.

             Reply

    2. M: Trent’s decrees are infallible and logically, nothing Trent says has been proven to be incorrect.

       B: On the contrary, logically, Trent has proven to be illogical to the EXTREME and you have not given us any reason to think otherwise. You are what the Bible describes as, “clouds and wind, but no rain”.

       So let’s go over it again:

       Trent tells us, “Christ our Redeemer “SAID” what he was “OFFERING” under the appearance of bread was “TRULY” his body [at the Last Supper].

       Wake up call: Without a shred of biblical proof, we are told that Christ “SAID” he was “OFFERING” something.

       FACT: Nowhere do we read that Christ “SAID” he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone the very sacrifice of Himself BEFORE he went to the cross, as Trent teaches elsewhere: “At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine…” (Session 22, “On the Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
       Baloney.
       Jesus offered up His body “on the tree”, per 1 Peter 2:24…i.e., at the cross, no sooner and no later; and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today. The book of Hebrews swings the wrecking ball at Trent by saying our great High-Priest, “does not need to offer sacrifices day after day”, and, “there is now no more offering for sin… nor yet that He should offer Himself often (Hebrews 7:27, 9:25; 10:18), all without making the slightest exception for the “offering” in the RC Mass.

       Wake up call: Christ did not “SAY” that the bread was “TRULY” his body under the appearance of bread.

       FACT: While he did say, “Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” in John 6:53, Trent erroneously quotes Jesus out of context and transports that word over to the Last Supper account where he did not “TRULY” confirm that at all, let alone contend that his body, which was sitting right there in front of them, was also in the bread and now being offered up to God under a metaphysical miracle! He simply said, “This is my Body”. The RCC has taken “This is my Body” and stretched it like a rubber band so wide it MUST snap back at them on Judgment Day.
       Trent was reacting to those like myself, who consider the words of Christ in John 6 and the Last Supper to be metaphorical. From the get-go, we are labeled as, “Satanic, godless, evil and contentious”, so it is clear their blood was boiling. As we all know, human nature has a proclivity to over-exaggerate and embellish a story, and we say this tendency reared its ugly head at Trent when they blew up the words of our Lord like a hot air balloon and as a result, proved they were not divinely inspired as they claimed. Thus, since Trent was not infallible, then Jesus did not give the gift of infallibility to the RCC and everything they have to say about the Eucharist must be thrown under the bus.

       M: He doesn’t even know how to write good polemics.

       B: Thank you for your opinion. It is rejected.

       Reply

       1. Barry – Quick question on literalist interpretation. Does Christ ever refer to himself as Christ? If not, why is it that we refer to him that way?

          Reply

          1. Margo – silly girl, the Bible is not literal, it’s metaphorical, except where it’s literal, except where it may agree with Catholic doctrine, then it’s not true, except where it is, except except except…..you heathen, you are refuted and I’ll see you on Judgment Day……

             Reply

             1. Thank you, Parster A-OK Whiteman.
                Oh! Definite hit on paring BB with Micah. Not statistically so with the Pope.

             2. Forgot this: 🙂

             3. AK: the Bible is not literal, it’s metaphorical, except where it’s literal, except where it may agree with Catholic doctrine, then it’s not true

                B: Your efforts at mocking me, fail miserably. After all of her claims for infallibility are examined, where one supposes she would use this gift to “officially” interpret the Bible, the RCC has left Scripture 95% UNINTERPRETED. Consequently, you are in the same boat as me. Each will be judged individually on how well we exercised our brain on the Text, but the lazy Catholic has a ready made excuse when they find out they were wrong: “But I was a member of an infallible church and they told me this that and the other thing, so let me in anyway, Lord”.
                But the door will be shut.

                In “Catholicism & Fundamentalism” by Keating, the admission that the RCC has remained silent on, “many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings” (p. 129), is in fact a bold-faced lie, as I just mentioned, as readers are allowed to accept anything they want ALL THE TIME since 95% of it (not merely “many”) passages have been “officially” passed over in silence.

             4. Barry,
                Pardon me. AK’s post was directed to me. You were not mocked, and I think it unjust to make such an accusation/ AK was demonstrating a side-step from literal, metaphorical, non-logical and inconsistent interpretations of scripture. A Catholic Comedy of Error, if you will. The judging? We’ll actually have it on Judgment Day.

             5. M: Barry, Pardon me. AK’s post was directed to me.

                B: I am unaware of any rule which stipulates that I cannot comment on someone else’s post.

                M: You were not mocked, and I think it unjust to make such an accusation/ AK was demonstrating a side-step from literal, metaphorical, non-logical and inconsistent interpretations of scripture. A Catholic Comedy of Error, if you will.

                B: I really do beg to differ. I’m quite certain AK had in mind the sanctity of my precious soul IN PARTICULAR when he made that comment, since I am the one at the present moment who is the very fulfillment of the very thing he is mocking. Obviously, if I did not happen upon this thread, that statement would never have been made.

                The judging? We’ll actually have it on Judgment Day.

             6. Y’know margo, the favorite Reformed past-time of literary and Scriptural cherry picking usually yields nothing but pits and worms.

                The theme of Chapter 9 was Inspiration and Authority for Scripture. The quote Mr. Barry provided was indeed accurate, but totally out of context, just like the earlier quotes he provided on Augustine from Phillip Schaaf. Thus, at best useless quoting, at worst, purposefully misleading. It would be superfluous to regurgitate everything in Keating here, especially chapters 9 and 10. But here are two notable points: first, a line-for-line interpretation of every word of the Bible matters only to those who believe in sola scriptura; second, the Protestant who claims ‘use your brain’ to interpret is accepting the fact that several million brains interpret Scripture in as many ways, with no one to act as the referee on just who has the Truth, which, after all, is what we’re all after.

                Catholics have no such problem – we have the ultimate authority and purveyor of Truth, the One True Church commissioned to Peter the first Pope, through Her Tradition and Magisterium. I trust these as I trust the geometronic engineers who built the interstate highway system whenever I take a road trip. The poor fundamentalist has to rebuild the road every time he leaves his house.

                Of course, anyone is welcome to disagree, it’s expected….and the Gamaliel Principle as ever, applies.

             7. AK: Y’know margo, the favorite Reformed past-time of literary and Scriptural cherry picking usually yields nothing but pits and worms.

                B: I’ve been successfully slashing all your arguments one by one with ease, and I must retort that it has in fact, been yorrrrr responses which have yielded nothing but pits and worms.

                AK: The theme of [Keating’s] chapter 9 was Inspiration and Authority for Scripture. The quote Mr. Barry provided was indeed accurate, but totally out of context, just like the earlier quotes he provided on Augustine from Phillip Schaaf.

                B: To hell with your insistent jabbering about me providing “out of context” quotes from Augustine. To begin with, the very essence of my main gripe on this thread has been Trent quoting Jesus “truly” out of context in chapter 6, and transporting it “truly” over to the Last Supper, where he did not “truly” say any such thing. This disproves their infallibility INSTANTLY, yet in over 350 comments, no one has been able to deny it.
                As for Augustine, THOSE ARE THE WORDS HE SAID REGARDING CHAPTER 6 and you are only shooting yourself in the right foot each time you cry “out of context”…especially when (if you were telling us the truth), you would provide for us what Augustine “REALLY” said. Hence, your wining complaints are utterly worthless.
                Furthermore, you shoot yourself in the left foot by cackling that I now have taken Keating out of context as if no one sentence that anyone has ever said is able to stand on it’s own! O thou fool. It doesn’t matter in the LEAST what Keating’s topic was in that chapter. It is entirely warranted and applicable to where I used it because that’s exactly how he would answer me if I were to ask him to describe the RC position in relation to having “officially” defined certain verses. Your criticism of me is as weak as running water which does indeed run off me like water off a duck’s back.

                AK: first, a line-for-line interpretation of every word of the Bible matters only to those who believe in sola scriptura

                B: We have now reached the point where the opponent is criticizing the Christian’s delight in wanting to go through the word of God line by line and turning that desire into some sort of futile effort because trusting the papacy is far better. Sadly, I am probably dealing with someone who is in need of a straight jacket. What other choice is there? This comment takes the case for lunacy personified.
                The REAL truth is that Protestants have labored tirelessly to produce commentaries without number, and the RCC is simply jealous. For, after all the huff and puff about infallibility, the only “official” thing she has produced is to throw together a fallible catechism with no “official” commentary ever to be hoped for. Needless to say, it’s very easy to guess why the magisterium does not give us the official word on the Bible. They know very well that under the banner of infallibility, were they to make even one mistake, they would end up with mud on their face. And with this world filled to the brim with biblical scholars to refute them, they know this would be a headache they would rather not deal with. So instead, she uses her “power” to tell us about Mary’s reproductive organs lying dormant and requiring that we believe THAT little ditty “for our salvation!” No wonder we are told that Satan goes around deceiving the whole world. So many people are duped by these lies, one can only gasp in horror.
                The real deal is that God has chosen the UNINFALLIBLE things of the world to confound those who claim that they are (cf: 1 Cor 1:28), and has taken AWAY the sight of those who claim they can see (Jn 9:39).

                AK: The Protestant who claims ‘use your brain’ to interpret is accepting the fact that several million brains interpret Scripture in as many ways, with no one to act as the referee on just who has the Truth, which, after all, is what we’re all after. Catholics have no such problem – we have the ultimate authority and purveyor of Truth, the One True Church

                B: This may sound nice to the ear of the gullible, but when we examine it under the magnifying glass of Holy Writ and common sense, it falls flat.

                I’ll let someone else answer this one:

                “When the Roman Church draws invidious comparisons between its superior unity and the “scandal” or “tragedy” of Protestant sectarianism, this is an illusion fostered by the way in which the Roman Church has chosen to draw the boundaries in the first place. By setting itself up as the point of reference and standard of comparison with all those— “schismatics”, they present nothing but a self-serving contrast. By casting the terms of the debate, they have rigged the outcome in its favor.
                Actually, God put up with a wide diversity of sects and schools of thought in first century Judaism. We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, Therapeutae, Jewish Gnostics, Jewish Platonists, Qumranic separatists, as well as the Rabbinical parties of Hillel and Shamai. Doubtless there were many additional groups that our partial and partisan sources have failed to preserve for posterity. Yet God ***never**** saw fit to install an infallible Jewish Magisterium in order to prevent this plurality of viewpoints. So Rome’s theology is based on nothing more than a seat-of-the-pants hunch which merely ***assumes*** Divine providence has ordained infallibility to Vatican residents. The precedent of God’s former dealings with his people goes against that expectation. If we find all this diversity and dissension under the OT dispensation, why assume that the NT economy must operate according to a contrary set of priorities? Wouldn’t the Catholic rationale apply with equal force to the OT church? If Christians require the services of a living Magisterium, wouldn’t the Old Covenant community be under the same necessity? Yet it’s clear from the Gospels that none of the rival parties spoke for God in any definitive sense. The priesthood was the only faction with any institutional standing under the Mosaic Covenant, and its members were frequently and fundamentally ***mistaken*** in their construal of its ethical obligations, such as the matter of putting to death their prophesied Messiah! So much for a divine teaching office to ensure unity and fidelity.

             8. Greetings, AK,

                Believe it or not, I’m off-line today, but the news of your wearing a DDC or a TDC brought me back (resurrected-like). Quite the latest trend, you lucky dog! .

                I too have learned something from BB: I’m glad I’m Catholic and educated. Praise the Lord for good teachers, open ears, grace, and a brain to keep my cap under control.
                God bless.

             9. Margo – good day to you too, lady!

                I am afraid it’s been a long week and what little of my acuity I still possess is dulled considerably – could you define DDC and TDC?

                The former statement does not apply to barry…dealing with him, I can do with one half my brain tied behind my back ( with apologies to a certain radio personality… 😉

             10. DDC= doubledunce cap
                 TDC = Trippledunce cap

                 Courtesy of BB Like Boy Scout merit badges, they’re worn with pride!

             11. “WHAT are you, MAGGOT??!”

                 “A Dunce Sir!”

                 I said, WHAT ARE YOU, MAGGOT!?”

                 A Triple Dunce SIR!!”

                 “AH cain’t HEEEEEAR YOUUUUU!!”

                 “A TRIPLE DUNCE SIR!!!”

                 “That’s better, son….you are now SAYY-YYYYVED!”

                 Have a lovely weekend.. 😉

          2. “The REAL truth is that Protestants have labored tirelessly to produce commentaries without number,”

             Hey Margo, good morning….check out this barry-nugget. Want to know what I conclude from this pearl of wisdom? Hint from my POV…the number +40,000 ring a bell?

             How about, none of them agree with each other, and the poor confused SOB researching Christianity doesn’t have a clue where to turn…until he or she catches a glimpse of what’s across the Tiber…..

             Reply

       2. FACT: Nowhere do we read that Christ “SAID” he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone the very sacrifice of Himself BEFORE he went to the cross, as Trent teaches elsewhere: “

          “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup IS THE NEW COVENANT in my blood, which will be shed for you.”
          ‭‭Luke‬ ‭22:19-20‬ ‭NABRE‬‬
          http://bible.com/463/luk.22.19-20.nabre

          HMMM. Sure sounds like the beginning of a sacrifice.

          Reply

          1. CK, the Greek doesn’t even say “will be shed” but rather “IS shed.” Also, “Do this” is a highly sacrificial phrase going back to the old testament. And the “in memory of me” is also a very sacrificial word. It’s used in Hebrews 10:3. So sacrificial is Christ’s language that you could actually translate it as: “offer this as my memorial offering.” That’s what Christ’s words would mean to 1st century Jewish years. Everything else is an anachronism. That’s the reason why the Eucharist as Christ’s sacrifice was unchallenged in Christian history until Zwingly. Not even Luther took the view that Zwingly did. He was the first to adopt the faulty interpretation of Hebrews to attack the Mass. But he couldn’t explain and no protestant has ever been able to explain exactly what is taking place on the altar of Hebrews 13:10. Nor can they explain why the entire Church for over 1500 years was perfect okay with “the most satanic doctrine” according to Calvin until Johnny come lately shows up.

             Reply

             1. M: the Greek doesn’t even say “will be shed” but rather “IS shed.”

                B: I see you’re desperate for a way to escape the simple meaning of the Text and turn the Last Supper into a sacrifice ON THE SPOT, as does the catechism: “The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words, ‘This is my body which is given for you” (1365).
                In trying to convince us that Transubstantiation was the vital component that allowed Jesus to offer Himself in sacrifice right there at the Last Supper, you will argue that the second half of the phrase holds the key; namely, “which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). Proponents of this theory opine that “which IS given” (being in the present tense) means He was giving Himself in sacrifice AT THAT VERY MOMENT before going to the cross (CCC 1365). However, the surrounding verse in Luke 22:22 refutes this idea: We read, “And truly, the Son of Man ***GOES*** as it has been determined. “Goes” is likewise in the present tense, but we all know He did not “go” until later on. That being so, there is no linguistic reason to suggest that when He says His body “which is given”— that He meant “now, at that moment, then and there, ON THE SPOT”. Hence, the proper understanding that His body “WILL be given” the following day at Calvary, percolates with vapors of truth like a steaming tea kettle; while the “sacrificial character” they see in the Eucharist, loses steam.
                Moreover, that the present tense cannot be restricted to the here and now, is proven by its usage to express the CERTITUDE that something will happen, as we read elsewhere: “To us a child is born”….”Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”….”I lay down my life for the sheep”…”Now I am no more in this world”…none of which happened “on the spot”. Therefore, “this is my body which is given for you” cannot for a moment mean something was happening then and there!
                Do you not even realize that this is what you’ve been saying at Mass for years now? Effective 2011, the new translation of the Mass reads, “which will be [future tense] given for you”, and this is what the laity will be hearing at Mass for years to come, like it or not.

                M: So sacrificial is Christ’s language that you could actually translate it as: “offer this as my memorial offering.” That’s what Christ’s words would mean to 1st century Jewish years.

                B: NONSENSE! As already stated, Christ did not say he was “OFFERING” anything, and in typical RC fashion, you sweep his words under the rug, put on lipstick and a skirt, bat your eyes and proclaim that it’s perfectly alright to teach that HE DID say it. This is beyond ridiculous. Scripture emphatically denies any further offerings and you darn well know it. The only thing you can say with regards to Hebrews flatly denying it, is to stick a rose in between your teeth and say that they simply don’t apply to the Mass! But we say, and for good reason, that they most certainly DO and refutes the diabolical Mass completely. Get a clue! He…
                “does not need to OFFER sacrifices day after day”, and, “there is now no more OFFERING for sin… nor yet that He should OFFER Himself often” is all one needs to know to drain all the strength out of the RC Mass (Hebrews 7:27, 9:25; 10:18)

                M: And the “in memory of me” is also a very sacrificial word.

                Jesus did not mean to ready us to offer a sacrifice in memory of him, EVER. With regard to, “Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of me” (Luke 22:19); the Greek words used in the New Testament for sacrifice are “thusia” and “thuo”, which are nowhere in this verse! Added to that, the Greek word “anamnesis” does not even mean “sacrifice”. It means, “remembering; recollection”. So the contention that “anamnesis” is sometimes used in sacrificial contexts, and is therefore bonafide proof for the “sacrifice of the Mass”, will not stand up under the scrutiny of Holy Writ. Yes, old testament sacrifices served as a remembrance of the sins of the people (“in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year” …Hebrews 10:3, which you say we have no answer for); but while it is accurate to say a sacrifice can serve as a memorial, IT SIMPLY DOES NOT FOLLOW that whatever serves as a memorial must be a sacrifice! Ummm, a blueberry may be blue, but not every blue object must be a blueberry (!!!). Thus, the word “anamnesis”, as used by Jesus in the Lord’s Supper, does not necessarily imply that the bread and wine serve as a sacrifice, contrary to the catechism which categorically DEMANDS it: “Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice” (CCC 1365). NO. The memorial tokens at the supper would serve to prompt a remembrance of His atoning sacrifice on the cross…period. But to magically transform into the same sacrifice itself down through the ages??? Never. (CCC 1365, 1367). It appears to us that Roman maestros prefer composing their own personal symphonies rather than be content with the music of classical Christianity.

             2. “…the Greek words used in the New Testament for sacrifice are “thusia” and “thuo”, which are nowhere in this verse! Added to that, the Greek word “anamnesis” does not even mean “sacrifice”. It means, “remembering; recollection”.

                This one is easy. “Anamnesis” is Greek for memory and recollection, but in context is *really* is a metaphor for sacrifice. Metaphors are so useful.

             3. AK and Matt,

                I’m actually learning something here. Listening to Barry it’s like the early Christians didn’t know Ancient Greek and that is why they misunderstood the Eucharist to be Jesus. Thank God fhe Reformers knew Ancient Greek and Hebrew better than the Ancient Christians themselves to set everyone straight 1500 years later!!!

             4. CK/Matt:

                In another venue, I “discoursed” with another Barry-like personality, on several hot-button topics like the Eucharist and Mary. When I brought up the usual supportive quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch, I was told, “Ignatius Schmegnatius, those people were all weeds and not real Christians…’ I then offered an excerpt from one of Ignatius’ letters, where he offers his flesh and bones to be ‘ground up in the teeth of wild beasts as wheat for Christ’s bread.’ Pretty well ended the discussion.

                Given the example of what has happened with innumerable scholars like Scott Hahn, and the mass swim across the Tiber by dozens of seminarians, faculty, a and alumni of Southern Evangelical Seminary in the mid-2000’s, truer words than those of Bl John Henry Newman – “to be deep in Church history is to cease to be Protestant” were never spoken. Assuming of course that the confirmation bias blinders are not in place and one trusts God’s literal word and obvious direction, more than one values ones current theological rice bowl.

             5. AK: In another venue… I then offered an excerpt from one of Ignatius’ letters, where he offers his flesh and bones to be ‘ground up in the teeth of wild beasts as wheat for Christ’s bread.’ Pretty well ended the discussion.

                B: I have already posted, twice now, the link to the following outstanding article which utterly refutes your delusion about Iggy being a support for Christ shrinking himself down to the size of a Ritz cracker to be munched on from head to toe. No one has and no one ever will be able to dispute the writer’s logic, so we again find you dead in the water believing a false gospel and headed for hell at break-neck speed.

                http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

             6. Oh My!!!! Thought I recognized that link. Timothy Kauffman????? He’s off the rails like you!!!! He tries to mangle and twist the Church fathers to get the answer he wants much like you do the word of God.

             7. I looked at the link. Same half-references to the mediocre historian Schaaf, same tortured pseudo-etymology that twists the clear words of Ignatius to a Reformed agenda. Not buying it. You, though, are welcome to do just that.

             8. AK: [Barry says] “…the Greek words used in the New Testament for sacrifice are “thusia” and “thuo”, which are nowhere in this verse! Added to that, the Greek word “anamnesis” does not even mean “sacrifice”. It means, “remembering; recollection”.

                B: Oh my, methinks that if I had a third arm I would pat myself on the back for brilliantly explicating sober words of truth that simply cannot be denied!

                AK: This one is easy. “Anamnesis” is Greek for memory and recollection, but in context is *really* is a metaphor for sacrifice. Metaphors are so useful.

                B: We have all just witnessed the very height of stupidity personified.

          2. CK: “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup IS THE NEW COVENANT in my blood, which will be shed for you.”‭‭ (Luke‬ ‭22:19-20).‬

             HMMM. Sure sounds like the beginning of a sacrifice.

             B: Of course it does, to the Catholic with a tin ear. On the other hand, the astute student of the Bible recognizes INSTANTLY that “THE CUP” being referred to was NOT ACTUALLY THE NEW COVENANT… (silly rabbit!). And everyone on earth agrees with me, how do you like that?
             Let’s say that again, for Roman warriors dull of hearing and who don’t stop to think:
             The actual cup in Christ’s hand was NOT the actual New Testament in his blood!
             That being so, neither was the bread his actual body!
             Isn’t it amazing how Catholic fairy tales can be vanquished with just a little legwork?

             Thus, I am on the strongest of grounds asserting symbolism being used at the Last Supper and you are refuted.

             FYI, the new covenant was meant to be a memorial, as the very first sentence of Joe’s article states. And I explicated on what Scripture has to say about memorials in conjunction with “Do this in memory of me” on 6/10 @10:32 to prove that is ALL Christ ever meant it should be!

             Reply

             1. Dude I just cut and pasted the verse and capitalized part of it. Jesus said it not me. I guess when Jesus says it IS His body He’s lying. It’s also weird that if you participate in this memorial in an unworthy matter you can lose your salvation.
                Can you think of any other symbols that can do this?

                Everyone on earth agrees with you???? I’m sure every Catholic here would be surprised to know they are not on earth.

                Put away from the crack pipe.

             2. CK: I guess when Jesus says it IS His body He’s lying.

                B: The abysmal ignorance going on with you people is pathetic, there simply is no other way to say it. The fact that you give no evidence for your position other than to say “Jesus said it”, is downright asinine and proves nothing! He said he was the door— does that mean he’s a piece of wood with hinges? Your logic is simply atrocious.

                This is a war, and as Trent said about us, so say I to you: Your position is “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”.
                I’ve asked twice on this board with no rely: if your position is correct and “is” means “is”, where then is the army of Greek scholars who will put Protestants to shame and say “This is my body” is NOT a figure of speech based on the textbook definition of “is”? Answer? They don’t exist…because the Catholic definition of “IS” doesn’t exist! RC dicta tells us that when Christ uses the word “is”, that he means the outward appearance of the bread is one thing, while the inner reality is another!
                WHERE oh where, are the scholars who support this definition of “is”?
                Answer? I just told you. No such scholars exist because no such definition exists (i.e., it NEVER means that while the outward appearance of an object is one thing, the inward reality is unrelated to the subject to which it adheres).
                Have I humiliated you yet? I certainly hope so, because in situations like this when one is dealing with the deepest sort of blindness, the charity church mouse routine must be abandoned and papal protocol must be forthrightly condemned in no uncertain terms and in the strongest way possible. You are staking your eternal SOUL on the meaning of a single word consisting of two letters!
                Now let me pick up my sword (which is the word of God according to Eph 6) and destroy your cannibalistic dream world. Maybe the Spirit will choose to wake someone up out of spiritual coma.

                “He that soweth the good seed IS (represents) the world.
                “The good seed ARE (represents) the children of the kingdom”
                “But the tares ARE (represents) the children of the wicked one.”
                “The enemy that sowed them IS (represents) the devil.
                “The harvest IS (represents) the end of the age.”
                “And the reapers ARE (represents) the angels.” (Matt 13:19-23 & 37-43)
                “The seven stars ARE (represents) the angels of the seven churches.”
                “The seven candlesticks which thou sawest ARE (represents) the seven churches.”
                “The odors ARE (represent) the prayers of the saints.”
                “The seven heads ARE (represent) seven mountains.” (Book of Revelation).
                “The Lord IS (represents) a sun and shield.” (Ps 84:11).
                “Ye ARE (represent) the salt of the earth.” (Matt 5:13).

                “This izzzzzzzz (represents) MY BODY.

             3. Barry said- He said he was the door— does that mean he’s a piece of wood with hinges? Your logic is simply atrocious.

                Me – If He had pointed to a door and said this IS ME I would believe Him because He is God. You’d say it is atrocious because you lack faith.

                He also said HE IS the Son of God and I believe Him. You say atrocious?

             4. CK: Everyone on earth agrees with you???? I’m sure every Catholic here would be surprised to know they are not on earth.

                B: You know very well that I was referring to everyone in the world agreeing with me (and they do) that the actual cup he held was NOT the New Covenant, and not that they agree with everything I say personally. Let the reader beware of these pitifully vain attempts to discredit me.

                So I repeat the main point:
                Everyone knows the actual cup in Christ’s hand was NOT the actual New Testament in his blood! He was speaking metaphorically.
                That being so, neither was the bread his actual body! He was speaking metaphorically.

             5. B: You know very well that I was referring to everyone in the world agreeing with me (and they do) that the actual cup he held was NOT the New Covenant, and not that they agree with everything I say personally. Let the reader beware of these pitifully vain attempts to discredit me.

                Me – Barry my man!!! You want us to buy into your interpretation of the Bible yet you show very little reading comprehension. Could you please refer to where I SAID the cup He held was the New Covenant? I only have a few posts so this should be quick.

                I’m not trying to discredit you. You are doing that all on your own.

             6. CK: If He had pointed to a door and said this IS ME I would believe Him because He is God.

                B: Well then you are even more of a fool than I thought. At this point I can
                only steer you in the direction of Matt 16:11. The essence of that statement is what you will hear on Judgment Day when you find out that you were duped:

                “How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? [I MEANT] be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

             7. Duped by Jesus???????

                You are implying some crazy stuff…

             8. “How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? [I MEANT] be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

                Don’t recall that being said at the last supper. I’m pretty sure that was somewhere else

             9. CK: you show very little reading comprehension. Could you please refer to where I SAID the cup He held was the New Covenant?

                B: You started off by quoting, “This cup IS THE NEW COVENANT in my blood, which will be shed for you.”‭‭ (Luke‬ ‭22:19-20) and concluded
                HMMM. Sure sounds like the beginning of a sacrifice.

                I never said you referred to the cup as the New Covenant, but I called you a silly rabbit for not getting the connection! I refuted the thought of a sacrifice being offered by pointing to the metaphorical use of the cup, which ties in to Christ’s metaphorical use of the bread.

                Talk about a lack of reading comprehension! On top of that, you tell me:

                CK: It’s also weird that if you participate in this memorial in an unworthy matter you can lose your salvation.

                B: Suffice to say, the Bible doesn’t say that, and once again, the Catholic reaches for anything that will bolster their claims, no matter how flimsy, no matter how unreasonable, as long as it has just that intimidating touch of a religious soundbite, that is enough.

             10. CK: Duped by Jesus???????

                 You are implying some crazy stuff…

                 B: “Duped” may be a crude word, but that is in fact, EXACTLY what God intends to do with those whom he has chosen not to save. At this point, you appear to be one of them.

                 Isa 6:9; Matt 11:25-6; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 9:39-41, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8.

             11. B: “Duped” may be a crude word, but that is in fact, EXACTLY what God intends to do with those whom he has chosen not to save. At this point, you appear to be one of them.

                 Me – if God has not chosen to save me then why are you here???? Is there a command that says those that are saved are to torment those who God has chosen not to save?? Tormenting is something the Devil delights in. Maybe the evil one has duped you.

             12. CK: It’s also weird that if you participate in this memorial in an unworthy matter you can lose your salvation.

                 B: Suffice to say, the Bible doesn’t say that, and once again, the Catholic reaches for anything that will bolster their claims, no matter how flimsy, no matter how unreasonable, as long as it has just that intimidating touch of a religious soundbite, that is enough.

                 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”
                 ‭‭
                 Me – ok. Stupid me always thought the verse meant a spiritual death. So the verse above says you will literally die physically? Alrighty then. I’ll run with your interpretation and rephrase my comment-

                 It’s weird that if you participate in this memorial in an unworthy manner you will literally become physically ill and DIE. I mean I can burn a bible, torment those unfortunate souls who God has chosen not to save, put a cross in a bucket of urine and call it art, worship satan etc and not become physically ill and die, but if I dare eat a symbolic cracker in an unworthy matter I will bring judgement on myself and can literally DIE. Maybe it’s more than just a symbol. I’ll go with what Paul and Jesus says over you. It’s His body.

             13. CK: if God has not chosen to save me then why are you here????

                 B: Apparently no one ever told you. It’s because we simply don’t know who God may choose to save or not! So we cast out seeds, as instructed.

             14. B: Apparently no one ever told you. It’s because we simply don’t know who God may choose to save or not! So we cast out seeds, as instructed.

                 Me – so now you are following instructions? Is tormenting and insulting another instruction? Isn’t there something about dusting off your sandals and moving on? Your behavior is getting people to listen less to you thus leaving me with the conclusion that the evil one is at work in you. Tricking you. You seem incapable to being charitable to those you claim to want to spread seeds for. This is not the behavior of one who God has chosen to save. You are not producing good fruit.

             15. CK – ok. Stupid me always thought the verse meant a spiritual death.

                 B: Now you’re backtracking. Previously you said the person would lose their salvation. I don’t know what you mean by a “spiritual death”, but if it does not equate to going to hell as you first stated, then you have just changed your position.

                 CK: So the verse above says you will literally die physically? Alrighty then. I’ll run with your interpretation and rephrase my comment-

                 B: The fact that some of the Corinthians died is NOT an interpretation, it is fact clearly stated.

                 CK: It’s weird that if you participate in this memorial in an unworthy manner you will literally become physically ill and DIE.

                 B: Not EVERYONE died. God turned the light out on SOME of them. One thing I can be pretty certain of is that you simply do not own a Bible commentary because anyone who has one would not be making the comments you do. They just show a serious lack of study. Take this as a hint. You should get one (I have 10) to see what others, smarter than yourself and who have labored long and hard in the word, have said! God instituted the office of “teacher” and you are obviously not taking advantage of them.

                 CK: if I dare eat a symbolic cracker in an unworthy matter I will bring judgement on myself and can literally DIE. Maybe it’s more than just a symbol. I’ll go with what Paul and Jesus says over you. It’s His body.

                 B: You will please notice that verse 11:29 begins by saying that the Corinthians were “eating and drinking judgment to themselves”. Did you catch that? Here is still yet another shining example of eating and drinking used in a figurative manner in the very verse the Pope would like us to believe a literal transubstantiation had occurred!
                 See also 12:13 for more of the “language of heaven”: “[We] have been all made to drink into one spirit”. The RCC simply cannot escape the rich tapestry of figurative expressions that pervade the Bible, which, when taken together, run counterclockwise to Transubstantiation.
                 Regarding your thought that God would NOT kill someone for eating a “symbolic cracker”, we ask, why not? The minute Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, they both dropped dead. He did the same with some of the Corinthians. Why?
                 Well first of all, Rome carelessly reads the concept of Transubstantiation back into the phrase of being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”, when the text is simple enough without importing any foreign concepts such as T. Some of the Corinthians were behaving “unworthily” when coming to the Lord’s Supper indicated in 11:17-22. The whole event had become divisive, drunken and disorderly. The Corinthian’s irreverent attitude was, in essence, tearing apart the unity of the Christian body ***represented*** by the one loaf of bread, and failing to maintain it (10:17, 12:12-13); not that they were failing to discern the Lord’s physical body via Transubstantiation!

                 An even simpler explanation is that they were failing to discern that the Lord’s body was given in order that our sins might be put away! By their irresponsible behavior, they were effectively treating the work of Christ in contempt. Instead of being cleansed by His blood, they end up being “guilty of His blood”; in the same sense as expressed in Hebrews 6:6; “crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh.” In other words, if they continue to deliberately undermine the cross-work of Christ, they are no different than those who first crucified Him; seeing His death as not for the sins of others, but as one who deserved execution. Thus, their callous disregard to what the elements ***represented*** became an abuse offered to a sign.
                 ***Such abuse reaches to that person which the sign signifies***
                 thus, the Corinthian’s sacrilege of the Supper amounted to burning Christ in effigy. They were “insulting the Spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29) which whitewashed our crimson-stained redemption, resulting in some of their deaths (11:30). Consequently, the “Real Presence” of Christ is simply not required to be in the emblems of bread and wine for one to be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”.

             16. CK – ok. Stupid me always thought the verse meant a spiritual death.

                 B: Now you’re backtracking. Previously you said the person would lose their salvation. I don’t know what you mean by a “spiritual death”, but if it does not equate to going to hell as you first stated, then you have just changed your position

                 CK2 – No. Trying to guess your interpretation. You can lose your salvation, per the church that Jesus founded.

                 CK: So the verse above says you will literally die physically? Alrighty then. I’ll run with your interpretation and rephrase my comment-

                 B: The fact that some of the Corinthians died is NOT an interpretation, it is fact clearly stated

                 CK2 – the fact that Jesus says this is MY BODY at the Last Supper is not an interpretation, it is a fact clearly stated.

                 CK: It’s weird that if you participate in this memorial in an unworthy manner you will literally become physically ill and DIE.

                 B: Not EVERYONE died. God turned the light out on SOME of them.

                 CK2 – Yes! Turned the light and they quit approaching the Eucharist in an unworthy manner!!! God turned on the light and they realized that they were eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Imagine that!!!

                 B:One thing I can be pretty certain of is that you simply do not own a Bible commentary because anyone who has one would not be making the comments you do. They just show a serious lack of study. Take this as a hint. You should get one (I have 10) to see what others, smarter than yourself and who have labored long and hard in the word, have said! God instituted the office of “teacher” and you are obviously not taking advantage of them.

                 CK2 – you mean like listen to the early Church Fathers who state that Eucharist is Jesus’ body? Like that ignorant Augustine who also seemed to lack study and was never blessed with your Bible’s commentary.

                 CK: if I dare eat a symbolic cracker in an unworthy matter I will bring judgement on myself and can literally DIE. Maybe it’s more than just a symbol. I’ll go with what Paul and Jesus says over you. It’s His body.

                 B: You will please notice that verse 11:29 begins by saying that the Corinthians were “eating and drinking judgment to themselves”. Did you catch that?

                 CK2 – what were they doing that was causing them to be eating and drinking judgment to themselves? 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

                 B:Regarding your thought that God would NOT kill someone for eating a “symbolic cracker”, we ask, why not?

                 CK2 – I think God can do anything that does not go against His nature. You are the one that puts limits on Him.

                 B:The minute Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, they both dropped dead. He did the same with some of the Corinthians. Why?
                 Well first of all, Rome carelessly reads the concept of Transubstantiation back into the phrase of being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”, when the text is simple enough without importing any foreign concepts such as T. Some of the Corinthians were behaving “unworthily” when coming to the Lord’s Supper indicated in 11:17-22. The whole event had become divisive, drunken and disorderly. The Corinthian’s irreverent attitude was, in essence, tearing apart the unity of the Christian body ***represented*** by the one loaf of bread, and failing to maintain it (10:17, 12:12-13); not that they were failing to discern the Lord’s physical body via Transubstantiation!

                 CK2 – you keep skipping over this part…24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

                 B: Consequently, the “Real Presence” of Christ is simply not required to be in the emblems of bread and wine for one to be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”.

                 CK2 – never said it was necessary. But in this case it is the reason per the plain meaning of the text.

                 Since we are looking at Corinthians, are women at your church required to wear headdresses?

             17. CK: you keep skipping over this part… and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.

                 B: Oh put a lid on it CK! I’ve addressed that issue 10 times on this thread (as well as everything else you say in your post). Everything you say is designed to waste my time by hoping I will repeat repeat repeat. I won’t be tricked into that little scam, now begone! I refuse to deal with you any longer.

             18. SUCCESS!!!!

       3. “To hell with your insistent jabbering about me providing “out of context” quotes from Augustine.”

          Hey, if you want to consign to perdition, your own arguments which consist of incessant, incomprehensible tortured-logic rants, shot through with purposefully partial, unsupportive references either to poor historians – in which you persist despite my pointing it out (“—–NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24))” – or misused quotes from Catholic literature, be my guest. But you can’t pretend they didn’t happen – everything on the Internet is essentially forever. Think before you keyboard.

          It should be obvious from Rick Mariner’s post above you’re just pissing off those you’re trying to reach. Catholics here think – with justification – you’re a buffoon. Fellow Protestants – who may otherwise agree with you theologically – have said multiple times they think you’re rude and off-putting.

          So….do what you want, but I suggest you ask yourself, why you are doing this? Certainly not to gain converts…..

          Reply

          1. AK: you’re a buffoon. Fellow Protestants – who may otherwise agree with you theologically – have said multiple times they think you’re rude and off-putting.

             B: Spare me your pious claptrap. The absolute hypocrisy of your words is astounding, and I must say you deserve a double dunce cap over everyone else. In light of the fact that I have mentioned on this thread 5 times that Trent calls those who disagree with them “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”…and YOU think they deserve a crown, makes you deserve a triple dunce cap upon further reflection. To think that Trent’s language is acceptable and not MINE, which does not even come close, proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that your Catholicism is a fraud without even LOOKING at your doctrine. One need only note your contemptible, convoluted accusations against me in light of Trent’s “filthy mouth” and your fate is sealed as Hypocrite Of The Year.

             Reply

             1. “Spare me your pious claptrap.”

                Well, missed the radioactive irony there, didja?

                “Trent calls those who disagree with them “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”…”

                And you (ignorant of the not-so subtle message of Matt 7: 13- and Luke 18: 9-14) have condemned me to hell multiple times. Just who is Hypocrite of the Year, again?

                By the way, Trent was saying what it said out of love and concern for the heretics souls….now, where have I heard that logic before…??

                “I might remind you that I am showing the greatest form of love, ” (BB, June 10, 9:24 AM)

                Anytime you want some help off that petard, just let me know.

             2. AK: By the way, Trent was saying what it said out of love and concern for the heretics souls

                B: Thank you for that vain-glorious attempt at mind-reading the council. But even if what you say is true, you don’t seem to realize that I would be on the same level as Trent, and thus, every single criticism of me on this thread must be abandoned in precisely the same way as those who dropped their stones after Jesus asked them, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

                AK: [You say] “I might remind you that I am showing the greatest form of love, ” (BB, June 10, 9:24 AM)

                B: That’s 100% correct, in perfect harmony with Rev 2:2, in perfect harmony with my motivation, in perfect harmony with Trent’s motivation, and with perfect harmony with common sense that totally voids your angst against me as being “unruly”.

             3. “you don’t seem to realize that I would be on the same level as Trent, …”

                You’re smart enough to realize, Barry, how chicken-or-egg circular this reasoning is, and what a rabbit hole into which it leads. Noty going there. You want to take that as a Victory, please, be my guest. I am going to do my damnedest to Matt 10:14.

                What I hear from you is, “I am right and you are wrong. Because I say so.” Been hearing that for days. It’s very important to you to be right. There’s more going on here than theology, which is why these discussions from day 1 were fruitless. You can see that discourses between Catholics and Reformed of various stripes here can be educational and bridging. What goes on with you is neither, And I suspect never will be..

                So, be right. Enjoy it, revel in it. In the end, what God wants for us is what matters. And we will all find that out, one way or the other.

             4. B: AK disagrees with me when I say, “you don’t seem to realize that I would be on the same level as Trent, …”
                But his reasons for doing so are worse than ridiculous, as has been everything he’s submitted thus far. AK consistently ignores Trent’s “vile language” and only concentrates on my occasional irascible tone, which does not appeal to him. Too bad. Obviously, his judgmental prowess is totally biased, blinding him to his own hypocrisy. It’s sad, really.

                AK: You’re smart enough to realize, Barry, your chicken-or-egg circular this reasoning…

                B: Oh put a lid on it, pa-LEEEZE. THEE most circular reasoning episode in the history of mankind occurred in 1870 when the Pope self-appointed himself “infallible”, topped off with the satanic threat that should anyone not believe it, hell awaits! If that don’t just TAKE THE CAKE for audacity and gall, I don’t know what does! Essentially, the synagogue of Satan requires you to check your brains in with the pope for salvation, whereupon you must believe certain fairy tales about Mary’s reproductive organs for salvation, and then you must believe you are eating the physical anatomy of Jesus Christ right down to his last toenail, and then you have to go and attach a salvific efficacy to your good works, wrestling the merits of those works in a stronghold with the merits of Christ, and then, after Calvary’s cross has been subdued in favor of all those checks you wrote to the United Way, you THINK (as those self-proclaiming Christians did in Matt 7) that these works will open heaven’s gate! Consequently, there does not exist one Catholic today who has any peace of mind because they simply can never know if they’ve done enough good works to pass the test! What a miserable life!
                This hamster wheel of salvation of yours just keeps on spinning round and round in a never-ending maze of CIRCULAR REASONING…and all because the RCC says so and “believe it or die”!

                AK: What I hear from you is, “I am right and you are wrong. Because I say so.”

                B: Will someone please pass the smelling salts I think I’m gonna faint. Look in the mirror oh thou fool and gasp at the nerve with witch the papacy has bewitched you. As if you didn’t know….they assert “I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO”…..making your complaint against me even more intolerable for the average stomach to bear!
                Oh, and I beg you, do not insult our intelligence any more than you have already done by trying to convince us that this novel 1870 requirement for salvation is firmly based on Jesus saying “He who hears you hears me”. If you MUST retort with that little ditty, kindly provide a vomit bag so I can use it after I read it.

                AK: discussions from day 1 were fruitless.

                B: That’s your opinion. From the day I came across this site and noticed the main article with no responses, I was swift to put in my two cents, so there was certainly an army of ammunition ready to be fired at the consequences of this article, and I did indeed use them pronto. As for you, I have no power to break the blindness God has obviously ordained for you at this time, but I write for any future reader that may happen upon this discussion and to examine the Catholic arguments, which methinks all biblical scholars bar none, would find obnoxious.

             5. Barry, we finally agree on something. I hope that someone searching Christianity does come here and gets a good look at the “discourse,” particularly your postings. I sincerely do, and will if asked, direct the inquirer here to read your posts as the typical best that fundamantal Protestantism has to offer…

             6. Put it this waaaaayyyyy…

                Barack Obama, while President, hated – along with his entire political and cultural entourage – guns, gun owners, and the gun culture.

                He was the best and most prolific gun salesman this country has ever seen. Just by him being him.

                OK…I’d love to hang out longer in the big strait-jacket discourse tent you’ve created, but I have to update the ‘good works’ ledger I carry with me at all times in event of my sudden death.

             7. AK: OK…I’d love to hang out longer in the big strait-jacket discourse tent you’ve created, but I have to update the ‘good works’ ledger I carry with me at all times in event of my sudden death.

                B: And sudden death, at this point, would result in hell I’m sorry to say.
                I know you’re being facetious, but the fact remains that the RCC teaches good works are the way to heaven WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, (in addition to many other things!) and you are simply BLIND AS A BAT to deny it. CCC 1821 is CLEAR. Essentially, “Good works done in God’s grace opens heaven’s gate”. NO! A thousand times NO! They think by playing the grace card, that it makes a difference. IT DOES NOT. The gospel is NOT that we are saved by the grace of God working WITHIN us, but by the grace of God FOR US, which he has revealed to us in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6).
                The catechism further proves the falsity of their gospel by saying “proper conduct” is necessary for salvation in #16… (more good works!), then a mixture of “law and grace” is necessary for salvation, also in 16 (completely contradicting Acts 13:39), and finally, keeping all the commandments is necessary for salvation (2016) which obviously means all Catholics are lost since not one of them has ever kept them perfectly. You utterly fail to understand that this was one of the main reasons Jesus came to save us, to fulfill the law in our room and stead…BECAUSE WE COULD NOT.

             8. Good day, Big Boy –

                Where in scripture will I find that you were appointed the judge of our friend CK? Scripture says that the Son of God will sit at the right hand of God the Father to judge us goats and sheep. So according to you, are the goats and sheep literal? And the son of God is metaphor for YOU?

                Thank you in advance for your kindness, clarity, and charity in reply.

             9. M: Where in scripture will I find that you were appointed the judge of our friend CK?

                B: REVELATION 2:2, period, end of story. Face it Margo, you do not like to be cross-examined. Too bad. Proverbs 18:17 says we should! In any case, I have mentioned Rev 2:2 more than once here, proving that you are deaf, dumb and blind. Your plea to know “where in the bIble does it say this or that” is disingenuous because it’s obvious you have no real desire to know WHAT the Bible says, even when it’s there right in from of you. Also, as usual you fail to deal with any of the proofs I furnish in that post (or anywhere else) relating to the despicable “necessary for salvation” requirements demanded by the RCC. If Paul blew a gasket over even ONE thing they were trying to add to the gospel in the book of Galatians, it is a SURE thing he would denounce the RCC, for they have added FAR MORE!

             10. Barry,

                 I haven’t had time to labor over all your posts and the surrounding rebuttals and counter rebuttals so I don’t know if you said what Protestant denominational background you come from. However, I am probably more “fundamental” than you are as an Assemblies of God member. I am also a doctoral student (aesthetics) working on my dissertation, so I am used to reading argument and logical discussion. I will need to make this post brief as my time is limited. I am not going to defend nor oppose the Catholic position here in its manifold expressions. I will make a couple of brief points. As foreign as the eucharist is to my thinking, having had some exposure to this belief over the past year, I find that it curiously appeals to my more “literal” bent which my denomination adheres to. I am very open to the supernatural working of God and have personally experienced it and continue to seek the work of the Holy Spirit in my life. There are times when something has the ring of truth to them even in the midst of seeming paradox. Paradox here is not the same as logical contradiction. The eucharist is one of those beliefs. There is something that appeals to me in that. I will not go into the Protestant denial of materiality here but the eucharist is probably the easiest thing for me to accept. Marian doctrine is quite another. But I am beginning to digress. Barry, your approach on this blog does no service to the Protestant cause. I have found more love and respect on this blog from the Catholic side here (even from the other Protestants). Your attitude shows through louder and clearer than your arguments. You think that by making them and calling them out as the ‘enemy’ you will win them over — how naive! You think perhaps you will shake them out of their delusion — how misguided! If you think I am mistaken, let’s do a little scientific poll here and ask all those who have blogged and seen your posts, how many have changed their position. The truth must be spoken in love, for even Satan used, and uses truth to destroy.

43. Phil says:

    “You could save yourself a TON of time, and skip over me and every other self proclaimed authority with compulsive talking disease, and go straight to the source of it all.”

    Yes, ‘self proclaimed’ religious authorities are very dubious. And especially self proclaimed prophets with compulsions to talk excessively about what they do not have authority to talk about. But Jesus Christ is not self proclaimed. He is amply foretold of by former prophets of Israel as can be found throughout the Old Testament, and especially the Book of Isaiah. He is also proclaimed by His mother, and St. Joseph and St. Elizabeth and St. John the Baptist and St. Simeon and Anna in the temple. This is to say, he didn’t just arrive after taking some ancient psychedelic drug concoction.

    Moreover, the proclamation included ample miracles performed by Christ. Has any self proclaimed prophet done the same magnitude and numbers as Christ in world history?

    So this is especially why we should listen to Christ over Phil, who defines himself clearly as a ‘self proclaimed authority’. Moreover, Christ actually talked very little, per Phil’s complaint about talking disease.

    This is to say, it is good to go to the source, to the Good Shepherd, to the Lamb of God, to Jesus the Lord, the Son of God, raised from he dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven. He is the source for our Knowledge of God. He is the ‘ultimate dirt’ a son of Adam, but where that dirt was transformed at the resurrection so as to never be destroyed and to last forever in eternal Glory. Is this not going to the ultimate source for knowledge of God the Father, to Jesus, who said “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”?

    Thanks be to God for providing the source for us, JESUS, that we indeed are not doomed to be left wandering in the dark knowing not the reason for our own existence, and therefore following after every worldly pleasure thinking our ‘meaning in life’ might be found there. Thanks to God for providing ‘The Way, the Truth and the Life’ to us miserable sinners!

    Reply

44. Well Al, as is so normal on the Catholic web, you pretty much ignore the example set by the prophet you claim to revere.

    Jesus became a great teacher by going out in to the desert and EXPERIENCING God in the real world, just like I’ve been suggesting.

    Reply

    1. Um…Jesus didn’t “experience” God in the desert, he experienced the Devil. Also, He is God so…

       Reply

       1. He meaning Jesus lol.

          Reply

       2. Matt, see if you agree with this…

          St. Athanasius didn’t go into ‘the real world’ – whatever that is – when he went to live with the desert fathers and learned wisdom at the hand of such as St. Anthony the great. The real world was when, after all that training and education, Athanasius emerged, a small, unimposing, brown skinned son of the desert, to demolish the heretic Arius at the great Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and establish the doctrine of the co-divinity and co-eternal – in other words, consubstantial – nature of Jesus with God the Father.

          Kinda like Joe is now doing in seminary, after which he will enter the ‘real world’ of a Catholic parish to minister to souls and a world desperately in need of such ministry.

          Reply

          1. That’s a false dichotomy 😉 lol

             Reply

             1. And it’s un-Scriptural!

             2. Matt – good morning, how’s your head today? Just checkin.’

                So, do you have any thoughts on whether St. Anthony the Great was clergy?

                OK…off to my morning chanting…au-uummmmmmmm.

45. Matthewp, see if you can pound this in to your thick skull.

    Jesus went to the desert.

    Not to the library.
    Not to church.
    Not to the clergy.
    Not to some holy book.
    Not to some huge pile of memorized dogma chanting.

    All the stuff you guys are doing…

    Opposite of what Jesus did.

    You guys aren’t Jesus worshipers, you’re clergy worshipers.

    When did Jesus say ANYTHING about spending huge amounts of money on church buildings? When did he even show any interest in church construction at all? Never.

    When did Jesus show any interest in ranks, titles, positions, organizations, and fancy costumes? Never.

    When did Jesus write a big pile of doctrines and policies? Never.

    Get it yet? All the stuff which forms the backbone of this site and the official Catholic Church….

    Nothing to do with Jesus.

    Everything to do with clergy.

    Reply

    1. You are forgetting about all of the ‘scriptures’ that Jesus had memorized and also used throughout His Gospel teachings. Just go and read them carefully and you will see how well He understood His Jewish heritage and writings. Even Satan appreciated this in his temptations made to Jesus in the ‘desert account’, that you cite. The devil, in this story, competes with the Lord in exegesis of the Old Testament sayings.

       Reply

46. Al, are you aware that Jesus was found to be so inconvenient by the Jewish clergy that they arranged to have him executed?

    It’s the simplest thing, proven beyond all doubt.

    1) Jesus was _NOT_ a clergy worshiper, as proven by who killed him.

    2) Al _IS_ a clergy worshiper, as proven by the fact he rarely talks about anything else.

    3) Thus, Al is blatantly ignoring the example set by Jesus, while at the same time trying to persuade us he values Jesus above all else.

    When multiplied by millions, the end result of this process is almost empty churches multiplying like weeds in every direction.

    Reply

    1. The problem Phil, is that you like to talk about Jesu without really knowing Him in detail. You know Him only in generalities because you are afraid of actually reading the gospels themselves, or hearing them read at Mass if you are a poor or lazy reader. So the only way to know Jesus, enough to talk about Him, is to ‘keep His word’..that is to study and put into practice what He tells us. But again, you want to be His disciple but without following His ‘discipline’. You want to cherry pick the items you like about Him, and then claim that these items are the entirety of what He taught and practiced. But you are missing the 50% of the other things that He came here, was incarnated, to teach us.

       So, before giving yourself a doctorate in Christology from Philbert University you should actually read the many words, and parables, of Christ and then mediate on them carefully before going out and starting your professorship. You talk about, and interpret, the Lord as if the last time you actually studied His words was back in 1982…and thus your memory of his teachings is shrouded with fog.

       If you want, you can collect the quotes from the Gospel on these comments, and then actually meditate on them carefully. Little by little you might actually become a professor… knowing more than 50% of what you’re actually talking about. And the disciples of Christ referred to Jesus as ‘Rabbi’ and ‘Master’, for the very reason that He had something important to teach that He was expert in, and they highly respected Him as their teacher. You should go and do the same.

       Reply

47. Al,

    You’re studying the books that men wrote.

    I’m studying the “book” that God wrote, the physical reality you see all around you. I study that book because it is uncontaminated by human manipulation.

    You’ve failed to demonstrate why I should settle for long dead self appointed middlemen whose words can be interpreted a thousand different ways when the Real Authority is ever present everywhere in all times and places.

    You’ve failed to grasp the simple truth that a symbol is not the thing it points to. And so you worship the symbols and those humans who create them.

    Consider the man on a journey who comes to a street sign that points to the town he is traveling to. You’d sit down in front of the street sign and start worshiping it because you don’t get it’s just a sign, a pointer, a symbol, and not the real world destination you’re trying to reach. Thus, for you, the street sign is more obstacle than aid. If the street sign wasn’t there, you’d have no choice but to keep walking towards the real world destination.

    Reply

    1. Maybe you should practice what you preach and throw all of your books away, leave your websites, and go out into a pasture to ‘chew the cud’ with the cows. This to you is more valuable than reading the words of Jesus Christ, who was born into this world to teach and guide us towards eternal life. I’m sorry that you don’t value such a tremendous gift from God. It appears that you’re just too infatuated with the wisdom of ‘Phil’ …to take the time to listen to Christ when He teaches.

       Reply

48. An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a friend who had been doing a little homework on this.

    And he actually bought me breakfast simply because I found it for him…
    lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanx for spending some time to talk about this matter here on your
    website.

    Reply

49. What is a miracle? A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency; a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

    It is impossible to explain a miracle using logical, abstract thinking ability of the human brain!

    The body & blood of Jesus gives us Life and defends us from all evil.

    Can a human brain ever explain how that works? It’s a miracle! No one can explain a miracle!

    So stop arguing already. You are wasting time and effort!

    Confess your sins, attend mass, regularly, and receive the Bread of Life! This is the Good News.

    The Miracle documented in Argentina 1992, 1994, 1996;
    Where: The parish of Saint Mary in Buenos Aires;
    What happened: While both other miracles are definitely worth finding out about, the most interesting and comprehensive study was done with the 1996 Eucharist.
    It began bleeding when consecrated and part of it became human tissue.
    After several intense studies, it was found that the tissue was part of a heart, a muscle of the myocardium, the left ventricle, the muscle that gives life to the whole heart and body.
    This tissue was tested by three independent medical labs.
    You can thank Pope Francis for documenting this Miracle!

    Thanks to Jesus, and blessed be God, forever, for the Good News.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.