concretecamper
Member of His Church
- Nov 23, 2013
- 6,775
- 2,568
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You quoted meI was responding to a different poster and what he had written.
Upvote
0
You quoted meI was responding to a different poster and what he had written.
, but you are correct about Transubstantiation being a later development,
The word is of Medieval, not modern, origin
I quoted you commenting to me about the exchange between myself and a third party.You quoted me
Great, it will make it easier on those of us who cant read thoughts over the internetbut I will hereafter try to avoid using those kinds of quotes.
We all make mistakes, it no reason to stop postingOr even better, making the replies themselves.
No mistakes are involved. I said that, in the interest of avoiding confusion, it might be a good idea to avoid quoting a post from someone who is simply commenting to me about that which a third person had posted. That's where you got confused a few posts back.We all make mistakes, it no reason to stop posting
Certainly was, but I am not surprised of this responseNo mistakes are involved.
I quoted someone other than you. It is not about you, it's about the post and word I quoted.it might be a good idea to avoid quoting a post from someone who is simply commenting to me
We all were fine, discussing trans. until you made it all about you and being seemingly upset no one knew what you meant.That's where you got confused a few posts back
Why would you want to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church when you reject her? Why do you take so hard. To you, they are full of pagan practices. Is it just pride?The priest, when it came time for the Eucharist quite strongly implied that the "Christians" are free to take the host, but those who were not part of the church could come up and get a "blessing". It was obvious to me that he believed that those who were not church members were not Christians and therefore were not eligible to partake of the Eucharist.
Why would you want to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church when you reject her? Why do you take so hard. To you, they are full of pagan practices.
Is it just pride?
Oh well, I have tried to say to address the issues and not me, so I am leaving this thread. I am more interested in dealing with the issues, rather than defending myself against personal criticisms.Now back to normal conversation:
Why would you want to recieve the Eucharist in the Catholic Church when you reject her? Why do you take so hard. To you, they are full of pagan practices. Is it just pride?
My experiance is that Catholicism is not hard at all.
Absent the gift of infallibility, personal interpretation is dangerous and most likely deadly to the soul.
Only 2 have Apostalic Traditions and Succession.
We are saved by Grace through faith. We cooperate with grace. We can choose not to cooperate with grace. Our choice.
If anyone dies with mortal sin on their soul, they go straight to hell.
Rejecting God has consequences.
Rejecting the Church means rejecting Christ so says the bible.
Given the literacy rate for the history of the Church, I would say personal interpretation of scripture plays no role in ones salvation.
Just like today where we have millions of 'so called Christians' who are outwardly Christian yet continue to sin, sin, sin and sin in all shapes, sizes and forms!
The thing that gets me the most, I have come to think, is that many converts to the Roman Catholic Church (and almost all the hotheads are converts, in my experience; 'Born and raised' Catholics are much less often this way) say that it was when they studied church history that they became true believers in Catholicism. However, the history they are talking about is not history. It is a self-serving revision that any Eastern Orthodox Christian (no meanspirited Protestants, they!) can shoot down if asked.
Having been taught all that stuff myself, I found out from studying history and scripture that it was not at all true. Then I felt that I had to go in the opposite direction.
So now I wonder...what would make anyone just buy into false history so uncritically?
My suspicion is that it owes to one additional factor that doesn't get mentioned so often--pride of ownership. It makes people feel great, fulfilled at last, to think that they have a membership card in (allegedly) the oldest, largest, wealthiest--and most importantly--the one and only true church. That is the clincher. It is the feeling of being superior to Christians of all other churches. It surely is not purity of doctrine since, as we have seen, many of the most passionate defenders of their (RCC) church don't even have straight what it is that their church teaches and many times have to have Protestants or Orthodox Christians explain it.
Jesus: This IS my flesh
Ignatius: It is His flesh
Justin Martyr: it is His flesh
Irenaeus:It is His flesh
Catholic Church: It is His flesh
Protestants: umm...over, under, within, geez, symbol, not a symbol, we dont know. And yet the Catholic Church is accused of making things up. This is hilarious, you cant make this nonsense up.
How can the first part of that sentence be ignored in favor of making the second part the only one that matters?
MathiasHowever, there is nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
That is strictly a RCC concoction
No I didn'tYou said...…………."If anyone dies with mortal sin on their soul, they go straight to hell."
Jesus gave binding and loosening powers to Peter individually and to the Apostles collectively. So whatever is bound or loosened must be infallible....Jesus would not let a wrong be done since He is perfect Love and perfect justice.There is NO SUCH THING as an "Infallable Person
You're a funny guy. I said no such thing.Again, I will agree with your comment. The Bible truth is that Man has absolutely NO ROLE in salvation
Yes I did...so?You said..........."Rejecting God has consequences."
Being Christian is following Christ. Being Christian is being part of His Church. Being Christian is doing ALL He has commanded us to do.NOPE! That is a false statement. No one has to belong to a church to be a Christian. Being a Christian is not determined by church membership or attendance. We are Christians because we have trusted in Christ, not because of what we do in or out of a church. We attend because we are Christians. We don't attend to be Christians. Our Christian faith and our position before God, are not established by belonging to any particular church organization. Being a Christian is based on our faith in Christ not membership in a local church.
The point is one can never read the Bible and still be saved. So dont mind OT if the rest of us put little stock in your interpretation of scripture.Again, I will agree with your comment. The Bible truth is that Man has absolutely NO ROLE in salvation and that would also include personal interpretation.
NONE. NADA, ZIP. There is not one Scripture properly divided that says otherwise. This is the truth.