Be brave to look at the evidences ! Is Catholicism right ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

I'm a fervent christian catholic and I've recently started a new youtube channel expose the lies against the Church of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I was tested in my faith in Jesus and I began to look at the offers from protestant denominations.. I investigated their claims on catholicism and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I think that the choice Catholicism/Protestantism DOES matter and I'm only here because I love you and because I've found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I want you to honestly look at the evidences presented in my videos. Please be open and watch it and come back to me.
(of course all the arguments in favor of the Church and against protestantism are not found in this video..)

Click bait, anyone?
 
Upvote 0

grampster

Active Member
Aug 18, 2019
57
58
75
Comstock Park
✟34,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Holy Wah! That's a Michigander expression of amazement. So much philosphical (or maybe Pharisaical) nit pickery among the body of Christ. Christian arguments always seem to be the straining at the gnats that the Lord inspired Matthew to talk about. This church or denomination or that church or denomination...We always seem to do this and we turn such a simple thing into such a complicated hot mess. It ain't about denominations. God tells us in Scripture that we are a body of Christ and are made up of all sorts of different parts with different functions that benefit the whole at the direction of the head who is Christ. The Gospel is the Good News that God has come to rescue sinners in Jesus Christ. The denomination saves no one! Only Jesus saves and you should choose to accept that.

Christianity is about the Gospel (Good News) and justification, not a denomination. The best definition of justification I've read (today actually) is as follows: Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein He pardons all of our sins, accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. Them are church words, by the way. I don't recollect the denomination.

Now I'll give you what's on my 76 year old simple mind without the church words. God created man with the ability to choose to separate himself from God. Adam did that. He chose separation, (death) thus we are born separated from God. Why would God do that? Well, that's a good question and I only have a couple thoughts about that. 1. As He himself said in scripture, "My ways are not your ways..." or 2. He did that to show us just what an amazing God He is. You are born a rebel, separated from Him, unable to interact with Him, but He decides to justify us because it pleased Him to do so at a certain point.

God then gave man a long time and an historical account of what that separation meant. (The centuries in the OT) A very lot of people lived it. (They're part of the "cloud of witnesses' the Lord inspired to be written about) During that account God showed man over and over what it could be like to be joined with Him. Man kept choosing to be separated. By and by God told man that He Himself would do something to unseparate man from Him since men are just not able to accomplish that because of Adam, and rejoin man with God for eternity. That would be the prophesies about Jesus. This is the beginning of the hints to us about justification.

When Jesus is born, He is as the Creed says and was prophesied about. And He, the perfect Man, did what we imperfect men could not do because He is God; In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. God came Himself and did it as He had said He would. He justified us in Him. Merely because He wanted to. But we have to believe that. We have to accept that. We must have faith in that belief that we are given the free gift of Grace (merely because He wanted to) that we did not deserve because of Adam. As scripture tells us, all were separated from God by one, Adam. And all who choose to, have joined with God because of One, Jesus.

Me, I'm just a 76 year old Christian who was born into a RC family. RC school. Altar boy. Priests in the family. Then I walked away and lived a carnal life. As a result one night as I contemplated suicide, the Lord dragged me out of that and set me on a path. It was an unforgettable experience. Part of that path led me all over the place. I was around 35-40 at that time. I read books by Christians. I even read the Mormon book. I read the bible. I listened to the bible. I prayed. I talked to Christians. Had bible studies with couples and with just other men. It has been a daily trip for me ever since and I've have fallen down very many times and been raised up again because I believe that just because I'm saved and my Spirit has been made alive in Christ, my flesh is weak. I hate it when I fail. That's why we die eventually. But as the end of the 23rd psalm says, "...I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever."

What do we see today? All over the world we see what it means to choose to be separated from God...to choose not to accept his free gift to us of Grace and join with Him by Christ. We have war, famine, murder, slavery, persecution, torture, starvation inter alia...all of the wickedness that is man who is separated from God. Some say why do all these bad things happen if God is a loving God? Well, it's because many are still separated from God because they refuse to choose Him, so they live a carnal and selfish life. That does not bode well for Christians. Why then do those who believe become victims of that separation...well the only answer to that is men still choose to be evil and they may kill you as a result. But the Lord says not to fear that death because we have eternal life with Him. I think the 23rd psalm hits that pretty good as far as I'm concerned.

Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. The Lord said these two commandments are the whole of the Law and the Prophets. Arguing about which denomination is the True Church or whether the Scripture is translated properly is not beneficial. (of course it is translated properly, but that's another conversation) That nit picking takes the focus off of the real Truth, the Light and the Way...which is our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Amen
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
I will say that we lived in several different homes while I was growing up and the best neighbor that we ever had by far was a Catholic man who went to Mass every day. He was a truly remarkable man who worked two full-time jobs for at least seven years and slept only 3-4 hours each night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Well, you're right, I could write down my 'journey' to the catholic faith but that's not the point of this post. In this video I present some facts that can make people reconsider their view of the Catholic Church.

Lets say that I want protestants to look at the facts and respond.
I watched the entire video and it was a pretty good presentation, especially due to your time constraints. There is much truth to what you say. insofar as we can determine. By that I mean that the Church from about 125-150 forward almost certainly looked more like today's Catholic Church (and EO and OO) than the Protestant ecclesiastical communities. However, writings are virtually non-existent prior to the 125-150 period, other than those in the New Testament. Hence, we cannot be certain that the 1st Century Christians resembled the Apostolic Churches more than the Protestants. They probably did in many respects, but not necessarily in all ways.

I am a rare Protestant who decades ago gave quite a bit of credence to the doctrine of Jesus' real body and blood being given in the Eucharist. I only began thinking about it seriously again a few months ago. Studying up on Judaism, I realize that I had forgotten my Old Testament and the very strong Jewish admonition against the consumption of blood. Hence, it seems extremely unlikely that the early Jewish followers of Jesus believed that they were drinking his blood and eating his body while they were celebrating the Eucharist/the Mass. Somehow, someway, the viewpoint that the wine and bread becomes his literal body and blood won out fairly early on, but we really cannot be certain that this was the 1st Century doctrine, especially among the Jewish Christians. Yes, Paul certainly seems to indicate that he believed this, though he only touched on it once directly, to the best of my recollection, and remember, he did not personally know Jesus. Also, Jesus very often taught in parables, in symbolism, so it is difficult to be certain what he meant when he talked about his body and his blood. The Didache, believed by many to be the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, is not specific as to the Eucharist and the debate about literal body and blood.

I do give much credit to the Apostolic Churches for the practice of praying for the dead. This is one of the weaknesses of Protestantism.

I commend you for your video and for sharing it. God bless you and peace be with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"1/ How was He to build a church on a man who would and did die?"

Are you aware of something called apostolic succession.. That was common in the early Church and also now !
That's why the all popes have the role of Peter given by Christ !
Nah,,, Don't agree with this.. Peter may have been a great disciple... no guarantee that even the next one was of the same character as any of the twelve.

I've seen too many businesses, built from the ground up, by intelligent hard working men... only to be destroyed, run into the ground, bankrupt and lose all credibility with even their own son's and daughters...

So.. no.... there is no confidence, for me, in "apostolic succession"....
Did we not see enough of how that goes when we read about all the kings of Israel?

"2/ If He did build a church on Peter... is it not everyone that believes what Peter taught.. which, by default, must be what Christ taught.. and thus the teaching that Christ died for the "world" not just those that follow Catholic rituals."

Jesus did die for the sins of the world yes. And ? What is the contradiction between that and the sacraments Jesus gave us ?

The contradiction is that RCC doesn't recognize any other church as matching their stature.... when in fact, the body of Christ is made up of ALL Christ's children. Not just the RCC.

All of these follow the teachings of Christ. Not anything to do with Peter's personal ideas.. but Christs teaching.

"3/ Christ did build His church on the foundation of the fact that He was the Christ and Son of the Living God...."

Yes, He is Christ and the Son of the living God and He is also the Head of the Church.

"Take this away and Christianity of any denomination falls to apostasy...Take Peter away and the truth of Christ still stands."

Well, if you are a protestant today it's only because of the existence of the Catholic Church.
Do not believe that "bible believing christians" were around since the time of the apostles.
It's not historically accurate to believe such a thing.
What you say is in no way an objection to the fact that Jesus founded a Church with Peter as the first pope.

Christ said He would send a "comforter" to us. That is the Holy Spirit... We have a direct line to Christ and the Holy Spirit living in us.. not the Pope... he is just a man.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But then ,as you know "roman catholic" is only a name others give to the church.
For us it is just "the one church"


Ignatius is using the word Catholic in its generic meaning--as universal and authentic. That is NOT a reference to the NAME or title assumed by any segment of Christ's church.

The meaning is the one that we all understand when, in the Creed, we affirm belief in the "one (holy) catholic and apostolic church."

We are not affirming there a belief in the Papal church when we say "Catholic" or the Pentecostal church which uses the word "Apostolic" for its denominational name when we speak that word.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Letters such as ignatius to smyrneans is before the date you cite in the era 100-110

And that is important, because ignatius and polycarp actually knew the aged John the apostle indeed they were his disciples! John clearly knew what he meant!

So when that letter speaks of a eucharist of the real flesh, valid only if performed or authorised by a bishop in succession, indeed the necessity of bishops as the conduit of faith, which was stressed by all the early authors of that generation, we are entitled to accept that as valid faith hdanded down. Tradition. Justin Martyr also says "flesh" although I accept, he came a little later.

It is also true that the Romans considered christians cannibals, who they were happy to torture to find out what went on in the secret rituals. It may have been a misunderstanding (romans regarding christians as cannibals) , but that misunderstanding was impossible unless the christians actually believed what they ate was real flesh.

Combine that with the fact that the word "eat" used in gospels did not mean "consume" it was specifically "gnaw" in the sense of meat. And since it is obvious John knew what his words in John 6 meant, and the teaching was passed from John to polycarp and ignatius, clearly their writings are not apostasy!

Just those definitions rule out many if not most protestant churches. And that also questions your supposition that somehow this was introduced during a void of documentation.



I watched the entire video and it was a pretty good presentation, especially due to your time constraints. There is much truth to what you say. insofar as we can determine. By that I mean that the Church from about 125-150 forward almost certainly looked more like today's Catholic Church (and EO and OO) than the Protestant ecclesiastical communities. However, writings are virtually non-existent prior to the 125-150 period, other than those in the New Testament. Hence, we cannot be certain that the 1st Century Christians resembled the Apostolic Churches more than the Protestants. They probably did in many respects, but not necessarily in all ways.

I am a rare Protestant who decades ago gave quite a bit of credence to the doctrine of Jesus' real body and blood being given in the Eucharist. I only began thinking about it seriously again a few months ago. Studying up on Judaism, I realize that I had forgotten my Old Testament and the very strong Jewish admonition against the consumption of blood. Hence, it seems extremely unlikely that the early Jewish followers of Jesus believed that they were drinking his blood and eating his body while they were celebrating the Eucharist/the Mass. Somehow, someway, the viewpoint that the wine and bread becomes his literal body and blood won out fairly early on, but we really cannot be certain that this was the 1st Century doctrine, especially among the Jewish Christians. Yes, Paul certainly seems to indicate that he believed this, though he only touched on it once directly, to the best of my recollection, and remember, he did not personally know Jesus. Also, Jesus very often taught in parables, in symbolism, so it is difficult to be certain what he meant when he talked about his body and his blood. The Didache, believed by many to be the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, is not specific as to the Eucharist and the debate about literal body and blood.

I do give much credit to the Apostolic Churches for the practice of praying for the dead. This is one of the weaknesses of Protestantism.

I commend you for your video and for sharing it. God bless you and peace be with you.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0
Oct 10, 2019
29
15
Ile de France
Visit site
✟8,225.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I watched the entire video and it was a pretty good presentation, especially due to your time constraints. There is much truth to what you say. insofar as we can determine. By that I mean that the Church from about 125-150 forward almost certainly looked more like today's Catholic Church (and EO and OO) than the Protestant ecclesiastical communities. However, writings are virtually non-existent prior to the 125-150 period, other than those in the New Testament. Hence, we cannot be certain that the 1st Century Christians resembled the Apostolic Churches more than the Protestants. They probably did in many respects, but not necessarily in all ways.

I am a rare Protestant who decades ago gave quite a bit of credence to the doctrine of Jesus' real body and blood being given in the Eucharist. I only began thinking about it seriously again a few months ago. Studying up on Judaism, I realize that I had forgotten my Old Testament and the very strong Jewish admonition against the consumption of blood. Hence, it seems extremely unlikely that the early Jewish followers of Jesus believed that they were drinking his blood and eating his body while they were celebrating the Eucharist/the Mass. Somehow, someway, the viewpoint that the wine and bread becomes his literal body and blood won out fairly early on, but we really cannot be certain that this was the 1st Century doctrine, especially among the Jewish Christians. Yes, Paul certainly seems to indicate that he believed this, though he only touched on it once directly, to the best of my recollection, and remember, he did not personally know Jesus. Also, Jesus very often taught in parables, in symbolism, so it is difficult to be certain what he meant when he talked about his body and his blood. The Didache, believed by many to be the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, is not specific as to the Eucharist and the debate about literal body and blood.

I do give much credit to the Apostolic Churches for the practice of praying for the dead. This is one of the weaknesses of Protestantism.

I commend you for your video and for sharing it. God bless you and peace be with you.

Thanks for your feedback on the video.
And thanks for the discussion we have together.

However I would not agree with you on what you say about the eucharist.
I think that it's very clear that the early Church believed about the real presence.

Because first, it's found in the sayings of Jesus in the Bible (even if many deny it).
-John 6:53 : « So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. »
-John 6:55 : « Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink. »

I mean it's pretty clear when you don't try to twist the scriptures to fit what you believe.
It's not a parable.
And we have the writing of the fathers of the Church that indicate that they believed in the mass as a sacrifice with Jesus in the eucharist being the lamb of the new covenant.

In 70 A.D : “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 )

And this one in 110 A.D :
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

I've tested the catholic Church in almost everything it teaches, listen to every criticism to know if it was the True Church founded by Jesus Christ. And now it seems pretty clear that if the Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world, it certainly not chance but by the will of God.

God bless you as well ;)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0
Oct 10, 2019
29
15
Ile de France
Visit site
✟8,225.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nah,,, Don't agree with this.. Peter may have been a great disciple... no guarantee that even the next one was of the same character as any of the twelve.

I've seen too many businesses, built from the ground up, by intelligent hard working men... only to be destroyed, run into the ground, bankrupt and lose all credibility with even their own son's and daughters...

So.. no.... there is no confidence, for me, in "apostolic succession"....
Did we not see enough of how that goes when we read about all the kings of Israel?



The contradiction is that RCC doesn't recognize any other church as matching their stature.... when in fact, the body of Christ is made up of ALL Christ's children. Not just the RCC.

All of these follow the teachings of Christ. Not anything to do with Peter's personal ideas.. but Christs teaching.



Christ said He would send a "comforter" to us. That is the Holy Spirit... We have a direct line to Christ and the Holy Spirit living in us.. not the Pope... he is just a man.

I've never said that we must follow Peter's personal ideas because sometimes he was wrong, I've never said that the comforter was the pope..
I showed you evidences that Peter was the Rock on which Jesus established his Church.
Can you respond to that ?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I've never said that we must follow Peter's personal ideas because sometimes he was wrong, I've never said that the comforter was the pope..
I showed you evidences that Peter was the Rock on which Jesus established his Church.
Can you respond to that ?
I didn't mean to imply that you stated any of those.. I was stating that Christ founded His church on the truth about the gospel.. not Peter. And, that succession of any authority, such as you indicated, will go south very quickly. Peter could be wrong, agreed. This is why the church was not founded on a mortal man.

The Holy Spirit... that is who Christ sent for us, not the pope. I did not mean to indicate that you believed that the comforter was the pope.

I have also shown evidences as to the proper translations which indicate the different words for "rock".
Christ did not speak Greek but the record of what He actually said and meant.. was recorded in Greek. The Greek meanings of the words are then valid.

I respect the views of the RCC. However, I do not hold to the view that they are "the" church.

Peter preached the gospel. The gospel is the truth of Christ.. which is what Christ built His church on.

Without Peter, the truth stands.. Without Christ, we are lost.

I don't think that it is right for any church denomination to assume that they are "The" church.
Salvation is from Christ. All Christian religions are man made methods of worshiping Christ. All have faults and errors....

We should strive for a relationship with Christ and accept our differences. We should be cognitive of groups that have views that are contrary to the teachings of Christ and avoid them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I've tested the catholic Church in almost everything it teaches, listen to every criticism to know if it was the True Church founded by Jesus Christ. And now it seems pretty clear that if the Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world, it certainly not chance but by the will of God.

God bless you as well ;)

I commend you on your loyalty to the RCC. It is always good to stand up for what you believe in.

However, the largest church is not the RCC.. The largest church is the body of Christ that includes all those that believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Saying that a denomination of the Christian religion, the RCC, is "right" due to it's numbers.. is like saying that truth is a democracy...

This is false.

All Christian religious denominations have errors and faults. Numbers don't mean correctness.

If you want to be technical... the largest church in the world... would be the church of Non Believers... They far out number any Christian Church..... Is that by the will of God?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
But then ,as you know "roman catholic" is only a name others give to the church.
For us it is just "the one church"
Can I ask, are those that are not RC, are they still children of Christ? Saved?
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
By that I mean that the Church from about 125-150 forward almost certainly looked more like today's Catholic Church (and EO and OO) than the Protestant ecclesiastical communities.
It was on its way to progressive deformation. You should read here .
However, writings are virtually non-existent prior to the 125-150 period, other than those in the New Testament. Hence, we cannot be certain that the 1st Century Christians resembled the Apostolic Churches more than the Protestants. They probably did in many respects, but not necessarily in all ways.
"Many respects" would also apply to certain cults, while the reality is that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
I only began thinking about it seriously again a few months ago. Studying up on Judaism, I realize that I had forgotten my Old Testament and the very strong Jewish admonition against the consumption of blood. Hence, it seems extremely unlikely that the early Jewish followers of Jesus believed that they were drinking his blood and eating his body while they were celebrating the Eucharist/the Mass.
They certain did not, and Peter at least would have protested at the thought of it, while to take the "words of consecration, "My body which is broken for you, My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:28) plainly literally as Catholics false claim they do, would mean the apostles would have been consuming the manifestly physical flesh and blood which was indeed bruised (Isaiah 53:10) and shed for us. And which John especially emphasizes, that of Christ come in the flesh, manifest in birth and in death, that came with water and blood (1 John 4:2,3; 5:6) "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 John 1:1

Which is set in contrast to a christ whose appearance and testable properties did not correspond to what he materially was, which is case with a Docetist and Gnostic christ, and that of the Eucharistic christ. See below.
Somehow, someway, the viewpoint that the wine and bread becomes his literal body and blood won out fairly early on,
Yet "literal" (or "actual," though used by some RCs) means that ordinary wheat (only: specified) and pure wine no longer exist at the uttering of the words of consecration by a properly ordained Cath. priest (only: specified) with their respective substances being replaced by those of the true body and blood of Christ to even the smallest particle ("under each and every portion" - Trent) of each respectively, even though by all material tests the hosts would be mere bread and wine (thus those with celiac disease have a problem with the non-existent bread) .

Moreover the true body and blood of Christm whole and entire, is really is present under the appearance of bread and or wine until the host manifests corruption, such as mold, or is reduced to fine particles. (Summa Theologiae > Third Part > article 4). At which point nothing exists according to the Catholic Eucharistic contrivance of the Lord supper. For while emphasis is placed upon appearance ("accidents") of the bread and wine, that it must appear as such in order for them to be the Lord's body and blood, yet contrary to the incarnation of Christ with His the true body and blood, appearance is rejected when in regard to this Eucharistic true body and blood, while yet claiming actually consume the same. Which is not the same as Christ being spiritually present in and with believers via His Spirit, which the only way He is after the resurrection.

but we really cannot be certain that this was the 1st Century doctrine, especially among the Jewish Christians.
They certainly did not, nor was the remembrance of the Lord's supper that of a priest daily offering up this body and blood of the Lord as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the flock as spiritual food.

The NT church never even had any pastors titled "priests" in regard to how the Greek word "hiereus" is often translated in Catholicism for clergy, which distinctive word only denotes a separate sacerdotal class, and thus in Catholicism it is used for those whose unique primary active function is [/FONT]that of confecting the Eucharist, turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food. But which Greek word the Holy Spirit never used for NT clergy, as all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood — hieráteuma — of the NT church And rather than a function of NT pastors being that of dispensing the Eucharist to the people as spiritual food, preaching the word was their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby (Acts 20:28)

Which feeding of the word is what said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) this being the believers spiritual food, by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
Yes, Paul certainly seems to indicate that he believed this, though he only touched on it once directly, to the best of my recollection,
In contrast to the ubiquity in Catholicism, Paul only mentions the Lord's supper in two epistles, as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 and in 1 Co. 10 and 11. In the former he teaches that the church is itself "one bread," and that fellowship with Christ by taking part in the LS is analogous to the pagans having fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts. Thus believers are forbidden to take part in these religious feasts (vs. family gatherings) lest they "have fellowship with devils."

In the next chapter Paul calls the elements "this bread," and "this cup" with both terms being representations, and with failure to recognize the church as being the body of Christ contextually being the sin. for while they were sppd to be showing/proclaiming the death of the Lord by which they became members of Christ, ,of the body He bought with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) yet they were feasting independently out of lust and ignoring others, shaming them that have not.

This is shown at length here , as part of the examination of the larger issue here , by the grace of God.
I do give much credit to the Apostolic Churches for the practice of praying for the dead. This is one of the weaknesses of Protestantism.
Rather, it is one of the strengths of Biblical faith. Nowhere in Scripture proper are the departed prayed for or to (except by pagans), despite over 200 prayers recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And while 2 Mac. 12:44-46 is invoked in support of it, this was an offering for those who died due to idolatry, which in Catholicism is a mortal sin which excludes hope of salvation if one dies in it. Which the text only shows these souls did. Nor does this 2 Mac. 12:44-46 support mythical RC Purgatory .

Instead, praying for the dead was a latter development among some Jews, flowing from paganism.

...it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world.. .

These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good.

The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background... It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. (The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using Free Online OCR)
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The first use of the term was not by the roman church at all, it was in an orthodox dialogue around 1200 it was not used before the reformation - I believe the last time the "roman catholic" church used the name of itself was in 1950 in a magisterial document? The phrase is used in ecumenical talks to avoid confusion. So demonstrates the church considers itself THE catholic church.

If that were indeed the case, the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't use the name ITSELF, which it certainly does.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The first use of the term was not by the roman church at all, it was in an orthodox dialogue around 1200 it was not used before the reformation - I believe the first time the "roman catholic" church used the name of itself was in 1950?
I guess the better question to ask is why Catholic laymen get their pants in a bunch over this. A number of other denominations have names/titles that were originally used by other people when speaking OF them, but these churches don't complain endlessly about it or talk as though there's some conspiracy against their churches.

In addition, if "Roman" were not used (as it is on the sign in front of the Catholic church nearest my home), the reference could be understood as applying to one of the other Catholic church bodies--Old Catholics, for example.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not your own interpretation but the one the Church had for 2000 years.

Oh, you mean someone else's interpretation. ;) And from the same people who, in spite of Gods commandment, interpret the bible to say we can bow to a graven image "Mother Mary" when it is specifically forbidden by God to bow to anyone other than him?


The Second Commandment reads:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,"

As to something being around for "2000" yrs meaning it must be right, the devil has been around much longer than that but an extended time frame doesn't make him right....never a good argument.

You see there are some definite problems with the Catholics interpretations/argumentsl, so I would think you can understand why others aren't in such a hurry to agree with you.

No. Did I say that ?

i didn't say you said that, I asked you if that is how you interpreted it? So, since you say it is not, can you please give us details on how you do interpret it? Just one for instance for those details...are any works necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you want to know what the church call itself , has always called itself read the catechism. Catechism of the Catholic Church

"CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"

Other pretenders have adopted the name since, but have scant justification to use it.
The "old catholic church" dates from 1850, which is present time in the context of two millenia.



I guess the better question to ask is why Catholic laymen get their pants in a bunch over this. A number of other denominations have names/titles that were originally used by other people when speaking OF them, but these churches don't complain endlessly about it or talk as though there's some conspiracy against their churches.

In addition, if "Roman" were not used (as it is on the sign in front of the Catholic church nearest my home), the reference could be understood as applying to one of the other Catholic church bodies--Old Catholics, for example.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If you want to know what the church call itself , read the catechism.
I know what the church calls itself. It uses both "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic." The legal name of the church in this country includes the word "Roman."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 10, 2019
29
15
Ile de France
Visit site
✟8,225.00
Country
France
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oh, you mean someone else's interpretation. ;) And from the same people who, in spite of Gods commandment, interpret the bible to say we can bow to a graven image "Mother Mary" when it is specifically forbidden by God to bow to anyone other than him?


The Second Commandment reads:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,"

As to something being around for "2000" yrs meaning it must be right, the devil has been around much longer than that but an extended time frame doesn't make him right....never a good argument.

You see there are some definite problems with the Catholics interpretations/argumentsl, so I would think you can understand why others aren't in such a hurry to agree with you.



i didn't say you said that, I asked you if that is how you interpreted it? So, since you say it is not, can you please give us details on how you do interpret it? Just one for instance for those details...are any works necessary?

For Mary, I'll direct you to my video about Mary for protestants ;)


I don't believe in sola scriptura that's for sure because it's not scriptural and because you can get the bible to say many things.. Just look at the 40 000 protestants denominations and the muslims, sects that has use the bible.
I believe in the interpretation of the Church (instituted bu Jesus Christ) which is the same interpretation that the first christians had.. Even those who wrote before the gospels were finished ! The first christians lived their faith like us, catholics.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.