Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[NECRO] Catholics aren't Christians, and other myths (apologetics thread)

Thread Locked

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 6:02pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,287 posts

"Act 3:21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets."

How can his actual flesh and blood be transubstantiated when he must remain in heaven?

Wouldn't that mean that he isn't Omnipresent?

p.s. so there are no posts for days, I get back and all of the sudden there is a whole page for me to respond to.

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 6:50pm

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,675 posts

@hahiha responding to me: it's not dead, it's just rather obscure relatively speaking

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 8:40pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

5,012 posts

it's not dead, it's just rather obscure relatively speaking

The actual original following died off long ago, mainly wiped out by the influence of the RCC. About 300 years ago, restorationist groups started popping up claiming to follow the ways of Jesus and the early church more directly.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 10:11pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

for your second point, Jesus said His Church is of the living, not the dead (might of used a different term), and when we pray to the saints, we are asking them, in the same way that you would ask your neighbor, to pray for us to God, since they are already in Heaven they are closer to God.

But God being omnipresent, that wouldn't matter. Besides, the verse that I mentioned earlier, the saint who was bowed to by John - how could you explain what he said?

Something that was caused because corrupt sinners got into positions of authority, and was abolished after the council of Trent (Catholic reformation or whatever it is called).

I believe I heard that transubstantiation was officially first practiced in the 1200's, during the Dark Ages... Interesting.

When Jesus said "This is my Body" he performed the very first transubstantiation, when he said to do so in memory of Him, he meant for the apostles (and their successors) to do so in the exact same manner. Saying the Eucharist is not required is also unbiblical, as Jesus said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have life within him."

He also said, "I am the vine," and "I am the door." Perhaps it was a metaphor?

It could go the other way too - if it was a metaphor, he basically said if you don't take part in communion or remember the last supper (which was the main purpose of it - in rememberance of him) you would have no part with him.

Just like he, as a door, is the only one to the Father, apart from the saints or from Mary. He is how you are forgiven, and who you pray to.

Wouldn't that mean that he isn't Omnipresent?

Wait, so his body is everywhere?

Keep in mind that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are as apart from each other as they are together - yes, God is omnipresent, but in body he is not everywhere. Jesus only came several thousand years after the Creation, perhaps the first physical embodiment of God himself up to that point.

As for Mary being sinless, that is Church Doctrine, and we can believe it because of 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 15, "the Church is the pillar and foundation (ground) of truth."

Yes, but what is the proof or logic that Mary was sinless? Certainly it must have been stated in the Bible if it were true, otherwise we might as well assume it to be false.

As for Mary being sinless, that is Church Doctrine, and we can believe it because of 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 15, "the Church is the pillar and foundation (ground) of truth." Matthew chapter 18 verses 17 and 18, which shows the church in position of authority and gives it power to bind and loose things (like beliefs), Jesus also said in the petra vs petros verse that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, indicating that the only Church that has existed from Peter up till now (THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) is the one true church.

Again, how does this relate? It sounds like you're basing your fact mostly on the fact that the Catholic church (apart from the Church that is the Bride of Christ itself) is true in all, which is not the assumption we're making here, and is even what we're trying to prove with or against.

The Catholic Church was created many years in advance after the last book was written. Peter was indeed the rock, the foundation of the church, but what church would it be referring to? Matthew 18:20 states that anyone who gathers in Jesus' name is part of the Church.

And in case we get confused, the Catholic Church is translated as the Universal Church, yes? So in that case, given that there was no denominational church during that period, yes, it was the Catholic Church. However, the beliefs had changed over time - like, for example, the church tax, or the transubstantiation, or praying to Mary.

Matthew 18:17-18 refers to personal asset, not the church in the whole, I believe. In the last verse, it talks about the Church, but in context it is speaking of quarrels and their resolve.

Before you complain about the "idols" in Churches that we "worship", the statues are there to help us recall Jesus, Mary and every other person (Peter, Paul, St. Francis, St. Dominic, and others) that the Church has deemed fit to use as a model.

I don't deny that; they are for remembrance, and I respect that - just like the cross, or the painting of the Last Supper, or the fish. I do not believe the doctrine of praying to them that backs it.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 11:00pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

When Jesus said "This is my Body" he performed the very first transubstantiation, when he said to do so in memory of Him, he meant for the apostles (and their successors) to do so in the exact same manner. Saying the Eucharist is not required is also unbiblical, as Jesus said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have life within him."

So you believe you're preforming actual cannibalism through magical means rather than just ritualistic cannibalism?

 

Posted Oct 16, '12 at 2:45am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

3,675 posts

The actual original following died off long ago, mainly wiped out by the influence of the RCC. About 300 years ago, restorationist groups started popping up claiming to follow the ways of Jesus and the early church more directly.

No. I guess it's kinda hard to follow because the church of the bible is not a denomination, they are independent of other churches for their beliefs. The church of which I speak is "the" "church of Christ" but as I said, nondenominational so you can't judge all of them by what one or two of them believe, there are many churches with that name ( and it doesn't have to be that exactly, it could be something like "Christ's church") that have very different views which can make them harder to trace. Some follow the bible very strictly and others don't. But they are around, and I'm sure (in my mind) that there have always been at least one church like that since Jesus' death

 

Posted Oct 16, '12 at 10:12am

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,287 posts

I believe I heard that transubstantiation was officially first practiced in the 1200's, during the Dark Ages... Interesting.

oh really

But God being omnipresent, that wouldn't matter. Besides, the verse that I mentioned earlier, the saint who was bowed to by John - how could you explain what he said?

The bowing implies worship, and we do not worship the saints.

He also said, "I am the vine," and "I am the door." Perhaps it was a metaphor?

It could go the other way too - if it was a metaphor, he basically said if you don't take part in communion or remember the last supper (which was the main purpose of it - in rememberance of him) you would have no part with him.

Liturgical remembering

When we “remember” Jesus at the Eucharist, we are not simply recalling past events; liturgical remembering makes us present to the event. Notice how the word remember is used in the crucifixion account in Luke’s Gospel: When one of the criminals crucified with Jesus asked him to “remember me when you come into your kingdom” he wasn’t asking Jesus simply to “think about him” as we might remember people that we met on vacation last summer. He was asking the Lord to remember him in the biblical/ liturgical sense of the word. He was asking to be remembered, that is, to become really present in heaven with Jesus. We can see that this is how Jesus understands remembering. Jesus responds, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:42-43; italics added).

source

I don't deny that; they are for remembrance, and I respect that - just like the cross, or the painting of the Last Supper, or the fish. I do not believe the doctrine of praying to them that backs it.

If you were sick, would you ask your neighbor to pray for you, and would he do so, the answer is almost always yes.

That is what we are doing when we pray to the saints, asking them to ask God on our behalf.

Again, how does this relate? It sounds like you're basing your fact mostly on the fact that the Catholic church (apart from the Church that is the Bride of Christ itself) is true in all, which is not the assumption we're making here, and is even what we're trying to prove with or against.

The Catholic Church is the only church able to claim descent all the way from the apostles, and most doctrines are tied to the bible.

Yes, but what is the proof or logic that Mary was sinless? Certainly it must have been stated in the Bible if it were true, otherwise we might as well assume it to be false.

The Pope is infallible, meaning he has the Holy Spirit to guide him to prevent him from making mistakes (in matters of faith and morals), this goes back to the "gates of hell not prevailing" and what he declares to be true for faith and morals, we accept on the principle of infallibility. more on infallibility

No. I guess it's kinda hard to follow because the church of the bible is not a denomination, they are independent of other churches for their beliefs. The church of which I speak is "the" "church of Christ" but as I said, nondenominational so you can't judge all of them by what one or two of them believe, there are many churches with that name ( and it doesn't have to be that exactly, it could be something like "Christ's church") that have very different views which can make them harder to trace. Some follow the bible very strictly and others don't. But they are around, and I'm sure (in my mind) that there have always been at least one church like that since Jesus' death

I have a question, do you believe in Sola Scriptura, if so, can you explain the differing beliefs of Martin Luther and today's protestants?

So you believe you're preforming actual cannibalism through magical means rather than just ritualistic cannibalism?

I am not sure quite how to explain it, but I can tell you, the Eucharist is not cannibalism, because we are not actually consuming his actual flesh in the way a cannibal does, but in the forms of bread and wine.

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Oct 16, '12 at 10:30am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

I am not sure quite how to explain it, but I can tell you, the Eucharist is not cannibalism, because we are not actually consuming his actual flesh in the way a cannibal does, but in the forms of bread and wine.

Transubstantiation is where that bread and wine literally turns into blood and flesh. Even if it doesn't that is what it's meant to represent which would still make it ritualistic cannibalism. And of course what's so cannibalistic about eating someone's flesh.

 

Posted Oct 16, '12 at 12:04pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

I am not sure quite how to explain it, but I can tell you, the Eucharist is not cannibalism, because we are not actually consuming his actual flesh in the way a cannibal does, but in the forms of bread and wine.

What MageGrayWolf said... The literal definition of transubstantiation is when the wine and bread turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus.

The bowing implies worship, and we do not worship the saints.

Did you read my earlier link?

And like I mentioned a couple of times already, if God is omnipresent, why wouldn't you just pray to him?

If you were sick, would you ask your neighbor to pray for you, and would he do so, the answer is almost always yes.

That is what we are doing when we pray to the saints, asking them to ask God on our behalf.

I acknowledge the first point. I prayed for a friend of mine the other day.

But praying for and praying to are two entirely different things. You don't necessarily pray for God; you pray to Him. Praying through is practically the same thing. Also, read my point above.

The Catholic Church is the only church able to claim descent all the way from the apostles, and most doctrines are tied to the bible.

That means nothing. Either way, both sectors of denominations are Christians and follow what the Apostles have taught (apart from the book of Maccabees, who never actually saw Jesus, I'm fairly certain).

The Protestants do not claim to add anything that might be apart from what the Bible teaches, for example, transubstantiation, or praying to the saints.

The Pope is infallible, meaning he has the Holy Spirit to guide him to prevent him from making mistakes (in matters of faith and morals), this goes back to the "gates of hell not prevailing" and what he declares to be true for faith and morals, we accept on the principle of infallibility. more on infallibility

The Holy Spirit does that for all of us. And as I've stated before, if a human is truly infallible, wouldn't he be on par with God?

"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD." - Romans 3:23

Notice the keywords all, fall short, and how it doesn't mention the saints, Mary, or the Pope at the end. Even the Angels aren't perfect.

Also:

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." - 1 Timothy 2:5

Same with the previous verse.

Reference. Also mentions the praying to the saints and how praying for a friend isn't the same.

 

Posted Oct 16, '12 at 7:10pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

The Holy Spirit does that for all of us. And as I've stated before, if a human is truly infallible, wouldn't he be on par with God?

Looking back, it seems as though I misunderstood the meaning of 'infallible.' Redo.

Perhaps, but it was also a pope who declared the church should be a tax. Popes are human like the rest of us, and can be just as fallible as the rest of us. I suppose if he truly sticks to the word and is accountable to other people, he may remain mostly infallible, but in terms of corruption he is still fallible.