Tell me exactly what part of the mass is that you so casually minimized since you seem to know so much. YOU tell me what you think is going on there. What exactly is happening at that moment?

Right... you have no clue. So politely I am going to say it again. You don't know what you are saying in reference to that moment in the mass. If you did you would understand the sacredness and your offensiveness.





 

Angelfire, do you not express your faith in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine? Is that not worship?

It's a publicly available photograph.  You're refusing to address the question by claiming butthurt.  But you refuse to explain why you're butthurt over a picture of your own religion's practices.  Lolz.

GTS.. do as I asked. Show me what you REALLY understand about that moment in the mass.





I believe in true presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.



Again: Please explain to me what exactly is happening at that part of the mass that you so casually mocked? What is happening right then? What words? Where did they come from?

Do you really know? What lead up to that part of the mass. What are we doing while that is going on? Where did it come from?



Do you mock the cross or the scripture as well?





 

It far more to those of my faith.



 

Maybe Angelfire will be less offended if I say I do not believe Jesus Christ is present in the wafer, therefore I will not worship the wafer. Whatever...

The bottom line is that the Eucharist is the most important part of the Roman Catholic Mass, yet there is no reference to it in the Book of Acts. That is a huge red flag.

Angelfire, I did not mock anything, I said I didn't believe Jesus was present in the wafer. If stating what I believe offends you, so be it.

And athey devoted themselves to the apostles' bteaching and the cfellowship, to dthe breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe5 came upon every soul, and emany wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and fhad all things in common. 45 And fthey were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, gattending the temple htogether and ibreaking bread in their homes, they received their food jwith glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and khaving favor with all the people. And the Lord ladded to their number mday by day those who nwere being saved.



Really? ACTS 2:42

Try again.



 

Proof-texting with a Chick-bot is like arguing with a traffic light.

You do not understand anything about what you indeed said. Honesty is respectable.
 

Ahh, the spirit of Roman Catholicism revealing itself.

Do I need special knowledge to understand it?

Considering how rudely and deliberately you've trolled this thread, you're hardly in any position to cast aspersions.  

So you are justified in insulting me?

Of course he is!  The best part - you get to spend eternity together.  

"Marks of the Uninformed."

Thanks for responding twire, however I would like to have heard a yes or no from you.
If I can go to heaven without being a catholic then what is the point of being one?
As I stated in an earlier post, the original church would be what some call Pentecostal, The church as started on the day of Pentecost operated in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
All other teachings such as the Eucharist, infant baptism, calvanism, to much other stuff to list came later.

Peter your first Pope had a stadium type street preaching ministry on the day of Pentecost and 3000 people came to the altar call!

Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. St. Augustine.


















 

Faith is not a light switch.

That is indeed a sad analogy and misses the point. But even humble light switch has to have a power source.



 

A poor anology if you like.  St Augustine lived in a pre-scientific age.  Belief is not something that one says,"I believe!" and thus it is so.  Belief in anything comes to one, or it does not.  Today, in the West, man requires evidence for belief.  I owe you money?  Show me a bill.  This car has 500 horsepower?  Show me the dyno test.  No one can make himself believe in something in which he does not believe.  In Augustine's age, he could get away with such sophistry, but to today's reader, understanding MUST come before belief.  One may wish to believe, can even pray to believe, but there is no way one can force himself to believe.

If you know the Church and reject it you will not be saved.
 

Hallelujah!  I won't be spending eternity w/ those folks.  Now where do I get the teatotalin' Baptists to sign up for this?  Is there a website I can send 'em to?

In the parables of the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus said they would come from the North and South, east and west and dine with Abraham while the children were out in the cold... the great commission of Jesus to the apostles was to make disciples of all the nations, so one of the marks of the Church of Jesus was precisely the global reach of this community. Historically, only the Catholic Church has actually reached the entire planet, whereas the Orthodox is a national/ethnic Church for the most part stuck in Eastern Europe and Russia and their ethnic diasporas, the Catholic Church has members from every continent, every language, every ethnic group.

But what else did Jesus tell us? He told us to heal the sick, cast out demons, and then preach the Good News. To this day, Catholics have continued to heal the sick and exorcise demons. By who's name and who's power do you suppose we cast them out? In the name of who do we do everything? How could Jesus not be merciful to Catholics if we pray to him and worship him and seek to do his will as best we can?

The thing that most amazes me is that Luther rejected Rome because (so it's claimed) he was 'scandalized' by all the sinners in Rome and so concluded that their sin was PROOF that the entire Church was wrong, that we just needed the bible alone (interpreted by wise doctors like himself of course). But later in his life he does not point to his own sin as any big problem because, see, He, Luther, "has faith". Suddenly in his case, it's faith alone saves and works are of no account - either works of virtue or works of vice.

Now.....how exactly is works of vice TERRIBLE and "proof" of total depravity when Catholics do it....but not at all a problem for Protestants? How can "faith alone" save Protestants but not Catholics? If Catholics were simply deluded into thinking we needed faith and love to be friends with Jesus, but really all we need is faith alone....wouldn't the merciful God save us despite thinking the bar was higher?

As it is though, while Our Lord did unequivocally call us to have faith and connect faith with healing and salvation, he ALSO commanded us to do many things and avoid other things and his talk of the final judgment, the wise or unwise virgins, the good or bad stewards, etc. all revolved around things we either choose to do or things we choose to not do. So from Jesus' own words and actions, it's not mere faith as an intellectual exercise that he was commanding but love, which is action of the will. Endurance in love and fidelity to the end....

As I contemplate my own mortality and I look at "just the bible" in light of the history of the past 2000 years, I can't help but see that all the early Church fathers and martyrs spoke in Catholic terms not "bible alone" terms. They wrote about bishops, priests and deacons. Consecrated women, vows, relics, and the Mass. The very men who ratified which books were "scripture" and which were merely letters, were bishops of this Church.

So if I want to be in communion with the historic Church founded by Jesus, and my current discipleship should match theirs.... then I need to find and then hold fast to the most original of view points....and that I find in the Catholic Church - warts and all. If I look I find warts in every OTHER group too. So sin proves nothing either way. If I accept the Bible as divinely inspired, then I must accept that the Church of the late 3rd century that ratified those books must have been guided by the Holy Spirit and thus must have had teaching authority.... by then they already had a creed and 7 sacraments etc. thus..... whatever they were, they weren't proto-protestants.

 

No, I'm using a dictionary definition of sophistry.  But interesting straw man.

In your opinion it is false. Present you scientific irrefutable evidence. ETA. I work in a high tech field where we are all science all day. It includes atheists whom while they do not believe, they seem to have a grasp of our constitution. They have been following. So this should be interesting.
 

Pretty much blasphemy to some of us.  Your church, my church or the deli down the street can't save anybody. Any church who thinks they speak for God is anti-christ.

I realize the original quote from the CCC was a little weighty for you, being all of three sentences, but go back and actually read it. I was providing a quick yes or no as requested by the post before.



Pretty much ignorance to some of us.





 

Worth a second posting



 

Actually, it's a very good analogy. One either believes, or does not believe, but belief cannot be switched on or off at will. Any reversal comes as a result of an epiphany, not from a conscious decision to switch.

Yet, Christians keep insisting that belief is a matter of choice, that an atheist could choose to believe God exists. I wonder how many Christians hold the opposite to be true, that they could choose to believe God does not exist.

Jesus answered them, ''Stop complaining among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and then I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught of God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes from Me-----not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is of God. He (Jesus; One) has seen the Father."


The Gospel of Saint John the Beloved
John 6: 43-46
Jesus Christ Pronounces Revelation: Who Has Seen the Father

It is not a matter of personal choice the way we generally look at such things concerning who enters in to God's kingdom and who does not. And strictly Biblically speaking, never has been either. Oops!

<><

At least not in the earth.
God respects no one according to the flesh or concerning our carnal way of thinking.
It is God's call through Jesus Christ, and who He gave to Him from the eternal realm; and no one else's even come hell or high water from a universal flood, or through the bombardment and cratering of several cites on the northeast side of the Dead Sea!
When Jesus breathed His last on the cross He said with a loud voice, "It is finished!"
And so it is. There are however, a few more details that still need sorting pertaining to salvation's sake and obtaining a certain number through God's grace toward all men.
And in this, it is still a great mystery to this very day!

We all have our crosses to bear.

 

You mean like ex-communication could be an "epiphany" which brings forth death?

The people in Germany had the prophet Isaiah just like we do now.
Jesus said, "Without Me you can do nothing."
So in this, can we make something out of nothing except what the human senses dictate?
What does the Bible state about this, and making any reference to a free will scenario concerning the "creation" of mankind?
We work as we have always worked, which is on a kingdom demand basis constantly.
In other words, God speaks and we move. It doesn't matter how or why that the sensuality of man doesn't witness to this very often.
But it is so all the same.
Don't believe it, then go get your Bible sista!

How can you walk away from something that you never had?

<><

<><

<><

<><

 

Biblically prove it.

Tell me that God does not take responsibility for all things.

<><

Correlation concerning a method of prophetic accuracy.