Racism is alive and well. Don’t forget that.

I guessing that heavy people and people who have a lot of kids are two groups who commonly encounter prejudice in our society.

Jimmy, would you kindly elaborate on the “prudent caution” you mention, and how it is not racist or xenophobic? I’ve been trying to understand it and explain it, as well, and the closest parallel I can draw is IRA activities in the United Kingdom. Thank you!

Anti-immigrant prejudice is alive and well in this country, in my opinion

People who speak with a southern, mountain, or country accent are often sterotyped as being stupid or at the very least ignorant.

I would also echo the statements about the obese and anyone who takes Christianity seriously in urban areas.

People who attack our church tend to not a have a grasp on our beliefs. They lash out because of lies they have been told about us: like statue worshiping, transubstantiation, saints etc. I would love for them to listen to listen to Jimmy, Patrick, Tim and company on Catholic answers before making slashes at our beliefs that Jesus himself left us. I feel that this will always take place in our societies because protestant preachers make there living of of instilling fear about the catholic church. If they ceased doing so their paychecks would stop coming in. My hats off to Tim Staples who had the courage to see the light.

I would just say a white guy. One of popular media’s favorite scapegoats. It’s astounding what you can say about a white guy on TV that you can’t say about anyone else.

Attitudes of severe anti-flatulence are still alive and well in the (supposedly) “tolerant” U S of A. I’m not sure how you can legislate a food pyramid that’s high in roughage and NOT do something to address the bigotry and ridicule that result from it, but then I’m not FLOTUS.

Certainly age discrimination exists in the work place.

I have to say that I disagree for once with Jimmy.

The NY Times never tried to take down the leaders of evangelicalism, such as Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, or Rick Warren as they have gone after Benedict or chastized the Church for its position on birth control, abortion, sterilization, etc.

This past year it was all out war on the pope in the Times, with false stories, distortions, and lies.  In fact, I used Jimmy’s blogs to defend the pope in other papers and other blogs.

Also, racism might still be alive, but it’s not socially acceptable in the mainstream.

Attacking the Church IS acceptable, as we see it in commericals, sitcoms, political cartoons- even “Catholic” “journalists” like Maureen Dowd make a living off of attacking the Church.

Generally, I see the Muslims getting a pass. I see my atheist bloggers elsewhere defending the Muslim’s right to their religion and “diversity,” but they turn around and slam anything they realize is remotely connected to Christianity and ESPECIALLY Catholicism.

Yes, I agree with the good bishop, anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice BECAUSE it is mainstreamed in this country like no other bias.  AND he’s on the front lines, HE ought to know.

I completely agree with liseux, “anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice BECAUSE it is mainstreamed in this country like no other bias.”

Sure racism and anti-Evangelicalism and other prejudices are present in our country, but none of them seem to be as socially acceptable and mainstreamed as anti-Catholicism.

“militant atheists”

Physician, heal thyself.

I would say ageism is a big one.We don’t value and honor the elderly as much as some cultures do or did. And of course there is a rampant discrimination of the rights of the unborn.

There is no segment of our world population that isn’t made fun of by some other segment. it is a universal human failing, the tendency to ridicule anyone who is ‘not-us’. So, everybody’s going to be zapped by someone. So no prejudice will ever be ‘the last one’.

However, anti-religious prejudice is still the worst one.

Anti-Catholic prejudice is still alive and still fashionable, as other prejudices are not, (diversity, you know) for different and darker reasons.

The Catholic Church goes against prized freedoms (the freedom to divorce, to contracept and abort, and engage in whatever sexual perversion suits one), in a way most Protestant churches no longer do. Why waste time going after someone who isn’t a threat, who keeps appeasing and accommodating?

So, Catholics and such Christians and other serious believers as stand with us in the moral sphere, will retain most-favored target, as long as our culture keeps to its current path.

Anti-Catholicism is fully justified.  The Catholic church has 1700 years of treachery as part of her legacy.  Study history and you will find that she helped the Muslims destroy the Eastern Orthodox.  She has forged documents to prove the Papacy, such as Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.  Also most of the Hagiography is a forgery.  The Inquisition, the persecution of the Huguenots, the communist Maryknolls in Central America,  the pedophilia scandal, doctrinal flip flops,  the scandal with indulgences, etc.  The Catholic Church is sending millions to Hell and the poor sheep, who are too lazy to study theology and history are on the road to damnation.  This is why a wise man or women would flee the Catholic church as quickly as possible.

I have to say that I disagree with liseux, who posted as a comment: “The NY Times never tried to take down the leaders of evangelicalism, such as Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, or Rick Warren.” The NY Times has gone after many leaders of evangelicalism, liseux is just picking names of leaders who haven’t been taken down. When feeling under attack, it’s easy to get hooked into the victim ranking game, where my group always ranks as the top victim.

Catholics like to point out that there a some Protestant denominations that are pro-abortion and pro-divorce.  These are the liberal Protestant denominations that are in rapid decline.  The majority of Protestants are absolute pro-life and pro-marriage and against the abortive aspects of the pill.  So the RCC likes to set up strawmen arguments and play the victim to appeal to its sympathetic tone. Fact is that 33% of priests are homosexuals.  Fact is that in the Old Testament a homosexual priest would have to be stoned.  A homosexual Evangelical Pastor would be removed from office, while in the Catholic church he gets reassigned.  The sheep are being led to slaughter by the Catholic church.  The Bible says,‘My people perish for lack of knowledge’.  If you can’t theologically refute an Evangelical Protestant than you are person who lacks in knowledge and will perish for you ignorance.  This life is a test and if you neglect theology and history you will be judged for your willful ignorance and laziness.

Okay, Lambie, give us the names of the evangelical leaders that the NY Times has taken down and who have suffered great loss because of the Times’s vicious anti-evangelical attack on him or her.

Add prolifers and Conservative women to your list.

freddy, If you let Christ into your heart, you won’t feel such a desire to bait Catholics with misinformation, but rather joy and a very strong willingness to be His instrument. God bless you. I wish you every happiness. Peace, brother.

“Fact is that 33% of priests are homosexuals.”  I have not seen that fact from an objective, credible source.

I was thinking the same thing, Ray.

Freddy, do you have the source for that bit of information?

Anti-Catholicism is most evident in Freddy’s misinformed responses.  Where did you learn your history, Freddy?  By whose authority are you sure that it is correct?  You are woefully misinformed.  How you paint with such a broad brush condemning a whole people.  Suggestion…Prove it, Freddy!  Do you want to learn true history?  Start with the early Church fathers.  If you desire to know the REAL TRUTH.  Your bias is stopping YOU from learning the Truth.  May Christ lead you to his Truth.

Enormous prejudice against the disabled.  From “preventing” birth defects by killing the unborn baby, to justifying euthanasia and suicide on account of “life not worth living”.  Perfectly acceptable to sit at a dinner party and announce you’d rather be dead than live with significant disability.  (Been there, heard that, from otherwise serious Christians.  More than once.)  And those are just the big things.

Anti-Semitism is going strong in American liberal media like no one’s business.

Does it seem to anyone else that people are prejudiced against those they see as threatening - rightly or wrongly? Those that threaten our lives, our freedoms, or our lifestyle - in our opinion - are demonized. Me, I’m prejudiced against bad spellers, because sooner or later they are going to cause me to have a stroke.

Joy, can you give some pertinent and current examples?  Is anyone trying to unseat any chief rabbis with innuendo, false accusations, and cherry picking of facts?

Are newspaper editorials devoted to attacking Jewish doctrine? 

Fill me in, please.

Prejudice has always been around—they say it is ignorance—yet with so many college educated people in the world today, it is still around. I remember a “nice Catholic lady” met my mother and very nicely told my mother that she should put her eldest ‘retarded’ daughter in a State Mental Hospital, “because you have no life caring for her”. (one of many remarks) I had never seen my mother so angry. Yes, Italian, Poles, Czeks, Irish, etc.  were “put through the mill” when they came over in the late 1800’s early 1900’s (these people built this country) and it still goes on. A lot of it has to do with education in our colleges. As far as Black prejudice, the big shots like Rev. Sharpton, Rev. Jackson, etc. keep this alive. How else can they earn a living. Wonder what church they minister to. Yes, the elderly, stout people, handicapped people, anyone who is different is discriminated against.  Unfortunately this discrimination also comes from good Christian, Jewish & any other religius people.

As an aside, for some reason, THE CRUSADES keep coming to mind. Hmmmmm, I wonder if it is because anti-Catholicism is growing and growing in the world.

My own odd little experiences.

1. White, hetereosexual, males can be tossed around like no ones business.  Would that be prejudice, reverse discrimination, or misplaced White guilt?

2. People who are anti-illegal aliens are fine with immigration, immigration reform, and amnesty clauses; but they get lumped into xenophobes. (Illegal activities increase the activities of drug, sex, and force labor trafficking.)

3. Very odd but true: in various New Age/spiritualist communities (LeVay) Satanism is permitted but not Neo-Nazis.  So hating the world or Christianity is OK, but touching the Jews is intolerable.

Alex,
Anti illegal immigrant is the bias not anti immigrant.

This is kind of funny.  You managed to overlook the one religious group who is most regularly targeted for violence on account of their religion.

Was that because historically the Catholic Church has been the biggest anti-Semite bigot of them all?

The key modifier here is ‘socially acceptable’, peeps.  Yeah, there are lots of prejudices going, but which ones can one openly state in public, in the papers, on TV, etc. and face virtually no criticism (save only from the targeted group).

Thank you, Elijah. You have pointed out a key fact.

“People who speak with a southern, mountain, or country accent are often sterotyped as being stupid or at the very least ignorant.”

I can certainly attest to that. I live in the mountains of western North Carolina, and I am always amazed at the number of people who assume that we all fit the “hillbilly” stereotype. I have been on the web for about 12 years now, and I have also met quite a few people from European countries who automatically assume that because I am southern, I am a racist card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Like Jimmy, I am also a convert to Catholicism (former Baptist). Try that in a part of the country where there is an average four Baptists churches in one square mile. You are looked on with suspicion, anger, resentment, and a plethora of amature evangelists trying to “save your soul”.

Having lived through the televangelist scandals, and the pedophilia scandals, I think it should be apparent to anyone that there is a lot of anti-Christian bias and sentiment expressed in the mainstream media, and even in the networks programming as well.

Good point, Elijah.

I would say there is a lot of prejudice against home schooling families as well.

@Steve—lucky you living in the mts. of NC—beautiful there—and you are right, I lived in W.Va for 30 yrs and have heard it all. Here is another story. My son joined the Lutheran Church, NC—he and his wife were friends with the asst. Pastor. She gave the sermon one Sun. and told the congregation that Catholics worship Mary. After service my son approached her and said “Linda, you just told your whole congregation a big lie, Catholics do not worship Mary they HONOR Mary—Sometimes people say things without thinking, but it is in their sub-conscious.
Also @ Helena, yes, some people are prejudiced against home schoolers. Well, I guess we should be all more accepting of “differences” and also not as sensative about some things. Who knows—I am glad I lived in 5 different States, better outlook about things.

Figurative and metaphorical language has its place, but in a discussion of religious and irreligious people, it is unfair to apply the term “militant” to atheists like “Richard Dawkins and his crowd.” Militants are the ones who fly planes into buildings and blow themselves and others to smithereens in public places.  Militants show up with guns and tanks to get you off the land God promised to them thousands of years ago.  Militants commit and condone genocide.  As far as I know Dawkins is a writer and a talker.  But he keeps his sword sheathed even as he denies Christ. I propose ardent, strident, or outspoken as adjectives better suited to precede the term atheist.

(from elijah)“The key modifier here is ‘socially acceptable’, peeps.  Yeah, there are lots of prejudices going, but which ones can one openly state in public, in the papers, on TV, etc. and face virtually no criticism (save only from the targeted group).”

(from mary elizabeth) “Does it seem to anyone else that people are prejudiced against those they see as threatening - rightly or wrongly?”

These are indeed two key points. While there are many non-Catholic Christians, Jews and others of faith who are pro-traditional values too, as far as the ‘Public Square’ is concerned, they are much less of a threat. They are perceived as small, and mostly talking to each other unless and until they make a big public noise, like the Mormons who were vilified when they stood up to fight same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church is the MSM’s and current administration’s “Big Bad”, perceived as powerful and active; a threat, and therefore a publicly acceptable target.

When I was a boy, I was taught that bigots (who, of course, lived ONLY in the south) were nasty people who were so stupid as to hate Negroes, Jews and Catholics.
Some time when I was not looking, Catholics were declared fair game. (Or is that “again”?)
Skygor, I do not know what “New Age communities” you mean. Most of the neo-pagans I have encountered are eager to establish their anti-Satanist credentials. It is a matter of the pecking order, and gets uncomfortably close to “Go get THEM, not US, they’re the REAL devil-worshipers.” (And that is LaVey, not “LeVay”.)

Gosh, I’m sick of people misusing the term racism-even my textbooks do it.
Racism is an official policy of a government towards a particular racial group(s). “White Austrailia” (exclusion of non-white immigrants to Austrailia and forced assimilation of Aborigines), Jim Crow laws, and apartheid are examples of racism.
Governemnt eugenics movements are sometimes, but not always, racist. For example, the eugenics experiments of Nazi Germany weren’t racist (making them no less despciable, but you call a spade a spade, not a spatula) because they focused on those of different social groups (gays), religions (Jews), ethnicities (Romas, Slavs, Jews-because they are Semitic, along with some Ethiopians and Arabs). All groups listed are just some of the groups used for “experiments” btw.
People often confuse racism with xenophobia, prejudice, bigotry, bias, and discrimination against others.
Prejudice against an foreigners (immigrants are frequently the ones targeted) is xenophobia. Feelings of hostility, hatred amd treating those people differently is showing bias and being bigoted while discriminating. Racial discrimination and racism are not synonymous. An individual can discriminate-find the supposed differences between the races, but can’t engage in racism. An institution of the government that practices racial discrimination is racism-a system based on race. Individuals don’t have an official system of discrimination based on race. We would discriminate either through our mind subconsciously or through learned ideas. It just comes and goes as we see fit. 
Ethnic discrimination sometimes is racism-but many times different ethinicites are part of the same racial group as the group doing the discriminating. e.g. French discriminating against Poles, both Caucasian groups with white skin. or Germans against Czechs-again both groups are white and Caucasian. However, whites residing in South Africa practiced racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination-the blacks weren’t the same race or ethnicity as the white Afrikaaners, British, or German South Africans. Indians also are a different ethnicity than the white South Africans.

To my accusers that say I am not educated.
Read the church fathers in their original, not the cherry picked sayings from Jurgens and you will find they are much more Protestant than Roman Catholic.

Church history read ALL of Schaff, Pelikan, Frend, and Cairns.  So I am FULLY informed and will debate anyone on this site.

The problem is that poorly educated Catholics are the first to make bigoted remarks to defend their lack of scholarship.

Homosexuality in the Catholic clergy is taken from : http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

The statement about anti-Catholicism is absolutely meaningless.  Was the early church anti-Arian, anti-Pelagian, anti-Nestorian.  Of course it was because the church fathers understood the errors in those theological systems.  Now fast forward to the Reformation and the reformers become anti-Catholic for they understand the errors of Romanism. 

Unfortunately most people think with feeling instead of their head and this is why the majority are sucked into cults of one type or another.  As the Paul said, ‘Heresies must come to show who is genuine’.  The Catholic Church is an institution that collects heretics.

After more than 2,000 years the One True Church, that would be the Roman Catholic Church, that Christ started and built on the Rock, that is Peter, the first Pope, still stands, the gates of hell will not prevail against it, go figure!

Go figure that many of the church fathers and the Eastern Orthodox stated that the rock is a reference to Peter’s faith confession and not Peter himself.  Josh you prove that you did not read the church fathers or any historical books.  I guess you support my thesis that people are too lazy to read anything other than the Catholic revisionist sources.  Looks like you got sucked into a cult without even realizing it.

Can you provide that quote for us Freddy. Please quote “many” of those Church fathers.

It would be interesting to know which Church father would say that the “rock” is only Peter’s “faith confession” and not Peter (rock) himself.

Looks like you got sucked into some man-made teachings without even realizing it.

P.S. If you’re going to quote Tertullian or Origen, please use quotes from their orthodox periods.

Liseux, It looks like you found quotes from Tertullian and Origen on your own.  Do the same with Eusebius, and then read how Augustine switched his position from the Catholic position to the Protestant position and claimed that Christ was the Rock not Peter.

Here is a nice quote from Pelikan.

Pelikan provides this overview of the Eastern Church’s understanding of the rock and Peter in Matthew 16:16–19:

  The identification of the gates of hell with the great heresies of the second, third, and fourth centuries was generally accepted. Against these gates of hell not only the apostle Peter, but all the apostles, especially John, had successfully contended with the authority of the word of God. Indeed, the power of the keys conferred upon Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:19 was not restricted either to him or to his successors on the throne of Old Rome; all the faithful bishops of the church were imitators and successors of Peter. They had this status as orthodox adherents of the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:16: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By attaching the promise in the following verses to that confession it was possible to admonish orthodox believers to ‘run to the faith…of this immovable rock…and let us believe that Christ is both God and man.’ The unshakable foundation of the church was the rock that was Christ, but at the same time Peter could be called ‘the foundation and support of our faith.’ He was this, however, principally because of his confession, which was repeated by all true believers. It was a polemical extension of this general Greek tendency when a later treatise, falsely ascribed to Photius, stated flatly that the rock in Christ’s promise was the confession of Peter rather than his person.
  Thus Peter was the foundation of the church, so that whoever believed as he believed would not go astray. But for most Greek theologians Peter was above all ‘the chief of the theologians’ because of his confession. All the titles of primacy, such as foundation and basis and ‘president of the disciples,’ pertained to him as trinitarian theologian. The church was to be built on the rock, on Christ the cornerstone, on which Peter, as coryphaeus of the disciples of the Logos, had also been built—‘built that is by the Holy and divine dogmas.’ Primacy belonged to Peter on account of his confession, and those who confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God, as he had, were the beneficiaries of the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church built on the rock (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 160-161).

Looks like you are getting lied to your friendly Catholic apologists, who are just wolves in sheeps clothing.

So based on the previous quote from Pelikan and quotes from the church fathers, anti-Catholicism is 100% justified.  Catholics are historical and theological revisionists.

Looks like freddy needs a Saul to St. Paul type conversion.  I’ll be praying to St. Paul for his intercession for you, freddy! Quite a pharisee!

A cursory Google search turned up some articles about anti-semitism becoming politically acceptable in recent years.  I do encourage you to search for yourself, though.

http://newsbusters.org/?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/12/anti-semitic-violence-doubled-2009-media-mostly-mum

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2009/01/politically-correct-anti-semitism-in.html

http://old.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/chesler200311250905.asp

http://cifwatch.com/2010/08/01/white-liberals-and-politically-correct-racism/

Whenever there is a blog post perusing the idea of anti-Catholicism being the last acceptable prejudice, somebody like freddy always posts and illustrates how rabidly ugly anti-Catholicism can be, and how its underpinnings generally are based on misinformation. I don’t see how freddy, with his desperate hatred and cherry-picking Bible quotes, revisionist Christian history and self-appointed absolute authority, could feel that he is making protestantism an attractive option for the Catholic readers here.

Freddie,

Both Christ and Peter are the rock, and I’ll quote for you the Church Father himself, rather than a scripture “scholar.”

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kindgom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?’”
On Prescription against Heretics 22, ANF 3:253

Freddie, this is one of the EARLIEST references by the Church fathers as Peter being the rock upon which the Church was built. Odd, I see no allusion or reference to his “confession.”  Seems like that’s a Protestant addition!

Julie,
My experience is that most Catholics are willfully ignorant. They refuse to properly investigate Christianity, history, or the church fathers and as such will have a very serious judgment waiting.  God will show that it is pure EVIL to be willfully ignorant. 

The quote by the church fathers and Pelikan speaks for itself. Peter was NOT the rock and the Keys where also given to the other apostles.

I believe Tertullian might be referring to those who wish to take away Peter’s authority here. Could this be you, Freddie, or those in your church who are in opposition to Peter? 

“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock will I build my church,’ ‘to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom’; or, ‘Whatsover you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens’ (Matthew 16:16-18), you, therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to your, that is every church akin to Peter; what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring [as that intention did] this personally upon Peter?

‘On you,’ He says, ‘will I build my church’; and “I will give to you the keys’ not to the church; and ‘Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound.”

Tertullian is very clear here. The Church built upon Peter. I see no mention of his confession…... anywhere.

As for Augustine, he can take a both/and postion. The rock is both Christ and Peter. Don’t we all get our strength from God?  I do not power myself, nor did Peter.

Augustine a Protestant?  Only if Protestant offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass until their dieing day.

Just happy to know that I can share in the Victim Mentality by just being a Catholic! Been left out so long by being a White Heterosexual Male.

The last Tertullian quote is from “On Modesty, Chapter 21, ML. 2, 1024” taken from “The Teachings of the Church Fathers,” by John R. Willis

Read the later Augustine and you will find he is totally Protestant.

@ freddy:

A quote from Lutheran scholar Pelikan hardly sustains your hypotesis.

Most prostestant apologists, obviously, share Pelikan interpretation of Matthew 16:19, but their arguments, like the arguments from yout quote, are hardly convincing at all.

You accuse Catholics to be ignorant… yet many protestant writers, just like Pelikan, CONVENIENTLY IGNORE what they do not like to promote protestantism.

“The quote by the church fathers and Pelikan speaks for itself. Peter was NOT the rock and the Keys where also given to the other apostles. “

Actually several ancient ewritings point to Peter’s primacy and saying that “Peter was NOT the rock” COMPLETELY twists the meaning of Matthew 16:19 and it’s context.

—-

“God will show that it is pure EVIL to be willfully ignorant.”

Careful, because the same measure you use to judge others will be applied to you.

Unfortunately we live in a world where many prejudices and hatred still live.

Anti-Catholicism is perhaps one of the most visible prejudice, but certainly not the last one.

Freddy, you are just a deluded troll.

“Church history read ALL of Schaff, Pelikan, Frend, and Cairns.  So I am FULLY informed and will debate anyone on this site. “

Right… all writers who conveniently are anti-catholic. That is hardly called being ‘informed’, my friend.

—-

” Do the same with Eusebius, and then read how Augustine switched his position from the Catholic position to the Protestant position and claimed that Christ was the Rock not Peter. “

The idea that Augustine rejected the papacy in his “Retractatio”, (which does NOT mean"Retractions”) was spread by Bill Webster, but it’s completely bogus, get better informed. Joseph A. Gallegos (and several others) wrote several articles pointing out all of Webster’s ridiculous errors.

In Retractatio 1:21 Augustine clearly points out towards Peter’s primacy, for example.

Webster so GROSSLY MISUNDERDENTS Augustine that’s too embarrassing for words.

——

“I guess you support my thesis that people are too lazy to read anything other than the Catholic revisionist sources. “

We could accuse you of being too lazy to read anything other than the Protestant revisionist sources.

—-

” The Catholic church has 1700 years of treachery as part of her legacy.  Study history and you will find that she helped the Muslims destroy the Eastern Orthodox.  She has forged documents to prove the Papacy, such as Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.  Also most of the Hagiography is a forgery. “

Get over the delusion and start reading some serious writers.

——

“As the Paul said, ‘Heresies must come to show who is genuine’.  The Catholic Church is an institution that collects heretics. “

Or rather: Protestantism is the heresy that proves that the Catholic Church is the True Church.

—-

“Now fast forward to the Reformation and the reformers become anti-Catholic for they understand the errors of Romanism. “

And the counter reformers became anti-protestant because they understood the even bigger errors of Protestantism?

Come on… you are not even trying.

——

“My experience is that most Catholics are willfully ignorant.”

Our experience with you proves the contrary.

You base yourself on false assumptions and false clichés, perpetrated by anti-catholic writers, whose view is not even unanimously shared among all non-catholic scholars and historians.

You are clearly a troll, who read a book or two and decided to provoke Catholics and offend them.

Instead of condemning us to hell, why don’t you pray for your soul, that is so full of hate?

Good bless you.

My soul is not full of hate. I am warning Catholics that if you remain Catholic it will cost you your soul.  Can you imagine that the Catechism claims that Muslims and Catholics worship the same god.  How can this be? 

BTW nobody has refuted my quote from Pelikan. Pelikan was one of the foremost scholars on church history.  What I see from Catholics is a lot of blurbs about trolls without any facts. So let me give you some more fun facts.

In brief, concerning references in Hebrews to Christ’s offering for sin, Jerome translated the Greek aorist that expresses a single event, usually in the past, by the continuous present. Since the Vulgate was the only version of the New Testament available to the West for over a thousand years, its errors lead to the doctrine of the Mass. The Reformers went back to the original manuscripts and found significant errors in the Latin Vulgate.  Once these errors were exposed Catholic dogma was exposed as just the superstitions of Medieval men.  Thus Marian dogma is all fiction, the Mass is fiction, and the Papacy is fiction.  This has nothing to do about hatred but exposing the truth.

Hey, I am a born-again Protestant denouncing Catholicism, which is the synagogue of Satan.  This is no different than a Prophet in the Old Testament denouncing a corrupt Israel.  Israel stoned the prophets and the Catholic church persecuted the Protestants.  History repeats itself.  So I am not worried about my soul.  I have done my homework and rejoice that Christ is my Lord and Savior and that I am not slave to the traditions of men and the sacraments of men.

I think Freddy is a closet Catholic. I am pray that you are going to be reading more Catholic literature so you can be convinced about our faith. Why are you on a Catholic site? Is it because you are seeking the truth?  Did your Pastor feed you the line satan’s synagogue, the more fear he instills in you the fatter his pockets get. Please reveal to us the denomination that you are. Please also list the chronicled miracles that are un-explicable to science that have taken place in your church? Did Satan preform the miracle associated to our church, like Lourdes, Fatima, the countless in-corrupted bodies of Saints. How are 1 billion people wrong and the couple of hundred people at your church right? Please think about that?

Also please check out Jimmy Akin’s explanation…

We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is “not [Christ] himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself” (Chamblin 742). That is strongly put, since Peter the rock cannot be separated from the faith of his confession, but the rock has direct reference to Peter himself, not just the faith of his confession, as Evangelical and Protestant scholars now widely and correctly affirm.

Among the chorus of voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: “After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter” (Caragounis 1).

Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter’s confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes…

for the rest of article view the following link.

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-6.html

Let us see about 1 billion people wrong.  The world has about 800 million Hindus, over 1 Billion Muslims, and 400 million Buddhists.  Can they all be wrong?  Yes, they and 1 billion Catholics are all wrong.  Most people don’t research history, the church fathers, or their Bible.  People on this site just drink the Kool-Aid of their favorite Catholic apologist.

BTW, most of the miracles you outline have been proven frauds.  A good example is the false prophecy of Fatima. Fatima made some crazy prediction about Russia and her goal of taking over the world, which never happened.

Jimmy Akin is an apologist who cleverly picked a few authors to support his positions.  Notice he totally ignores the heavy hitters such as Pelikan, Schaff, Frend, and others.  An apologist is like a lawyer that will skew all available data to support his polemic.  Truth is secondary to an apologist.

Freddy, you can believe your stance on this subject, please check out Tim Staples conversion story on Youtube or online. He used to be anti catholic as well, and read all the doctrine and facts from our side. Please answer this “if” the catholic church is wrong which one of all the 10,000 different protestant denominational churches have it right? Have you called and spoken with Jimmy Akin yourself? You can give him a ring on Catholic Answers 1-888-318-7884. Settle it with him directly if you need to. Or you can just be angry at home.

Dan,
Let me quote a Catholic who supported the Protestant position.
Dollinger 19th century Catholic scholar who taught Church history. He sums up the Eastern and Western understanding of Matthew 16 in the patristic period:

  In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine; but he places this superiority, rightly understood, only in its antiquity, its double apostolical origin, and in the circumstance of the pure tradition being guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse of the faithful from all countries. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, know nothing of special Papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matter of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The most copious of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are the two Cyrils; equally silent are the Latins, Hilary, Pacian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and St. Ambrose.
  St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable…that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word.
  We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus—have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith.
  All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation–stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi.14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).

Akin discredits himself when he say there is ‘near unanimity in Bible scholarship’.  He clearly has not talked to all the Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Methodist, Presbyterian scholars who flat out disagree with him.  The blind sheep are so easily deceived by the apologist wolf in sheep’s clothing.

You still didn’t answer my question if the Catholic Church is wrong then which one is right? I feel that satan does have his hand in churchs. He has forced the division of the protestant sect into 10000+ denominations to instill more confusion and fighting amongst each other. What are your thoughts on this?

I’m going to stay out of the argument above…

Very true post. We’re victims so often, in ways that non-Catholics do not realize, but we’re not the only ones. Love really is the name of the game, or it SHOULD be.

Very true Elizabeth. I am a cradle catholic trying to absorb my faith everyday. And that is one thing that I have often thought, we are all right in we believe in God, but to play we are right you are wrong only reiterates the saying that “the devil is in the details”.

Dan M,

At the end of the day there are all 30,000 denominations can be broken down into 3 groupings.

1.  Liberal Protestants which reject Christ as Savior - They are complete garbage.  Talk to the Pastor and you can find this out in about 5 minutes.

2.  Calvinistic churches as Baptist and Presbyterians

3. Arminian churches such as Pentecostal, Nazarene, and many Methodists.

Any differences between 2 and 3 are usually minor and involve issues that do not pertain to the essentials of the faith.  The Catholic apologist ( wolves) like to make a mountain out of a molehill.  The Apologist need to create this strawman as a vehicle to make it appear that the RCC has always had unity.  However I have heard many of doctrinal scandals in the Catholic church throughout history. I could as easily point out that some Catholics Priests or Nun believe in abortion, some used to believe in liberation Theology, some are Sedevacanists, some question Transubstantiation, some even question the divinity of Christ. 

I personally have been to all the denominations mentioned and can say that that in group 2 or 3 consider each other Christians.  However none in group 2 or 3 consider Catholics Christians. Why?  Because they have studied doctrine and can show that Catholicism is a collection of novel doctrine completely foreign to the early church.

If you are Catholic you of course agree with this article, but if you are part of any other prejudiced group you will say the same.  People only relate to their reality, not the reality of others.  I’ve never heard or seen any anti-Catholic material.  Now I do see some of the non-PC beliefs that Catholics have cause outrage and name calling, but in anti-Catholicsm , No. Everyone should stand for what they believe in PC or not.  As elizabethhillgrove stated, “love really is the name of the game, or it should be”.  Not all Catholics believe this and express this.

For every Tim Staples, I can find 10 Catholics who became Protestants.  The fact is my church is filled with ex-Catholics.  So one persons testimony is meaningless.  America is so superficial that it is easily swayed by moving stories and special interest pieces.  A person who wants to be on solid footing becomes a student of history, the Bible, doctrine, and the church fathers.  Such a person becomes like a mighty oak and can easily filter the wheat from chaff.  Again I can not help people that want to remain willfully ignorant and refuse to read non-Catholic sources.

Dan M,

Catholic Apologists usually try to make liberal Protestants their strawman. The naive sheep fail to realize the error in this this polemic.

Also Jimmy Akin likes to appear very innocent and humble but he is absolutely guilty in misrepresenting accurate Christian history.  Ask yourself if Peter was the first Roman Pope, why did the Eastern Orthodox never recognize the Primacy of Rome? 

BTW a further polemic of Mr. Akin is to paint anti-Catholics as not loving.  Is it loving to promote lies and deception. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.  Genuine Love, agape, must be built on a foundation of truth.  There can never be genuine love built upon lies.

Still didn’t answer my question. If we are wrong then who is right? Why is your religion the true religion? I read the bible every night and send my kids to christian school. Pray before every meal even in public. So Worshiping God and accepting Jesus as my savior makes me and non christian? I commend you for your passion for Jesus. I know that you are very excited to be christian and so am I. I do say that you aren’t Christian because quite frankly there is only one source that will ultimately decide that. I know you will agree with me on this point. I live true to his word and keep him in my thoughts, prayers and actions all the time. At the end of the day I know I am Christian. I do not pass judgments on your and your belief nor do I paint your church in bad light. I am love that you are fired up but do you think God would like to see you on a chat group fighting with another Christian. I look forward to hearing your point of view on other topics in the near future.

Dan M,

The minimum basis for Christianity must be from either group 2 or 3. However, further study will reveal that group 3 churches have a more precise understanding of the Gospel.  Thus I belong to a group 3 church.  I can flat out say that Catholics are a heretical sect. I can also say that Arians, Pelagians, Nestorian, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are also heretical.  If you can’t distinguish between a heretical group and an orthodox group than you need to have better discernment, more Bible knowledge, more historical knowledge, and have read more of the church fathers.  Usually the poorly educated wanted to justify themselves by saying that they are accepting towards other ‘Christian’ groups.  What they really are saying is that they don’t love God enough to do the serious work to find the TRUE communion.

Freddy,

You follow the rebellion of Korah, who took it upon himself to usurp the legitimate ministerial priesthood, wrongly thinking that the sinfulness of that priesthood negated its authority.  The good news is that not all who were swayed by Korah were swallowed up by the earth.

What an unjust God you must believe in who would let His people wallow in error for 12 centuries.

Polycarp,
YOu clearly show your lack of education. In the age of Adam, Noah, and Abraham there was no ministerial priesthood. The Mosaic Age introduced the ministerial priesthood via the Levites. The Messianic age did away with the ministerial priesthood and created the ‘individual priesthood of the believer’.  Those who believe in a modern ministerial priesthood are like the Judaizers that required circumcision for salvation.  Thus your lack of education and the clever sophistry of Catholic apologists, priests, and Jesuits has mislead you.

BTW, here is an example of the corrupt translation of the Latin Vulgate. Most Catholic dogma can easily be explained by the faulty translation of the Original Greek into Latin by Jerome. Jerome had an agenda and he used it fully in his translation of the Vulgate. Here is a link for your enjoyment.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bus5TyjTfxYC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=erasmus+latin+vulgate+translation+errors&source=bl&ots=yD61oep-oL&sig=lEy2DO_jaN_gkNXBuErDH_6Aj4k&hl=en&ei=ha_KTPajNo2RnweepdT0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=erasmus latin vulgate translation errors&f=false

Polycarp,
The Catholic definition of tradition basically means:  That out of shear stubbornness the Catholic church will defend all false doctrine that was derived from the faulty translation of the Bible by Jerome. The Reformers had the humility to recognize their error, repented before a holy God, and corrected their doctrine.  It is all very simple, but Catholic stubbornness, and willful ignorance by most Catholics, keeps the sheep in total darkness.  If you think God will excuse willful ignorance and stubbornness you better think again.  There will be many, many Catholics in some of the darkest places in Hell.

Catholic apologists like to keep the sheep distracted by avoiding the real issues.

I can always extend Christian forgiveness to misinformed anti-Catholics like Freddy. Freddy, however, is a tough case, isn’t he. With so much pride and arrogance in your heart, Freddy, you leave no room for God. Open your heart, man. God bless you.

Julie,
If transubstantiation is not true than as a Catholic you are an idol worshipper.  Thus Protestants consider Catholics idol worshippers who bow down before a piece of bread.  Idol worshippers were ALWAYS condemned in the Bible.  Now ask yourself how can a piece of bread be the exact representation of Jesus Christ Body.  Your telling me that a piece of bread, which has no arms, legs, face, heart, brain is the exact body of Christ.  Only an brainwashed person could believe something like that.  Catholicism is a religion of Medieval superstition.  Paul even said in Corinthians that the purpose of heresies was to show who was a genuine follower of the truth.  Therefore the purpose of all cults, sects, and false churches is to separate the TRUE from the FALSE.  So the Catholic church is a holding cell for all those who are destined for perdition.  The true worshippers, who worship in spirit and in truth, forsake Medieval superstition and attend Evangelical Protestant churches.  If you don’t, you are in a counterfeit church.  Let me give a simple analogy.  Is their a counterfeit 3 dollar bill? NO because there is no genuine 3 dollar bill.  Do counterfeit 20 dollar bills exist? Yes, because there are genuine 20 dollar bills.  Unless you are trained you can not distinguish between the two.  Similarly unless you are trained you can not distinguish between the counterfeit Catholic church and the genuine Christian Protestant church.

Freddy,
It’s much harder to believe that God would become a man than it is to believe that Jesus would become a piece a bread.  The difference between God and man is significantly greater than the difference between Jesus, who was fully human, and a piece of bread.  If you can believe that God became man you should have no problem believing that Jesus could become a piece of bread.  You’re also implying that Jesus is incapable of becoming a piece of bread.  Is this something Jesus is unable to do?

Also, for close to 1500 years pretty much all Christians were Catholic (minus some heretics and dissidents) and therefore they believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  So are all of the billions of Christians that lived throughout history (including the very first Christians) in hell for worshipping a piece of bread?

The Real Presence is further fiction that is promoted by Catholic Apologists.  Again I encourage you to read the church fathers and you will see that this is not the conclusion they draw.  Consider that this was hotly debated by in the 9th century and that it was not made a doctrine until 1215 AD and you will see the error.  A mistranslation of Hebrews led to the formulation of the continual sacrifice.  Read a non-Catholic version of the Book of Hebrews and you will see the lack of support for the Real Presence.  I have studied this at great length.  Also consider the Catholic church was really founded by Constantine who melded the church and the state.  However the church of the Apostles always had a separation between church and state.

Adam,
Christ was called the Son of Man in the Old and New Testament.  Man was created in the Image of God. So it is much more believable to have God in human form.  The Bible never makes a prophecy about Christ the Wafer.  Furthermore the Son of Man performed many miracles to prove who He was. I have yet to see the wafer perform any miracles.  Christianity is a cataphatic religion, which means that God basically demonstrated His power unlike the mystery religions of the Near East.  The mystery religions believed in transubstantiation of their gods.  Christianity and Judaism have always been non-sacramental religions, but the melding of church and state brought sacramentalism to the pure Christian faith.  Thus Catholics are practicing a syncretic religion of paganism mixed with Christianity, which is no different than the syncretic religion of paganism and Judaism called Samaritanism.  Thus there is nothing new under the sun, and people perish for lack of knowledge.  The Catholic Apologist will have a lot of blood on their hands for being false teachers of God’s Word.  You have been warned, now your without excuse, if you don’t repent for mixing Christianity with paganism, you will have only yourself to blame at the Day of Judgment.

Freddy,

I would start with chapter 66 (LXVI) of Justin Martyr’s First Apology.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

I guess maybe the church had already been corrupted by 150 AD (you’d be in agreement with the Mormons, if you think that), but I would ask again whether that seems in accordance with Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell would not prevail…  Rather than engage in sophistry, why don’t you accept that it’s ridiculous to think that real Christianity only reemerged in the fifteenth century after having been dormant for 1,400 years?

As to the rebellion of Korah & the ministerial priesthood.  Korah was not from the age of Adam, Noah & Abraham.  He rebelled at the time of Moses and Aaron, at the outset of the ministerial priesthood.  The new testament referred to the priesthood of all believers, but so did the OT (Ex 19:6). The truth of the priesthood of all believers did not negate the truth of the ministerial priesthood in the OT, so why would it in the messianic age?  Why do you think the early church even bothered with the laying on of hands?  Your position is really quite silly.

Polycarp,
The gates have never prevailed against the church. Why? The church universal has been in existence since Pentecost.  During Roman times it went underground and during Catholic Persecution it also went underground.  Go to Europe and you will see evidence of Christian groups that were pre-Reformation and non-Catholic.

The laying on of hands is done by the elders of the church. This is another example of a blatant agenda by Jerome. The word elder is translated priest in the Latin Vulgate.  The are completely different words.  Unless you properly educated you will forever be drinking the misinformation of the Catholic Church.

Freddy,

It must be frustrating that you, with all of your knowledge just can’t seem to convince, I mean, convert any of us.  That is what you are trying to do, right?  You care deeply about the state of our souls, isn’t that right?  It seems to me that you care deeply about being right and having all of the answers.

What do you have to say about John chapeter 6? 
48 I am the bread of life. 
49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; 
50 but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die. 
51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ 
52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 
53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 
54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person. 
57 As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. 
58 This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. 
59 This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. 
60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ 

I know, he didn’t really mean that, it’s symbolic, right? His followers left him for a symbol!  That makes absolutely no sense!

I still say that you need a Saul to St. Paul conversion.  The last thing he ever dreamed is that he would become a Christian. 

Even he states in 1 Corinthians - Chapter 11
27 “Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.”

I, know my Lord and am one of the most grateful people on earth to have been born a Roman Catholic.  If you have real courage, then why don’t you speak to Jimmy Akin??  Don’t make excuses as you did above.  If you are so sure you are right then call him and speak to him.  Convince him of your position.  Because you only care about our souls, right? 

Unconvinced by you and staying in the Roman Catholic Chuch, with the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus and the Pope!  You have no idea what you are missing!  I offered my Mass for you today, Freddy!

Great testimony and witness to your beautiful Christian faith, Joan.

I too shall offer my Holy Communion for Freddie on Sunday; I’ll get my children to do the same.

Joan,
To convince anyone about an argument they first must be teachable. I use to be a Roman Catholic. Then I became Orthodox by virtue of reading Church History by Pelikan. Then a Russian Orthodox monk introduced me to the fathers and good Bible Scholarship.  From here I became a Protestant. I know many Protestants have tried to approach Jimmy Akin, but he refuses to budge. Trying to tell many Catholics they are wrong is like trying to tell a Muslim that Jesus is the Son of God. You can give all the arguments but they will not change. Many people, especially over the age of 25, are not very teachable and will take whatever they believe to the grave for better or worse.
 
To answer your question in brief regarding John 6.  John liked metaphors and this is the first of his seven metaphors.

John 6:47-51 “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from
heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread
that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he
will live forever….”
John 8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light
of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,
but will have the light of life.”
John 10:9 “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He
will come in and go out, and find pasture.”
John 10:11-12 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his
life for the sheep. The hired hand is not ths shepherd who owns
the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the
sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and
scatters it.”
John 10:11-12 “Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha
answered, ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the
last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life.
He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe
this?’”
John 14:5-7 “Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are
going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am
the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would
know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and
have seen him.’”
John 15:1,4 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener….
Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear
fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear
fruit unless you remain in me.”

So John is using seven different metaphors to describe Jesus.  If you take a course in hermeneutics this becomes even more straightforward. All I can say is:  Knowledge is Power!

“I have yet to see the wafer perform any miracles.”

Have you not heard of the many Eucharistic miracles that have occurred throughout history?  One of the most famous ones occurred during the 8th century in Lanciano, Italy when the Eucharist turned into real flesh and real blood.  The flesh and blood were preserved and you can still see it today!  In the 1970s a bunch of scientific tests were conducted on the flesh and blood, more than 500 tests over a period of 13 months.  Results from the tests can be found below.  And that’s just one of hundreds of Eucharistic miracles that have occurred.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

Freddy,
You still didn’t answer one of Joan’s questions.  If John 6:48-60 is just a metaphor and meant to be taken symbolically, then why did his followers say it was hard teaching and then leave him?  If it was just a metaphor and meant symbolically then it wouldn’t have been a hard teaching and there would be no reason for them to leave.  So they were obviously taking it literally, and if that’s the case then Jesus wouldn’t have let them leave if he only meant it symbolically.  He would have explained it to them or at least explained it to the 12 afterwards.  But what does he say to the 12 after they leave, “Do you also want to leave?”

Adam,
Let us be serious.  It is trivial to go and eat the wafer.  I mean from a practical standpoint going up to receive communion is so simple that any child can do it.  Also Jesus did explain the metaphor in later verses.
But, generally the flesh of Jesus and the blood of Jesus are metaphors for his love in action and the cost of that love. Jesus sought in his life to embody the perfect love of God. In his teaching, his healing ministry and his outreach to outcasts he demonstrated God’s will for human beings.
So John 6 is the first of the seven ‘I am’ metaphors listed in my previous post. Read all the ‘I am’ references carefully.  If you agree that six are metaphor than as student of hermeneutics you must agree that the seventh is also metaphoric.  Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation and must follow consistent patterns.

Also you must remember that John 6 occurred way before the Last Supper. Furthermore Paul uses the word rememberance in describing the Eucharist.  Rememberance is a memorial and can never mean sacrifice.  Nowhere in all of ancient literature is a rememberance a sacrifice.  The Bible is written to common people and not philosophers, and it is the philosophers who like to overclock the plain meaning of scripture.

Adam,
These Eucharistic miracles are easily explained. It is caused by a bacterium. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens.
Because of the damp conditions in Europe in the Middle Ages, it was fairly common occurrence.  Notice that it has not occurred in modern times.

Dr. Edoardo Linoli examined the Eucharistic host at Lanciano and found it be composed of human heart muscle. And the Blood was human blood, type AB. And that his findings were confirmed by the Higher Council of the WHO (World Health Organization). The problem is that there is no Higher Council of the WHO. The WHO does not have such a structure and that the findings are only found on the Catholic websites.  This is basically a fraud just like many other Catholic miracles.

This belongs in the same camp as hagiography.  Hagiography has been proven to be embellished stories about various saints.  The stories exaggerate the lives of the saints and are untrue.  My Russian Orthodox Monk friend told me that hagiography is pure fiction.

Bottom line is that Catholics have a blind faith without knowledge.  God is merciful and when He performs a miracle it is fully verifiable. So you can stick with your pagan superstitions and remain Catholic or jettison your superstitions and go to a Protestant church.  But people are stubborn and they will not listen to reason.
The Bible says that ALL born again believers are saints.  Thus the whole system of Catholic saints is totally unbiblical and filled with fraud.

Freddy,
When did Jesus explain it later?  Did he go back to those followers who left and tell them he was just speaking symbolically?

As for “Do this in remembrance of me” (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) it can be better translated “Offer this as my memorial offering.”  You can read more hear about the sacrifice of the mass here, along with quotes from the early church fathers and saints from the first few centuries who also believed that it was meant to be a sacrifice.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp

As for the Lanciano miracle, you’re saying the scientists somehow mixed up bacterium with real blood?  You’re really reaching on that one.  And the bottom line is that the World Health Organization verified the study.  Or are they in on the big Catholic conspiracy as well?  But even if we move on from that one you still have hundreds more to go.  As for the saints there’s thousands upon thousands of stories and miracles that according to you are all completely made up. Is it reasonable to think that for 2000 years there has been a huge conspiracy among Catholics to make people think that miracles are occurring and that saints are actually living holy lives?  Are all of these saints just really good con artists that appear to be very holy and appear to live holy lives and somehow manage to trick everyone into believing it?

Freddy, I’ve been praying for you and I’ll continue to pray for you and I ask that you do the same for me.

Adam,
I am saying that Dr. Edoardo Linoli fabricated the whole story.  Look the Catholic church has had a 2000 year history to fabricate stories.  Let me share some straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. VI, pg. 136, we have following frank admission:

“Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages.”

And then we have the following quote too:

“One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XII, pg. 414.)

One of Rome’s most bogus claims has been that of apostolic succession. Yet amazingly the Catholic church (much later on) was forced to own up and say the following about the Apostolic Canons, which allegedly deal with how the Apostles dictated material to St. Clement of Rome:

“A tradition (accepted because unexamined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writing. Accurate research has dispelled this notion.” (Catholic Dictionary, pgs. 41, 42.)

The following quote, which has long been refuted since the 16th century as being “authentic,” is still cited and used by Catholics today, when wishing to uphold its hierarchical structure:

“A letter from Clement to James forms an epilogue to H. In it Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome…The writer knows a complete system of ecclesiastical organisation. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priests and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, IV, pgs. 14-144.)

The above is inaccurate in many ways. The apostolic constitution of 270AD taught Linus as successor to Peter, not Clement. Yet this source (written allegedly by Clement himself) was later deemed a fake (authored 325AD), by the Catholic church:

“We must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from Clementine [20 books by this author], since the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the third century - he was guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, VII, pgs. 327.)

Once again Rome was forced to come clean after some real scholars raised their game and exposed forgeries with Christendom, dating back centuries.

Interestingly,  Thomas Aquinas embarrassingly quotes multiple times from forged sources.

The fact is that the Catholic church is filled with forged sources. My Russian Orthodox Monk friend would say there is no truth from Rome. He would say that anything written in Latin is a corruption of a Greek original.

Also regarding Apparitions and document.  Muslims have countless apparitions of Mohammed and the entire Muslim Hadith is a fraud of the sayings and events of Mohammed.  The fact is the Middle Ages was a period of great corruption.  Look 7 of the Letters of Ignatius are forgeries.  It took over 1000 years to figure this out. The only thing I trust is the Bible Why?  Because the thousands of manuscripts and unicals and translations make it impossible to forge.

Bottom line Islam and Catholicism, both worship the same god, which is the god of lies, forgeries, guilt, and oppression. That is a total of 2 billion people blinded by Satan.

Catholics fundamentally do no understand the Eucharist. 
The bread represented His body given sacrificially for His disciples. The
disciples were to eat it, as He did, symbolizing their appropriation of Him and their consequent union with Him. The cup, representing what was in it, symbolized the ratification of the New Covenant with Jesus’ blood (Jeremiah 31:31-34;  Exodus 24:8).  Thus the church fathers understood that we should remember the one time sacrifice that Christ made.  This is in contrast to the continual sacrifice that Christ makes in Roman Catholic theology. There is a HUGE difference between one time sacrifice and continual sacrifice.  This is all a result of the corrupt translation of the Latin Vulgate in Hebrews.  So Adam I am praying that the Holy Spirit show you the truth and you flee the counterfeit church.

Be truthful with YOURSELF.  It is you that does not understand the Eucharist.  You must understand something though, you capitilize Eucharist and Real Presence.

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/staugustineandrealpresence.html

Why don’t you tune into the Journey Home?  It’s on EWTN 8PM ET

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/staugustineandrealpresence.html

Joan,
It looks like your upset. I have mentioned in the previous post the 7 ‘I am’ statements in John.  Both Catholics and Protestants agree that six of them are metaphors. Only Catholics refuse to accept John 6:47-51 as a metaphor. So let me explain more.

Jesus states in regard to “the bread of life” that it is a bread that falls from heaven and gives life. Sounds unusual, but for the Jews it was a very common thing to say because they knew quite well that the bread from heaven is written about in the scriptures. This symbol comes from the Manna in Heaven.

The Jews escaped Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Then they were immediately lead into the wilderness. In the wilderness there was no food. They had escaped Egypt with great joy, but then complained that they were hungry. Whereupon the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will let bread from heaven fall for you all,” (Exodus 16:4), and he gave them the marvelous food called manna. So they were nourished with the bread from heaven and were able to keep on in their journey. The bread from heaven gave life to the Israelites while they were in the wilderness, and brought them life. In that sense then, manna was certainly “the bread of life” for them.

However, the reason God let the manna fall was not just to meet their physical hunger. Moses told the people the following about the manna: “The Lord afflicted you and let you become hungry, and then fed you with manna which neither you nor your ancestors ever tasted. That was to let you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord,” (Deuteronomy 8:3). It is quite paradoxical, however, for he says the reason God gave them bread was to let them know that “Man doesn’t live by bread alone.” In other words, when a person “is living and alive” in its truest sense, it refers to more than the life support that just comes from food. God says that a person’s truly being “alive” means that he or she is living due to, and according to the word of God. That is, God shows himself through his word, and a person can respond to God by love, trust, and obedience. That’s how a person is to live with God. In fellowship like that with God is “life.” “Eternal life” means the same as a relationship with the eternal God. Going by that definition, the bread of life would not be the manna itself that the Israelites had eaten. The bread of life is the word of God that the people were given. The Bible says, “Man lives by every word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.” Therefore the righteous Jews understood the metaphor and the unrighteous Pharisees did not.

So, the world is hungry for real life which comes from a genuine born-again faith relationship with God, not the emptiness of false religion.

Freddy, it is not accurate to say that only the Catholics accept John 6:47-51 metaphorically.

The Orthodox believe as well in the literal meaning. These two apostolic faiths, the Orthodox and the Catholics share this commonality of belief in the true Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, and it is one real strength toward and eventual reunion of the faiths.

Jesus prayed that we all be One, as he and the Father are One. That will happen one day.

It will be a joyful even, and I hope that you will eventually come into the fold.

Lisuex,
Unity has already been found.  Evangelical Protestants have found great unity in their diversity.  Thus Jesus’ Words have been fulfilled. The TRUE church is united and the apostate church writes self-serving pieces on anti-Catholic prejudice.  Catholicism is on a rapid decline.  In Countries like Argentina, the Evangelicals already outnumber the Catholics.  In 20 years the same will be true in ALL Central and South American countries.  BTW, Evangelicals are more united than they have ever been. Young people are leaving the Catholic church at ever increasing rates. These young people realize that Catholicism is a religion stuck in the superstition of the Middle Ages and has no relevance in the 21st century.

Pardon, Fred, but that makes no sense.

Evangelical Protestants don’t have unity because they can’t agree on

1) meaning and effect of baptism

2) what happens to a soul when one dies

3) nature of the Eucharist

And other points.

It is contradictory to say that one has unity in diversity.  Sounds like a political statement of a certain party that shall go unnamed.

Finally, that the Catholic Church is in decline is a grandiose myth.

Why?

Because if it were, would you spend so much time debating with a group which has no relevance. Haven’t you been on here for about a week now? lol Either you are a fool for messing with us “Catholics in decline” or your proposal is wrong.

The latter is most probable.

Liseux,

Let me address your three points.
1) Every Evangelical church, regardless if infant or believer baptism, accepts baptism as a symbol of faith.  Infant baptism is a symbol of the parents faith, while believers baptism is a symbol of the converts faith. Therefore some churches do both baptisms. Since Evangelical emphasize being born again, baptism is not that significant.
2) All Evangelical churches believe that a soul goes to Heaven or HEll. Purgatory is an invention of reprobate Jews.
3)All Evangelicals believe the Eucharist is a symbol.

Therefore on the major topic we have complete unity.  Paul wrote epistles to churches in Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonika, Rome, etc. Each church has a unique flavor. They were all independent from each other.  Thus the local church is diverse but the universal church is united. 

In short Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are state churches created by Constantine which merged pagan practices and Christianity. Even Cardinal Newman admits as much.

Is that the same Cardinal Newman that said…“To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant” - Blessed John Henry Cardinal

And, Freddy, no, I am not upset, I believe you are upset.  You see, you can’t seem to convince us that what you are saying is correct.  You see, those who choose to live the Catholic faith to the full, that is faithfully, will never be convinced by such things as you mistakenly believe.  You stated several days ago that you know 10 people who have left the Catholic Church for every one that has converted to Catholicism.  I can guarantee you that not ONE of them, including yourself at the time you left the Church, knew what the Catholic Church really teaches (I know that about you, because you still don’t know).  On the other hand, those coming into the Catholic Church, many who were as rabidly anti-Catholic as you, have studied and been lead by Truth Himself, home to the One True Church.  For them, there is no looking back!

The fact of the matter is, I know that the Fullness of Truth is only found in the Roman Catholic Church.  You are greatly mislead and I might add, full of pride.  Where does faith come in with all of your misguided head knowledge?  I certainly can’t see it from your posts. 

Now, God bless you, Freddy.  Keep on searching for the Truth and allow the Lord to lead you.  Trust in Him and you will be lead to all Truth.  See you when you come Home!

Here is one more quote for you:

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is of course, quite a different thing.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

“Writers of the forth century were prone to describe many practises (i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days) as apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. III, pg. 484.)

Rome also forged the infamous The Donation of Constantine, dated 30 March 315AD.

“The supposed donation of Emperor Constantine, [was] probably forged in the eight century” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, XIV, pg. 714.)

This forged document records how Constantine not only contracted leprosy all over his body (which pagan priests failed to cure), but also received a vision from Peter and was told to contact “pope” Sylvester, hiding on Mount Soracte, who would cure him. Apparently Sylvester made him well and Constantine restored Christian Churches worldwide to their former glory. Also part of this forged document was how Constantine had kindly handed over his own power and sovereignty to the bishop of Rome.

This elaborate hoax circulated throughout the Catholic church for years and helped build up their so-called apostolic authority throughout the pagan world, but it was totally false and had no truth whatsoever within it.

It should also be said that when Luther became aware of this, it convinced him even more to launch the Reformation.

Freddy, again, you are not accurate.

1)  Some Evangelical Lutherans believe that infant baptism is sacramental.  Tell them that their Baptism is a symbol, and you have a fight on your hands.  I know these people personally.

2)  According to the particular evangelical pastor, he will tell the family what HE believes will happen to the soul at death. Some say that the soul SLEEPS until the final judgement portrayed in Revelation. Others say that they go to their immediate destination and don’t have an answer for why there is another judgement with every present as in Revelation.

BTW, I’m not going to discuss what REALLY happens at the judgement, as your opinion is like the ministers above. It’s your version, and differs within denominations from pastor to pastor.

3) Please do not tell my Evangelical Lutheran friends that the Eucharist they celebrate every month is only a symbol.  They BELIEVE it is the Body and Blood of the Lord.  I might have difficulties with their claims, but I do respect their faith.

Freddy, Protestantism is as divided as the devil wants it to be.  Unity scares him.

That’s why you’re here- you sense the truth in our Catholic faith.  You’re kicking against the goad, dear Freddie.

Someone earlier asked you to watch the Journey Home on EWTN. It’s a good show. I challenge you to watch that for a few weeks. It comes on tonight at 7:00 p.m. central time.

Marcus Grodi deals with people who have come into the Church from Seventh Day Adventists, Nazarene groups, and all types of Baptists, including ministers. They have found the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church.

I invite you to do so as well too, Freddie.

Please watch the show and tell me what you think of Marcus’s demeanor. We all have much to learn from him, including myself.

Have a blessed day.

There are many types of Lutherans.  Some Lutherans are very Evangelical, while others are liberals especially the ‘Evangelical Lutherans’. They Missouri Lutherans are Orthodox Protestants.

You like to discuss unity, however the Russian Orthodox do not accept Roman Catholics as brothers in Christ.  So defining anybody who is not Catholic as break fellowship is self-serving and a tautology. 

If I define my locus as those churches that believe in the Trinity, the five solas, and reject transubstantiation or consubstantiation, then I will also have unity. 

But I find it amusing that nobody has the intellectual fortitude on this site to refute the forgeries listed, the seven ‘I am’ statements, or my comments on the fiction of the Papacy.

Freddy, the Russian Orthodox, our separated brethren, do retain communication with the See of Peter.  This dialogue has improved under Pope Benedict XVI. While there are differences to overcome, the Holy Spirit is certainly moving both sides toward overcoming them. Otherwise, talking about a meeting between their patriarch and Benedict would not occur.

http://www.tldm.org/News14/MeetingBetweenPopeBenedictAndRussianOrthodoxLeaderIsPossible.htm

What is your group doing seal ties with Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians groups?

Fred, if you are trying to prove that your church is the true church, please stop insulting the good Catholics here.  Certainly, an adherent to Christ’s true church wouldn’t be as insulting as you can be, ie., in saying “no one has the intellectual fortitude” here to discuss items.

People have been discussing items with you for over a week, and when you’re called on things, you change the subject, as you did with me when it occurred to you that SOME evangelicals DO claim to believe in the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist and not as a symbol.

You obviously like to argue and perhaps just for arguing’s sake.

Hope you can watch the Journey Home.

Have a good one Fred. I’m not going to argue with you just to argue.

Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.
Cardinal Newman, in his book, The Development of the Christian Religion, states:  “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin…” (Page 359).
Therefore false religion are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called “human traditions” or “doctrines of men”. Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times “false teachers” would rise within the Church and bring in “damnable heresies” and “doctrines of devils”. (Read 2nd Peter 2:1-3, and 1st Timothy 3:2-5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees,  “they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:3,9).

Freddy, the reason they are of pagan origin is because the Church wanted to take pagan celebrations and pagan holidays and twist them around to glorify God.  It’s really more of a slap in the face to pagans when you take one of their days of worship or ceremonies and turn it around to glorify God.  It actually makes a lot of sense if you actually THINK about it.

And weren’t there temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holidays and seasons and most of these things in the Old Testament anyways?

Today I was listening to a Catholic Answers Live podcast and it made me think of you.  This past Monday there was an encore airing of a show titled “Is the Catholic Church the Original Church?”.  How appropriate huh?  You can download it here, http://www.catholic.com/audio/2010/mp3/ca101101a.mp3 Let me know what you think.

You can also download old shows here, http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php.  You should call up the show sometime and ask a question, or simply voice your opinion and see what they have to say.

Adam,
What your saying that Catholicism had so little to offer the pagans that it was necessary to adopt their practices.  Tell me why would I want to serve a god that created a faith so weak that it could not offer something superior to what the pagans had?

Resolving Peter being in Rome
1. Many people falsely assumed that Babylon was a code word for Rome.  The Bible never uses Rome as a code word for Babylon.  The Bible refers to Jerusalem as a !@#$% of Babylon in the book of Revelation.  Thus when one is familiar with the Bible one begins to see that Babylon could never refer to Rome.  Thus when the Latin authors translated the Greek texts into Latin they occasionally translated Babylon into Rome.  This is how the tradition of Peter spread from Babylon to Rome.
2. Furthermore there were many legends regarding Peter.  Some ancient sources even claim Peter was crucified in Jerusalem Let me quote from newadvent.org
‘A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence concludes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The Acts of St. Peter is the also first source to claim Peter crucified upside down.  -newAdvent
Look what Justin Martyr ( 100-165 AD) writes that Simon the Sorcerer was in Rome not Peter and he was buried on Vatican Hill.  Forgeries in the 3rd and fourth century changed this to be the Apostle Peter. 

4. I can give you 10 Biblical reasons that Peter was never in Rome. But I will save that for another post.
5. Fact is that I have never met a Catholic who could discern true doctrine from false doctrine.  One of the requirements for being a mature Christian is to be able to discern between true and false doctrine. This is why Catholics prefer to trust in the age of an institution instead of doctrine.  Why? Because if Biblical doctrine were dynamite most Catholics would not have enough to blow their nose.
6. Hey, I’m not worried about going to Hell, because I am faith filled born-again Christian, knowing that God will expose Catholicism as a false religion.
7. How do I know Catholicism is a false religion. Simple!  The Catholic Catechism says Muslims and Catholics worship the same god.  Let us see Muslims reject Jesus as the Son of God and thus worship a false god.  Thus Catholics create a false Christ, steeped in sacraments, and thus also worship the same false god.
8. Fun fact Judaism is a non-sacramental religion.  Apostolic Christianity in the 1st century is also non-sacramental.  Only Pagan religions of the OT and NT were sacramental.  Thus the merging of pagan sacramentalism with Christianity created a syncretic false Christianity that has been rejected by God.  You have been warned.  Now if you reject what I say then God will give a much harsher judgment for rejecting truth.

Note that Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome - not Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome: 
1. Linus
2. Anacletus
3. Clement
4. Evaristus
5. Alexander
6. Sixtus
7. Ignatius (Telephorus) 
8. Huginus
9. Pius
10. Anicetus
11. Sorer
12. Eleutherius
Notice that Peter’s name is not found in the above list. Notice also that according to Iraeneus, it was Paul, not Peter, who appointed Linus the first bishop of Rome. So much for early papal authority. 
Hyppolytus(names the bishops): 
1. James the Lord’s brother, bishop of Jerusalem. 
2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem. 
3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles. 
4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus. 
5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus. 
6. Stephen, the first martyr. 
7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch. 
8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed, believing together with his daughters. 
9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred. 
10. Timon, bishop of Bostra. 
11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli. 
12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria. 
13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan. 
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria. 
15. Luke the evangelist. 
These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me.” But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter’s instrumentality, and the other by Paul’s, they were honoured to preach that Gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree. 
16. Silas, bishop of Corinth. 
17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica. 
18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul. 
19. Epaenetus, bishop of Carthage. 
20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia. 
21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus. 
22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia. 
23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium. 
24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea. 
25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon. 
26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former. 
27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols. 
28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna. 
29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain. 
30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens. 
31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus. 
32. Agabus the prophet. 
33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes. 
34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania. 
35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon. 
36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia. 
37. Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli. 
38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi. 
39. Linus, bishop of Rome.
40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus. 
41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope. 
(SOURCE: Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End.) 
Note here that according to Hippolytus, the first bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter. How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome, and an ‘infallible’ pope, when “fathers” of the church seem to be so ignorant of the fact? Could it be that Rome is lying when she claims that she has a direct line of papal succession from Peter as the first bishop of Rome? I’ll bet that’s it! 
From: Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:

Is your last name Phelps, Freddy?

Ouch!

Cyprian (258), like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest manuscripts read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (Catholic Encyclopedia 4, 585).—(C.E -Catholic Encyclopedia.)
Catholic theologians claim that with the development of the primacy in the Middle Ages, the papal letters grew enormously in number (C.E. 6, 202). “There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal and other documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion” (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking of the thousands of miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that “the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent,” a “multitude of unquestionably spurious relics” (C.E. 12, 737). The same scholars admit the following Roman frauds: the origin of the Rosary and the apparition of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary to Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the Holy Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe, the Sabbatine Privilege, etc.

There you have it.  Catholics are following a host of frauds because their unrepentant hearts have been deceived by Satan to believe such frauds and nonsense.  I can only encourage you to leave the Catholic church before your hearts get too hardened. Remember what the Bible say in Hebrews 9:27, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,”

You can’t forget about smoking. You can do whatever you want to in this world, but if you light up and say you’re going to daily mass, consider yourself a social pariah from that point forward.

As a non-smoker myself, the correlation between faithfully practiced Catholicism and smoking makes me wonder if I’m missing out.

The first permanent severing of the Christian community. Its beginnings lay in the division of the Roman Empire at the end of the third century. Thereafter, the Greek (Eastern) and Latin (Western) sections of the Roman world were administered separately. Their cultural and economic differences intensified. When the political institutions of the Latin empire collapsed in the fifth century, the Greek empire, centered in Constantinople, continued to flourish.

The sustaining institution during this period was the Christian church. Its theology dominated all forms of though in both the united East and the disintegrating West. Important issues, even worldly ones, were transposed into theological questions.

Two fundamental differences between the Latin Catholic and Greek Orthodox traditions developed during the early Middle Ages. The first was the Petrine Doctrine, absolute in the West, resisted in the East. And the second was a Western addition to the Nicene Creed which provoked the filioque controversy. Other divisive issues such as the celibacy of the priesthood, use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, episcopal control over the sacrament of confirmation, and priestly beards and monkish tonsures were the source of conflict but not schism.

Of all the institutions that the medieval Christian empire shared, the political was the first to collapse. In the West during the fifth century imperial authority fell before invading barbarian kings. Increasingly the Roman patriarch, the pope, filled the power vacuum left by retreating politicians. The lines between secular and ecclestical authority were hopelessly blurred. On the other hand, in Constantinople, where imperial power was still strong, Christian emperors continued to preside over an integrated Christian society. As heirs of Constantine, Byzantine emperors dominated the administration of church and state in the style still known as caesaropapism.

Theology in the East was speculative, with important decisions submitted to a collegial - concilliar system in which all the patriarchs, the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome, played an important role. It was fully acknowledged that the bishop of Rome had pride of place and certain rights of review over the other four. As early as the pontificate of Leo I (440 - 61), however, Roman patriarchs demanded more power. Matters were made more difficult by the rise of Islam and new barbarian attacks in the seventh and eighth centuries. The West became even more isolated, and when contacts between Rome and Constantinople were resumed the gulf between East and West had widened.

The filioque controversy seems to have originated in sixth century Visigothic Spain where the Arian heresy was endemic. The Arians claimed that the first and second persons of the Trinity were not coeternal and equal. In an effort to enforce traditional theology, Spanish churchmen added a phrase to the Nicene Creed, “ex Patre Filioque,” which amended the old form to state that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. However, it had been agreed in the fourth century that no change in the wording of the creed, except by conciliar consent, was possible. To the theologically sophisticated East, the filioque phrase seemed to challenge not only the universal creed, but also the official doctrine of the Trinity. When the issue was raised during the reign of Charlemagne (768 - 814), the papacy seemed to agree. Pope Leo III, while approving the spirit of the filioque, warned against any alteration in the wording of the creed.

It was the fusion of the filioque controversy with the rise of papal power that created the great crisis of 1054. The “reform” papacy of the eleventh century established itself on the right of the pope, as apostolic heir of Peter, to absolute power over all Christian people and institutions. Such claims had been rejected by the early church councils. To Eastern patriarchs Christ’s charge to Peter in Matt. 16:18 - 19 was shared by all the apostles and their spiritual heirs, the bishops. In 1054 Pope Leo IX (1048 - 54) sent a delegation headed by Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida to discuss the problems between the papacy and Constantinople. Disaster followed. The Patriarch of Constantinople. Michael Cerularius, rejected both papal claims and the filioque. The Western legates accused Constantinople of having altered the Nicene Creed. In the end, Cardinal Humbert deposited a Bull of Excommunication against Michael Cerularius on the altar of the Hagia Sophia, and the Great Schism was official.

Thereafter, efforts were made at reunion. As the Muslim Turks advanced on the Byzantine Empire in the high Middle Ages, Eastern Christians were in desperate need of relief from their Western brethren. However, all such hopes ceased when, in 1204, an army of crusading knights from the West sacked Constantinople. Eastern Christians never recovered from this outrage. In recent years effort to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches have failed. In 1965, Pope Paul VI lifted the ban of excommunication against Michael Cerularius. However, the problem of papal rule has been rendered more difficult by nineteenth century Roman declarations of papal infallibility. The wording of the creed has not been settled.

C T Marshall
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Source: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/gschism.htm

Jimmy continously demonstrates himself to be a false prophet distorting history to support his agenda. The Bible says liar and cowards have their place in the lake of fire.

Hey Freddy, read this article and let me know what you think.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/0.1/solved.htm

Also, did you have a chance to listen to the Catholic Answers Live show titled “Is the Catholic Church the Original Church?”?

tp://www.catholic.com/audio/2010/mp3/ca101101a.mp3

Adam,

I listened to the radio podcast and it is apparent how the speaker glosses over the difficult issues.  Look if you want a simple, nicely packaged discussion of church history it is best to only hear one side of the story.  However if you want the truth you better hear the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox perspectives.  Unfortunately I have never met a Catholic who was an honest investigator.  Therefore I can say those who want their ears tickled will just blindly follow the revisionist history explained by Catholic answers.  Fact is that Irenaeus thought Christ lived till he was 50+ years of age.  Justin Martyr thought he was a created being. Look these great church fathers failed a basic understanding of the gospel message.  Origen cut his male member off.  Augustine and Jerome had a very perverted view of sex in marriage.  Bottom line these church fathers had some serious theological issues. 

Adam as I have mentioned before for every convert to Catholicism I can find 10 converts to Evangelical Protestantism.  Patric Madrid loves to find these type of stories to beat his drum.  Fact is that Guatemala is fast becoming Protestant.  So his story amounts to nothing more than a tempest in a teacup.

The fact is nobody has refuted any of my theological points.  The problem is that virtually everyone, including Jimmy Akin, are theological lightweights, and fundamentally refuse to engage the original manuscripts, hermeneutics, and church history in a consistent and intellectually honest manner.  However the blind sheep easily fall victim to the clever sophistry of Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers.  So Adam I am saying that unless you can step up you intellectual game you are basically going to Hell because you failed to separate the truth from chaff. God knows that it is hardness and stubbornness of heart that keeps most people from being honest investigators of truth.  Thus the Catholic church is a holding cell of religious people awaiting eternal damnation.

Adam, 

as I have explained before if Transubstantiation is true than everyone should be a Catholic.  If it is false than everyone should leave the Catholic church.  Jesus makes seven ‘I am’ statements in John’s gospel and for a righteous Jew it would only make sense as a metaphor. Let me explain:

Jesus states in regard to “the bread of life” that it is a bread that falls from heaven and gives life. Sounds unusual, but for the Jews it was a very common thing to say because they knew quite well that the bread from heaven is written about in the scriptures. This symbol comes from the Manna in Heaven.

The Jews escaped Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Then they were immediately lead into the wilderness. In the wilderness there was no food. They had escaped Egypt with great joy, but then complained that they were hungry. Whereupon the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will let bread from heaven fall for you all,” (Exodus 16:4), and he gave them the marvelous food called manna. So they were nourished with the bread from heaven and were able to keep on in their journey. The bread from heaven gave life to the Israelites while they were in the wilderness, and brought them life. In that sense then, manna was certainly “the bread of life” for them.

However, the reason God let the manna fall was not just to meet their physical hunger. Moses told the people the following about the manna: “The Lord afflicted you and let you become hungry, and then fed you with manna which neither you nor your ancestors ever tasted. That was to let you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord,” (Deuteronomy 8:3). It is quite paradoxical, however, for he says the reason God gave them bread was to let them know that “Man doesn’t live by bread alone.” In other words, when a person “is living and alive” in its truest sense, it refers to more than the life support that just comes from food. God says that a person’s truly being “alive” means that he or she is living due to, and according to the word of God. That is, God shows himself through his word, and a person can respond to God by love, trust, and obedience. That’s how a person is to live with God. In fellowship like that with God is “life.” “Eternal life” means the same as a relationship with the eternal God. Going by that definition, the bread of life would not be the manna itself that the Israelites had eaten. The bread of life is the word of God that the people were given. The Bible says, “Man lives by every word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord.” Therefore the righteous Jews understood the metaphor and the unrighteous Pharisees did not.

So, the world is hungry for real life which comes from a genuine born-again faith relationship with God, not the emptiness of false religion and partaking of the ‘wafer god’.  Catholicism is paganism, false theology, and Medieval superstition rolled into a soup of ‘mass’ confusion and heresy.

“If Transubstantiation is true than everyone should be a Catholic. If it is false than everyone should leave the Catholic church.”

I completely agree with you.  If transubstantiation is false then all Catholics are committing idolatry by worshipping a piece of bread.  If it is true then that means we have the real, physical presence of Jesus here on earth and everyone should become Catholic so that they can receive Him.

But answer one question for me, if Jesus meant it metaphorically then why did many of his followers leave him after he said it and why did he let them leave?

Adam,

The Pharisees interpreted the words of Jesus literally.  Well the gospels clearly show that the Pharisee completely missed the message of Christ.  The reason some of the disciples left is because they did not want to be lead by the ‘word of God’.  Example:  Every day a Christian is required to get the word of God to know what he or she is supposed to do that day. This means pressing in until you know exactly know what God’s will is for your life.  I have many friends that are comfortable being Catholic because it requires very little commitment.  However, true Christianity may require you to give up house, profession, position, reputation, and serve God where HE wants you, not were you feel comfortable.  Thus many people are not willing to take the wilderness journey and follow Christ and fulfill their calling.  These disciples understood the true cost of discipleship and they left.  This is why it was a difficult teaching.

Ok, so you answered the first part: they left because they took His words literally.  And like you said they weren’t ready to be lead by the word of God, which in this case were the words of Jesus saying that you must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

But you didn’t answer the second part.  Why did Jesus let them leave if He knew that they misunderstood Him?  And even more importantly why did he then turn to the twelve and say, “Do you also want to leave?”?

Adam,
Jesus is a gentlemen.  He does not force us to become Christians.  He knew that the Pharisees had hardened hearts and were not going to repent. Also their hardened heart caused them to misinterpret Jesus’ words.  The Bible says not to cast pearls before swine.  So it is a waste of energy, time, and resources to try to convince some people of the truth.  So Christ knew that those disciples who left could not be convinced about the true cost of discipleship, so He let them walk away. True Christianity requires a death to self and few are willing to pick up their cross to follow Christ.  As I have said before, Old Testament Judaism and the century Christianity are non-sacramental and this is why the 12 disciples properly understood Christ’s teaching and were willing to lay down their lives for the truth, even to the point of martyrdom.  The church was derailed with the introduction of sacramental theology and as a consequence Catholics and the bulk of the church fathers can not properly understand scripture.  The bottom line is that Christ is coming for a remnant on the last day. Jesus said, the road to eternal life is narrow and few find it.  The Pharisees, some disciples,  most Catholics, all Muslims, all Buddhists, all Mormons, have not found it.  I say most Catholics, because there are a few born-again Catholics in the Catholic church who are trying to reform it from within and change Catholic teaching.

I’m not really following you.  In this passage the reason His followers left Him has nothing to do with repentance or really even the cost of discipleship, but it has everything to do with whether Jesus meant His words symbolically or literally.

“So it is a waste of energy, time, and resources to try to convince some people of the truth.”  The truth in this situation, according to you, is that Jesus meant His words symbolically.  It would be easy to convince those leaving that He meant it symbolically.  All He would have had to do is say, “Hey wait don’t leave, you misunderstood me I only meant it symbolically.”  And they would have easily understood and accepted that and stayed with Him, no matter how hardened their hearts were or how unrepentant they were.

Also, after many of His disciples said “This is a hard saying, who can accept it?”, Jesus says “Does this shock you?”.  Why would he say this if he meant his words symbolically?  This would have been the perfect time for him to explain that he was speaking symbolically, but instead he says “Does this shock you?”.  Can you explain that to me?

One more question.  In verse 55 Jesus says, “My flesh is TRUE food, and my blood is TRUE drink.”  How can this be taken symbolically?  I don’t think Jesus can be any clearer that he is speaking literally.

Adam,

The key verse is 63: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”  So let us see what this means :

Aware of his disciples confusion, and to clarify the meaning of his words, Jesus states that his words are spirit and they are life, the flesh counts for nothing, it is the Spirit Who gives life. So, everything Jesus said previously about his body being bread, his blood being drink, and the necessity of having to eat and drink his body and blood, are to be taken literally, but in a spiritual sense. When taken this way, the meaning is quite obvious, as Jesus gives the meaning in verse 63. Jesus is referring to the Holy Spirit. To have life, eternal life, one must have the Spirit of God.

What Jesus is telling his audience here is the same thing he tells Nicodemus in John 3. To partake of the life that Jesus offers one must partake of him spiritually. The only way to do this is to be born of the Spirit and to partake of the life in the Spirit.

Jesus continues in verse 65 by saying: He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
A true Christian is a person who has had God the Father speak to their hearts, lead them to repentance, and has given them supernatural faith in Christ.  Born again people place their trust in Christ, while sacramental people place trust in their church and a sacramental/pagan-christ.  Born-again people have God-given discernment to distinguish between a true church and a false church.  Sacramental counterfeit Christians have no ability to discern so they blindly trust in the Catholic church.  All pagan religions are sacramental because they trust the flesh.  Christianity when lead by faith is non-sacramental because it knows the only thing of value is the spirit, because the flesh profits NOTHING!

Thank God that he has given Freddy the authority to condenm us all to hell!  What creature has the right to condenm anyone to hell?  You are extremely full of yourself and your misguided “knowledge”.  Tell me, who has made you judge, Freddy?  God help you!

Adam,  You’re wonderful!  This Freddy is blind.  He is so full of himself and his knowledge and I see absolutely no sign of faith in what he posts.  I only see his self righteousness.  Not a true sign of a follower of Christ.  There is nothing but pride and arrogance in what he writes.  I can’t imagine how many people he has won over with this arrogance .  A real true sign of a follower of Christ…not!!  I do not want what you have, Freddy. 

I can not help but think of the following in reading all that you have written, Freddy.  Thank you God that I am not like those Catholics….

Luke
10 ‘Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. 
11 The Pharisee stood there and said this prayer to himself, “I thank you, God, that I am not grasping, unjust, adulterous like everyone else, and particularly that I am not like this tax collector here. 
12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes on all I get.” 
13 The tax collector stood some distance away, not daring even to raise his eyes to heaven; but he beat his breast and said, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” 
14 This man, I tell you, went home again justified; the other did not. For everyone who raises himself up will be humbled, but anyone who humbles himself will be raised up.’

CF,
Arguing with you is as pointless as Jesus arguing with the Pharisees.  Your fundamentally not teachable and fail to realize people make judgments all the time.  The Catholic Magisterium makes a judgment that anyone who practices artificial birth control is in mortal sin.  I bet 90% of Catholics are in mortal sin based on that pronouncement.  Let me give you another example of judgment, taken directly from the Apostle Paul:

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. 

So CF you should be glad that I am warning you about deception, otherwise you will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.  Fact is 33% of priests are homosexuals and according to Paul they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  So if you want to remain deceived stay in the Catholic church, if you want TRUTH prove my statements wrong.  Otherwise remain silent for a fool appears wise when he does not speak.

Freddie, you really don’t know Catholic teaching well enough to try to condemn us with it!

There’s more to being in mortal sin than just a heretic telling us so.  When you know the three conditions for mortal sin, then you can come back and try to beat the contracepting Catholics over the head with it. Until then, remain silent.

Take the same advice you gave CF.

Please cough up the reliable statistics demonstrating that more than 30% of priests are homosexually inclined.

I am quite familiar with the three conditions for mortal sin.  I give the example of artificial birth control because I have yet to meet a Catholic who has an excuse for their sin.  A humble Catholic when confronted with the sin of artificial birth control would repent and stop it.  However Catholics are inherently hardened of heart, rebellious, superstitious, and practice idolatry.  These Catholics try in vain to appeal to reason when excusing their sin of birth control.  However God knows their hearts and will judge them more severely than even an Atheist.  Look these mortal sin practicing Catholics commit further sin by partaking of the Eucharist.  As I tell my best friend who is Catholic.  Are Catholics baptized into hypocrisy, superstition, and raw stupidity? Do Catholics ever examine their hearts or do they think that God will excuse their wicked heart because they eat the wafer god?

BTW, I am not condemning you.  I am telling you that the Catholic church is condemning you to Hell if in mortal sin.  I am also telling you that Paul is condemning you to Hell if you are a fornicator, homosexual, slanderer, idolator, etc.  If the Eucharist is only a symbol than Protestants are correct in stating Catholics are idolators.  So remaining consistent with Paul we have every right to condemn Catholics to Hell.  This is all very logical, however this seems to escape the reasoning of most Catholics.

Homosexual statistics:
Father Donald Cozzens wrote that several studies have concluded that about 50% of priests and seminarians are gay.
bullet   David France of Newsweek, referring to St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, CA, wrote: “Depending on whom you ask, gay and bisexual men make up anywhere from 30 percent to 70 percent of the student body at the college and graduate levels.”
bullet   Rt. Rev. Helmut Hefner, rector of St. Johns Seminary “accepts that his gay enrollment may be as high as 50 percent.”
bullet   Gay journalist Rex Wockner commented: “When I was in the Catholic seminary in my early 20s (St. Meinrad College, St. Meinrad, Ind., 1982-1983; University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, Ill., 1983-1984), at least 50 percent of the students were gay….At St. Mary of the Lake, the straight students felt like a minority and felt excluded from some aspects of campus life to such an extent that the administration staged a seminar at which we discussed the problem of the straight students feeling left out of things…”
bullet   Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 55.1% of seminarians were gay.
bullet   Bishop Jerome Listecki is an auxiliary bishop of Chicago, rejects some estimates that as many as 50% of seminarians have a homosexual orientation.
—Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm

Freddy,
You still didn’t answer either of my questions.

1.  Why did Jesus say, “Does this shock you?” if He only meant it symbolically?

2.  How can the verse “My flesh is TRUE food, and my blood is TRUE drink” be taken symbolically by anyone?

Also, I disagree with you on verse 63.  Jesus spent the last 12 or so verses explaining Himself and making it clear that He was speaking literally, repeating the same point at least three times.  So it doesn’t make sense for Him to nullify everything he just said.  What verse 63 is really saying is that OUR flesh, our natural five senses cannot comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist.  Only by God’s grace and through the power of the Holy Spirit can we come to understand this sacramental mystery.

And notice that he doesn’t say MY flesh, He says THE flesh.  What does Jesus usually mean when He says “the flesh”?  Well lets look at Matthew 26:41 when the disciples fall asleep in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”  What is he referring to here, His body?  No, he’s referring to our bodies that are weak, and get tired and weary.  The disciples wanted to stay awake but their human bodies and will power were weak.  In the same way we may desire to understand the Eucharist, but our natural senses and minds cannot do it without the spirit.  “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.”

One more thing, if you say that it is the flesh of Christ that is of no avail, or in some translations “profits nothing”, then you have proven TOO much because then you deny the need for the incarnation or the bodily resurrection of Christ.

What are the three conditions for mortal sin, Fred?

Do you believe that a Catholic commits a mortal sin if he or she willingly uses birth control?

First, this discussion relates to eternal life, because Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion service. Moreover He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the communion elements. Most important, the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Jesus’ death, not a vehicle for obtaining eternal life.

Second, Not only “the Jews” (v. 52) but many of Jesus’ followers found His teaching about the Bread of Life offensive (Gr. skleros, difficult or hard).
The term “disciple” is not synonymous with “believer,” as should be
patently clear in the Gospels. In verse 64 Jesus said that some of these
“disciples” did not believe. Some of Jesus’ disciples were believers, but
many of them were following Him to learn from Him and to decide if He
was the Messiah or not. This teaching persuaded many in this seeker
category to abandon this Rabbi. Some of them undoubtedly wanted the
physical benefits of Jesus’ messianism but had little interest in spiritual matters (cf. vv. 14-15, 26, 30-31). Others could not see beyond Jesus’ humanity to His true identity (vv. 41-46). Others probably could not accept Jesus’ claim to be greater than Moses (vv. 32-33, 58). Still others may have found Jesus’ language offensive, particularly His references to eating flesh and drinking blood (vv. 53-54). -Adapted from Soniclight.com/john.pdf

In Summary: The Catholics look to the physical while Protestants look to the spiritual.  Clearly only one is correct.  The disciples find His word offensive because Christ is saying that He provides eternal life and is thus greater than Moses or any prophet.  Christ is basically claiming He is the Messiah. Most Jews thought the Messiah would come not as a suffering servant but as a warrior who would slay the enemies of Judaism. If Christ is not the Messiah than this is a scandal or offensive.

Flesh and blood are metaphors, actually a synchedoche, for the whole person.  Jesus is saying unless you believe in the whole person of Christ, you do not have eternal life.  Genuine belief means belonging to His TRUE church not a counterfeit church.

Also before Jesus was resurrected His flesh was like any human. Why? Because He had not died and only upon resurrection did He receive a resurrected and glorified body.  His natural body died and was no different than our natural body.  So the natural flesh is nothing.

Liseux,
First as a Protestant I don’t believe that using a non-abortive contraceptive with my wife is a mortal sin.  But I do believe this is a mortal sin in Catholic circles.  This is one of the reasons I left the Catholic church, because she was utterly ridiculous in her declarations of what constitutes a mortal sin.  Even the Eastern Orthodox think Catholics are ridiculous in their determinations of what constitutes mortal sin.

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions at the same time:

1.  Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

Adam,
Catholic Catechism states that Muslims and Catholics worship the same god.  Since Protestants reject the god of Muslims it is easy to deduce that Protestants and Catholics do not worship the same god.  Thus either Catholics and Muslims worship the true god or they don’t. So it is very clear that Muslims and Catholics worship a counterfeit Christ that can not save them from their trespasses. 

Remember it is Muslims that introduced Aristotle to the Medieval Scholastics.  The church, according to the Orthodox, was neo-Platonic before Scholasticism.  Thus the innovations of Scholasticism is why Catholics can not understand the spiritual nature of the Bible. Scholasticism is the greatest false teaching of the past 1000 years and Catholics blindly drink this kool-aid waiting for the Damocles Sword to fall on their mortal souls.

Freddy, you are such a hypocrite.

You don’t think it’s a mortal sin for YOU, but you think it’s a mortal sin for Catholics. That’s called H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-C-A-L.

You cannot sit on your pharasaical high horse and have it both ways.

You want to be the judge of us all, but you don’t follow the same rules.

Why are you here?  Just to raise hell, I suspect.

Don’t you have something PRODUCTIVE to do at home? 

I think not, as you come here to bait the Catholics, and then instead show us your hypocrisy and lack of logic and common sense.

No, you left the Catholic Church so you could invent your own rules.  Instead of having to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church you could be your own god and make your “church” fit whatever you darn well please.  And your lovely sources above, just like a good Catholic hating liberal that you’d find in the media, you’ll find anyone to justify your misguided “proof”...pathetic!

Adam, he has no answer to your question. 

As for your response to my post, you only proved my point about you.

Go bark up another tree, Fred.

Fred,

You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

You say that if YOU use contraception, it’s not a mortal sin.

However, if Catholics use contraception, we are committing mortal sin and perhaps are damned to hell.

AND…. you don’t even BELIEVE in Catholic teaching anymore.

It is bizarre and ridiculous that you try to condemn Catholics by using their teaching that you don’t is authoritative anyway.

Fred, you’re just here to raise hell and bait the Catholics.  I wish you had something productive to do at your house rather than look back at us. Apparently, your new religion is not very fulfilling and TRUE, therefore, instead of being out doing good deeds, you’re here to damn us to hell.

You’re in my prayers, Fred.

CF,
You clearly fail the test of being a worthy intellectual opponent.  All I can say is that your ignorance, arrogance, lack of scholarship, are readily apparent.  You prove my point of a person blindly drinking the Catholic kool-aid. It is micro-cephalic individuals as yourself which are causing the mass exodus from the Catholic church in America and Latin American countries.

A worthy opponent would try to refute my arguments, but you can’t! Therefore you should fear the Damocles Sword swinging over your mortal soul.

Liseux,
My intention is not to bait Catholics, but to educate them on the consequences of not searching for truth. If you want your ears tickled than by all means listen to Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers.  If you want truth than search for it.  God will help those that are honest seekers.  Those who have already made up their minds that Catholicism is the way, they will be disappointed on the day of judgment.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” -Prov 16:25.  If you can’t defend your position than it is safe to conclude that you are on the road to death.

Liseux,
If I were Muslim, eating Pork would be equivalent to a mortal sin.  Since I am not a Muslim, eating Pork is not a mortal sin.  You have chosen to submit to Catholic teaching so your own law condemns you. So you clearly don’t understand what a hypocrite is. 

In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated “We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases”, adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups and denominations.[10] A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that “approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor” which “is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers”.[11]... However, statistics from the US Department of Health an Human Services show that this figure was less than 0,2% for the rest of the population of the US during the last decade.[14][15]—Look how the sex abuse scandal in the RCC and you see it is way above the general population, but the Catholic church is trying to cover it up.

Call me all of the names you want, Freddy!  I’d rather be the most ignorant person in the world, submitting to the authority of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic Church than to act as you do.  Wow, what an example of a Christian!?  Are you sure you are in need of a savior?

Again, you have proved my point!

Fred,

Do you think a Muslim will actually go to hell for eating pork?  Do you believe his religion is true??

Only if it’s true will that tenet hold.

You want to beat the Muslim over the head with his own tenets, condemn him, and then tell him that his religion is false.

If his religion is false, then you should be telling him that he can eat all the pork he wants.

Also, as you believe Catholicism is false, you should be telling us it is NOT a mortal sin to use contraception.

Instead, you prefer to beat us over the head with out own teachings- just for the sake of arguing.

I don’t have time for your games, Fred.

We should BOTH be out feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and praying instead of arguing over Christianity.  We’ll see where the truth is by our actions…....

There is much to do- and you’re in my prayers.

CF,
So your saying that you want to be ignorant and in a church filled with other ignorant people.  WOW!  Therefore, I am correct in my statement that Catholics are baptized into raw stupidity!
                                                 
Liseux,
I only expose your own hypocrisy. We know that Christ will reject hypocrites.  So why remain Catholic if you don’t follow the teaching.  This logic makes as much sense as the person who says, I am a faithful husband but I sleep around on my wife.  God does not suffer fools.  Read Proverbs and see what fate awaits fools. They to will be in the Lake of Fire.

Fred, I do follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, and I accept all of them as well—because they are true, PARTICULARLY the teaching on contraception.

However, I’m not going to insist that all Muslims, psuedo- Christians, Jews, etc. follow all the teachings of their groups. Nor will I condemn them to hell when they don’t follow them.  That’s because they do not have the fullness of the truth.

That’s what you’ve done here.

You’ve made a huge error in logic.

Told us we’re in mortal sin if we don’t follow Catholic teaching.

And… you believe Catholic teaching is false.

Looks like you’re making a lifetime of advocating false teaching now that you’ve left the Catholic Church.

Come home Fred.

It’s the only place you’ll find the fullness of truth and the natural law taught and lived out.

This is my last post.

Have a good one.

Liseux,

“The Reformation is an argument not just about the Bible but about the early Christian fathers, whom the Protestants wanted to claim. This is one of those things that is so obvious nobody has paid much attention to it—then you look and you see it everywhere.

“The Reformers use the Fathers all over the place. We know Calvin read Augustine, and we discovered recently that Luther read Jerome—he had copies annotated in his own hand. The index of Calvin’s Institutes is filled with an enormous number of quotations from the Fathers. And in the first preface to that work, addressed to Francis I, Calvin did his best to show his teachings were in complete harmony with the Fathers.

“The Protestants did this because they were keen to have ancestors. They knew that innovation was another word for heresy. ‘Ours is the ancient tradition,’ they said. ‘The innovations were introduced in the Middle Ages!’ They issued anthologies of the Fathers to show the Fathers had taught what the Reformers were teaching.

“But they also turned to the Fathers because they found them important sources of insight into the text of Scripture. Calvin and Melanchthon both believed it was a very strong argument against a given theological position if you couldn’t find authorization for it in the Fathers.

“All the Reformers loved Augustine (Luther, remember, was an Augustinian friar). Calvin, though he loved Augustine for doctrine, preferred Chrysostom’s approach to biblical interpretation.—Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2003/issue80/5.10.html

So join the Reformers and return to authentic Christianity and reject the innovations of the Middle Ages.  Otherwise you will be tried for practicing Eucharist idolatry and submitting to a false christ.  There is no acquittal for such high treason.

Liseux,

You prove that you fail to understand Christianity and are thus destined with certainty to go to Hell and the Lake of Fire.  Why?
Scripture clearly states: 
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13

Stop and reason for a moment. If there is a place called heaven, a paradise wonderful beyond imagination, and if there is a place of eternal torment called hell, wouldn’t a loving God tell us how to obtain one and avoid the other? So a born-again Christian KNOWS that he is going to Heaven and also KNOWS those that reject Christ go to HELL.  It is very simple, but the Catholic church, as a counterfeit religion, has obfuscated this simple truth.

Ask yourself a question this holiday season.
Would God make us endure an entire lifetime, never knowing how we could escape the flames of hell and be assured of enjoying paradise with Him?

Would a loving God say, “Do as many good works as you can, then keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best when you stand before Me someday.”

No, that’s not love, that’ s torture! That’ s cruelty of the highest sort. A God of love would give us a clear, simple plan spelling out how to miss this awful place of torment and be assured of heaven. And He has:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

The Bible declares that those who receive Christ by faith and put their trust in Him can know right now that they have eternal life:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36

“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24

It’s not a sin to presume you are going to heaven if you have been born into God’s family through faith in Christ. It is a Biblical fact and a precious promise from the Lord Jesus. It is never presumptuous to take God at His Word. In fact, He loves it when we do:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:27-28

God wants His children to rest in the fact that they have been born into His family and that their eternal destiny is settled:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” John 6:47

I think you are forgetting how acceptable it has become to bash on muslims, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, and far more ethnic and social groups than I can even begin to name. These groups and peoples are constantly berated and put down in ways that are deemed socially acceptable but are nonetheless pregidous. I would even argue that compared to the pregidous catholics suffer many of these groups suffer far worst as well as far worst consequences. I would say your argument is in an incredibly small scope and fails to see many other forms of hatred right out in the open of our society, ignoring them completely.

Come to Mn where the largest group of Muslims in the USA live and Central Mn where the largest group lives of any city in the USA
The Catholic church gets hit on becasue of the many priests from St. JOhns have heen sued and are being sued right now for sex abuse. 
But dont say anything about Muslims or you will be cut down. they file law suits etc, have much protection that the Catholic Church andother Christian church’s do not have.
Yes, the many many years of priest getting sued from St> Johns is way out of line and so many still there. They have created along with the Bishop, a mess for all the cover us.  Then the church needs a good change of attitude .

Don’t bother argueing with Freddie-pray for him to receive the grace to see the truth-the Catholic Church is the most hated because it bears the marks of persecution like Our Lord said it would.  Bishop Sheen has written an eloquent challenge on seeking the true church.  Obstinate heretics defend 40,000 conflicting denominations because they have a problem with obedience-“non serviam.”  I am a prodigal daughter myself, joyously grateful to be “home”, in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC CHURCH, Praise be to Jesus!

glqpnfciipkrruyjskskapfxmra, Amazon Deals, gisczvzbl, Amazon Deals, bHDfkymhw, http://eflowmanagement.com/ Amazon Deals, ujGicfene, Amazon Coupon, yoVqgMqPD, Amazon Coupon, HcXHDpiEs, http://themagicofmakingup-scam.net/ Amazon Coupon, FVlhMcPvH, Amazon Discount Code, waMdmVJGJ, Amazon Discount Code, OWDxXbdXp, http://thesixfigurecode-reviews.net/ Amazon Discount Code, zcVebegsp, Amazon Discount Codes, QUQjUgvaQ, http://whitehatcopycat2-reviews.net/ Amazon Discount Codes, QbNlADPan, <a ]Amazon Christmas[/url], bQRYnggdg, Amazon Christmas, VZCLSLFCt, http://hypotheekaflossingsvrije.nl/ Amazon Christmas,JvAexnhFZ, Pregnancy Early Symptoms, JnHtaauBD, Pregnancy Symptoms, RqxjluTmm, http://pregnancysymptomssigns.net/ Pregnancy Signs, PjZFtaEMc.

At the start of films, a countdown timer sequence is printed on the head leader, to aid in synchronizing the film. In film (but not television) the countdown is in units of feet rather than time units.

The countdowntimer ends just as “two” is displayed so that the countdown isn’t shown if the film is put on screen a little earlier than intended. Although this sequence was usually not intended for broadcast, being a cue device for a projectionist or TV producer, it is sometimes used in modern-day spoofs to signify old film footage.

cbgtafwww.guccioutlet2us.comipjsin