Your Beef with Catholicism

Originally posted by EricD
Dbrandt,

Are you under the impression that the consumption of the Eucharist is required for salvation?

Very much so.

I have made a point out of studying the Catholic Church in several areas for for at least a decade. And one of the best devices available for studying the Catholic Church is the TV channel EWTN.

You get a wealth of information from EWTN on what the Catholic Church believes and what it teaches. And whether you or anyone else wants to believe it, false false doctrine abounds in the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by dbrandt

And one of the best devices available for studying the Catholic Church is the TV channel EWTN.

I agree with you 100% that EWTN is one of the best sources for learning about the Catholic Church.

I hope that I can explain this with the right words.

Catholics do believe that we are saved by faith alone. We also believe that if we have the faith that Jesus is our Saviour, then we will try to live our lives as He has commanded us and has been reported in the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the other papers of the New Testament. We believe that these words have been written by men but inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus also says, "If you love me you will keep my commandments."

Catholics believe that there are seven sacraments instituted by Jesus and one of these is the Holy Eucharist. This was given to us by Jesus at the last supper.

Prior to the last supper, there is a discussion between Jesus and his disciples about what the Eucharist means. I have not used my Catholic Bible as a reference. This reference is the King James Version that I found on-line. For the entire teaching please go to this site.
King James Version

Several truths stand out in these verses.

Gospel of John, 6th chapter

6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
6:48 I am that bread of life.
6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

(My comment) Then the Jews murmured among themselves…

6:52 How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?

Jesus heard them talking and answered in this way…

6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Jesus goes on in this way, making sure that they understand what He is saying. This teaching He was giving upset many of His disciples.

6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard (this), said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Then, notice how He answers them. He does not say, “Hey, this is just a symbol. I’m not asking you to eat my real flesh or drink my real blood.” Many of His disciples did not want to believe this truth and left.

6:66 From that (time) many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Then Jesus spoke to the twelve Apostles and asked them what they felt about His teaching?

6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

And then Simon Peter spoke for himself and the other apostles.

6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Dbrandt,

I'm not ignoring you, Mahree has answered you regarding the role of the Eucharist at least as well as I could have.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to find a nice, concise answer but I finally gave up. Salvation and the Eucharist, unlike some other theological points, like some specifics of exegesis just don't lend themselves to short answers.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

I will try to get back to other posters today or tomorrow.

Eric

Originally posted by Mahree

Originally posted by dbrandt

And one of the best devices available for studying the Catholic Church is the TV channel EWTN.

I agree with you 100% that EWTN is one of the best sources for learning about the Catholic Church.

I Catholics do believe that we are saved by faith alone.

Then, notice how He answers them. He does not say, “Hey, this is just a symbol. I’m not asking you to eat my real flesh or drink my real blood.” Many of His disciples did not want to believe this truth and left.



I hope I'm getting your answer right so correct me if I'm wrong. We are both saying that EWTN is a resource for teaching what the catholic church believes, except I think it shows the falseness of Biblical truth to catholicism and you are saying it shows a positive truthful side, correct?

Then as far as Jesus saying the bread and wine are symbols and are meant to be taken in a spiritual application, you are correct and are correct that the Bible says it this way and that is the truth.

But it seems you are saying that the catholic church teaches that the bread and wine are not really changed into Jesus actual body and blood. If this is what you are saying, sorry for being blunt, but you are so wrong. You must not be really listening to EWTN closely, because it is stressed by catholic priests and heirarchy that it is really the body and blood of Jesus and you can only be saved by eating the "changed" substances which is not true.

I think that it is more of a faith/Grace vs. works situation.

Catholics believe that works come from salvation, not that works are the catalyst for salvation. In a similar fashion, someone that has found salvation will want to be in communion (no pun intended) with the fullness of the Church and will be partaking of the Eucharist.

And yes, Catholics believe that the bread and wine are the blood and body of Christ.

Still working on the other posts!

Eric

And hey, what do you have to do to get a flag on a thread, for crying out loud?

Eric

Originally posted by dbrandt

Quote from Mahree

Then, notice how He answers them. He does not say, “Hey, this is just a symbol. I’m not asking you to eat my real flesh or drink my real blood.” Many of His disciples did not want to believe this truth and left.

dbrandt..Those were my words or summary. I am saying that he does not say...That this is only a symbol. He say straight out and really plain that it is His real flesh and real blood. That is why his disciples walked away. It was like they were saying, "Uck!, this is too hard to believe." These are my words. In my quotes from the bible I quoted (in yellow text) Jesus' words.

quote from dbrandt

I hope I'm getting your answer right so correct me if I'm wrong. We are both saying that EWTN is a resource for teaching what the catholic church believes, except I think it shows the falseness of Biblical truth to catholicism and you are saying it shows a positive truthful side, correct?

Yes

quote from dbrandt

Then as far as Jesus saying the bread and wine are symbols and are meant to be taken in a spiritual application, you are correct and are correct that the Bible says it this way and that is the truth.

Sorry dbrandt, that isn't what I was trying to say. I quoted Jesus' words from the bible and He [b[is saying that it is His real flesh and real blood.

quote from dbrandt

But it seems you are saying that the catholic church teaches that the bread and wine are not really changed into Jesus actual body and blood.

Yes, I know that the Catholic church follows the teaching of Jesus (as quoted above) and that the Eucharist is the real flesh and the real body of Jesus.

I'm sorry that I have not explained it well. Could you please explain to me why you think those verses quoted from the bible say that Jesus meant them as a symbol? If Jesus did mean them as a symbol why did some disciples leave him?

Originally posted by dbrandt

Quote from Mahree

Then, notice how He answers them. He does not say, “Hey, this is just a symbol. I’m not asking you to eat my real flesh or drink my real blood.” Many of His disciples did not want to believe this truth and left.

dbrandt..Those were my words or summary. I am saying that he does not say...That this is only a symbol. He said straight out and really plain that it is His real flesh and real blood. That is why his disciples walked away. It was like they were saying, "Uck!, this is too hard to believe." These are my words. In my quotes from the bible I quoted (in yellow text) Jesus' words.

quote from dbrandt

I hope I'm getting your answer right so correct me if I'm wrong. We are both saying that EWTN is a resource for teaching what the catholic church believes, except I think it shows the falseness of Biblical truth to catholicism and you are saying it shows a positive truthful side, correct?

Yes

quote from dbrandt

Then as far as Jesus saying the bread and wine are symbols and are meant to be taken in a spiritual application, you are correct and are correct that the Bible says it this way and that is the truth.

Sorry dbrandt, that isn't what I was trying to say. I quoted Jesus' words from the bible and He is saying that it is His real flesh and real blood.
6:52 How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?
6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard (this), said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?


quote from dbrandt

But it seems you are saying that the catholic church teaches that the bread and wine are not really changed into Jesus actual body and blood.

No, I was trying to say that I know that the Catholic church follows the teaching of Jesus (as quoted above) and that the Eucharist is the real flesh and the real blood of Jesus.

I'm sorry that I have not explained it well. Could you please explain to me why you think those verses quoted from the bible say that Jesus meant them as a symbol? If Jesus did mean them as a symbol why did some disciples leave him?


[edit on 8/31/2007 by Mahree]

Jesus was alluding to the old and new testaments.
He said that the old testament was his body and the new testament was his blood. I can't point out the chapter and verses right now, it's late.
Good night everyone.

Clearskies,

Thank you for your comment. I would like it if you could follow up with the sources for your comments. Perhaps you would also explain how this relates to the discourse of the Bread of Life.

Thank you

Originally posted by Mahree
Clearskies,

Thank you for your comment. I would like it if you could follow up with the sources for your comments. Perhaps you would also explain how this relates to the discourse of the Bread of Life.

Thank you

O.K.,
I forgot about this thread and have just gotten back to it.
Here's a site that has a study on the flesh and the blood of Jesus.Faith
The flesh of the old testament is the passover lamb.(Jesus)
Slain for the sins of everyone in the house, to be eaten entirely.

The blood(the new testament) of the lamb(Jesus), to be put on the doorposts of the house for the saving of everyone within.

I don't think of it as a cult, but much more as a big business. That just like any other big Christian division.

(I apologize for how long it has taken to get back to this. Personal life stuff and lots of searching (often to no avail) for original sources took up a lot of time)

Whitewave,

I’m happy to hear that you have nothing against Catholics. Please know that I have nothing against you either. I appreciate that this discussion, for the most part, has remained civil and cordial.

You posted quite a bit, so please give me a bit of time and bear with me.

My responses to your points are preceded by ‘**’

1) The well-known Roman Catholic, Monsignor Capel listed 62 titles for the pope: Most Divine of all Heads/Holy Father of Fathers/Pontiff Supreme over all Prelates/Christ by Unction!/Key-Bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven/Vicar of Christ/ Head of all the Holy Churches/Chief of the Universal Church/Ruler of the House of the Lord/Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers/Infallible Pope, etc. (No pope has chastised or shyed away from accepting these blasphemous titles)

**I’m not sure how many Monsignors there are currently. I’m checking the Annuario Pontificio and hope to find out soon. Monsignors are sort of a ‘senior’ Priest who are below Bishops in Clerical hierarchy. Monsignors do not speak for the Catholic Church.

If the Pope were to spend time reviewing and correcting every statement made by a Monsignor he would have little time for anything else.

I don’t have the time or inclination to review 62 titles that someone uses for the Pope, but if you would like to choose one or two I’ll be happy to give my opinion on it and let you know if it is officially ‘Catholic’.**

2) Pope Boniface VIII gave a decree: "We declare, say, define, pronounce it necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

**Can you please list the citation for this? Thank you.**

3) Pope Gregory VII (year 1063) said (referring to Gen. 1:16): "God made 2 great lights in the firmament of heaven; the greater light to rule the day and the less to rule the night; both great, but one the greater. 'In the firmament of heaven', that is, the universal church, 'God made 2 great lights'; that is, he instituted 2 dignitaries, which are the pontifical authority and the regal power; but that which presides over the day, that is, the spiritual, is the greater; but that which presides over carnal things is the less; for as the sun differs from the moon, so do popes differ from kings."

**Can you please explain your complaint regarding this statement? Is it your belief that the Pope should only comment on Spiritual matters?**

4) Referring to the reign of Leo X, the fifth session of the Council of Lateran said: "Weep not, daughter of Zion, for behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David: behold, God hath raised thee up a savior."

**I’m having trouble finding this. Can you please provide a link to the citation? Did an individual (such as Lord Anthony Pucci) say this or was it part of an official declaration? And just to clarify, you believe that the quote is referencing the Pope and equating him with Jesus. Is that correct?**

Cont'd

5) The Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary, the word "papa" (pope) is described: "The pope is of such dignity and highness that he is not simply a man but, as it were, God, and the vicar [representative] of God....He is of such great dignity and power that he occupies one and the same tribunal with Christ; so that whatsoever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God...The pope is, as it were, God on earth, the only prince of the faithful of Christ...The pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, declare or interpret the divine law. The pope can sometimes counteract the divine law by limiting, explaining, etc."
(He shall think to change times and laws."-Dan. 7:25)

These and many, many more examples of just the blasphemy that popes throughout the ages have wallowed in with egomaniacal narcissism could be shown but I'll let these suffice for now and move on to the other aspects of "my beef with Catholicism".

**I’m having a GREAT deal of trouble finding an English translation of the dictionary. Heck, I’m having a great deal of trouble find ANY copy. You seem to have found a translation. Can you point out the url to me so I can take a look? Thanks.

1) Catholicism is responsible for that horrible, injurious and patently false doctrine of hell and purgatory. Antonius wrote: "In regard to the fishes in the sea (psalm 8), because, as the fishes are continually agitated by the waves of the sea, so those in purgatory are continually exercised by the afflictions of punishment, God hath subjected to the pope also the fishes of the sea, that is, those who are in purgatory, to relieve them by indulgences." (Indulgences were a form of revenue gathering).

**Can you please break down your complaint? Is it the concept of indulgences (which were not revenue driven), purgatory, or hell? Or all three? Or part of each? I would be happy to provide the Catholic position and defense of purgatory if that is the crux of your argument.

2) Pope Nicholas: "It is to be presumed that the bishop of that church (the pope himself) is always good and holy. Yea, though he fall into homicide or adultery, he may sin, but yet he canot be accused, but rather excused by the nurders of Samson, the thefts of the Hebrews, etc. ..I am able to do almost all that God can do. In all things that I list my will is to stand for reason, for I am able by the law to dispense above the law, and of wrong to make justice in correcting laws and changing them. Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, What can you make me but God? (!!!)...It is in my power to...dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ;..."
**I know, I know. I sound like a broken record. Can you please provide the source of this quote? Thanks again.

3) Pope Martin: Do not I, Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present at marriage-feasts, and also to marry? ....What should I speak of nurder, making it to be no murder or homicide to slay them that be excommunicated?...Also against the canons of the apostles, I can and do dispense; for where they, in their canon, command a priest for fornication to be disposed, I through the authority of Sylvester, do alter the rigor of that constitution, considering the minds and bodies also of men now to be weaker than they were then. (btw, this is when the "F" word was invented. It was an acronym for Fornication Under Catholic something or another.)

If you think these boastful blasphemies are from some long past era and that things are different now, keep in mind the constant claim of Papacy is that its doctrines are unchangeable and that the decrees of its popes and councils are infallible.

**Actually, I don’t know if these claims are accurate or not. I would be happy to comment if you could provide me with the source of the quote. Thanks.

Cont'd

4) When a new pope is installed, part of the ceremony is "The Adoration". During the adoration, the newly elected pope, dressed in white, decked out with beautiful and multitudinous precious stones is brought to the altar, he kneels, then with his mitre on his head rises and is physically hoisted up by the aging cardinals and placed on the altar-throne to sit. A bishop kneels singing "Te Deum" (We praise thee, O God). The other cardinals kiss the popes' feet, hands, and face, put a Papal minted coin with the words, "Whom they create, they adore" before the pope.

**The only coins minted in the absence of a Pope that I am aware of have the words SEDE VACANTE on them. Can you please provide an image or a link to what you are discussing? I’m not familiar with the ceremony or the coin you are discussing.

5) Infallibility of the pope (Ecumenical Council in Rome, 1870). Other popes before this time, boasted of their infallibility but it did not become "official" until 1870.

**You realize that the infallibility of the Pope is extremely limited in nature and has been utilized very rarely, correct? It is not a broad and overreaching ability.

6) Infallibility of the "church". This error has placed the decrees of church councils beyond contradiction of questioning, either by reason or Scripture, and has made human ignorance and superstition the standards of faith in place of God's word.

**I certainly respect your beliefs (and disbeliefs). If that is a bone of contention for you then so be it. That is a legitimate theological disagreement.

7) Proscription of the Bible. Possession or reading of the Bible by the people was considered and treated as a criminal offense. The 16th century and its' advent of the printing press resurrected the Bible from the grave in which Papacy had buried it. Bible burnings by the RCC were common. When Leo X issued a papal bull against Luther's translation something had to be done. The people were waking up, damnit! The RCC allowed modern language translations to be done BY CATHOLIC TRANSLATORS with Catholic notes which were not for the common people unless there was a chance of PROTESTants leaking the info. The Rhemish translation flatly admits this. A note with Mat. 3: "heretics may be punished and suppressed; and may, and ought, by public authority, either spirital of temporal, to be chastised or executed." A note on Gal. 1:8 says: "Catholics should not spare their own parents, if heretics." A note on Heb. 5:7: "The translators of the Protestant Bible ought to be translated to the depths of hell." (Actually, that one's kind of funny. Probably wasn't at the time, though.)

**That is a bit long to go through and address, as there are many constituent parts. I’m assuming that your discussion of Bible suppression deals with the synod of Toulouse in 1129, Tarragona in 1234 and Oxford in 1408? You realize that the efforts were aimed at suppression of non-Catholic versions of the Bible, right? I can’t find any discussion of where the Bible used by the Catholic Church was suppressed and purposely kept from the hands of Catholics.
Don’t you think it normal that the ecclesiastical body would attempt to keep its constituency from reading what was considered a flawed Bible, especially after Protestant theologians excised parts of the Bible and changed it?

In conclusion, I would genuinely appreciate it if you were to provide original sources for the items discussed earlier that I could not find.

Thank you for posting!

Eric

Sorry. I just got back to this thread after a long and grueling week. Seems there are a lot of questions. Since I actually just popped in to read the latest post at this late hour (for me), I'll have to get around to answering questions another time. I apologize for the delay but RL intrudes horribly on my ATS time.

I have written many a papers on catholicism. However, before I begin, i should not limit what i am going to say to just Catholicism. It was the oldest Christian religion. And i am sure you all do not need me to talk about all the dirt and blood on their hands through the years. People have different beliefs. I am technically a Lutheran by default, but i do not lump myself in with a particular group. I have my own beliefs about all the technicalities associated with religion, but the end-all/be-all is that Christ died for our sins (in my belief). I think the pope is not God, I think the Catholic church has too much pride (along with many other religions) and I think they need to stop telling people "believe this or your going to hell." Only God can judge.
I will step off of my soap box
God Bless

1) Monsignor Capel: 140 years of popes who have not corrected his boastful appelations. I think they've had enough time. Besides, he's not the only one; just one of the more recent ones to make these claims for the popes. (1868) See www.revelation-illustrated.com/Marks.

2) Pope Boniface VIII: See Papal Bull of 1302, Unam Sanctam.

3) Of course the pope, as well as any opinionated man, can comment on matters physical as well as spiritual. My point was that he was basically stating that popes were of higher authority than the kings and that kings should be subject to papal authority.

4) Yes, the quote is referencing the pope and equating him to Jesus. Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). Also see The Catholic National, July, 1895. Also see Christopher Marcellus, fourth session of The Fifth Lateran Council,1512; an address to the pope. Labbe and Cossart, History of the Councils, volume 24, col. 109.

5) Lucias Ferraris was an Italian Catholic official of the Franciscan order, highly placed in the curch and author of the Feraris Ecclesiastical Dictionary. Also see our.homewithgod.com.

Purgatory, hell, indulgences: I am well familiar with the Catholic position on these topics and find no defense of them in light of clear Scripture. They are patently false and non-scriptural, adding to my "beef with Catholicism".

Pope Nicholas qote: See www.newadvent.org/cathen110542.htm (follow links).

Pope Martin: See about.com-agnosticism/atheism/murdered popes.

F.U.C.K.: Wikipedia lists the Catholic etymology of this acronym as an "urban legend" but does give a good history and related religious etymology for the origins of the word/acronym.
*note to mods* not trying to be vulgar or violate T&C. Just having a discussion about Catholicism and this side point came up-citing reference.

Coinage: See www.newadvent.org/cathen10334a.htm. Also see www.vaticancoins.com.

Infallibility of pope: even if used rarely is sacreligous. None are infallible. (personally, I think we should sack religion but the point still stands.)

For a lengthy/thorough overview of references regarding Catholicism go to www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/cmh/cmh218.html.

I apologize for my non-existent linking skills. Some of us were born long before the advent of microwaves and plastic trash sacks.

I'm a Church of God member,but a former Catholic. I never could agree with Transfiguration,that Christ became the Wine and Bread literally.

Whitewave,

Thank you for your reply. I've been busy of late, but I promise to get to this and do some research. I'll try to have a response by mid next week (hopefully sooner!).

Thanks again,

Eric