This is like watching a car crash in slow motion.





________________________________________________
Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered.

Religion is answers that cannot be questioned.



“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
-Stephen Roberts

let him keep going.

with each post, he slips further and further from reason.

His arguments are sophomoric (fitting due to his class year), and show a person who draws conclusions and grasps frantically for substance to back them up.

quote:

---

So can someone who has left the Catholic Church but still accepts Jesus be saved?

---

Seamaster? Honest question.

It brings to light the interesting difference in view of the host. In my church for example, Communion is symboic and done "in rememberance of Christ". It is not viewed physically as the "body" of Christ, the bread that is. However, even Luther shared the view that if Christ said it was his body, then by George it's Christ body. The RCC holds this to be true and treats it accordingly. And under this doctrine this gentlemen's action should be considered at best inappropriate. At one time the church had issues with members taking them home and worshiping the wafers. I believe that was addressed appropriately, but Seamaster probably knows more about that. I have respect for the RCC view and it is sound to interpret scripture that way. However, this sort of thing kind of highlights why most protestant churchs feel this is the wrong interpretation.

Yes Royal.

Like AgCPA said - taking the Eucharist home is at BEST inappropriate.

There are many documented cases of people attempting to steal the Eucharist for use in Wiccan and Satanic rituals.

It doesnt sound like that's the case here - but the Church takes it very seriously as we DO consider it to be the real presence of Christ. We feel that to do any less is to turn our backs on the gift of the Eucharist that Christ gave us.

nwhouston - that's why "Farmer Joe's wife" stopped you. She didnt know your intentions - and Eucharistic Ministers are trained to watch to make sure that the Eucharist is consumed.

She wasnt mad that you wanted to take it back with you to eat it in the pew - she was concerned that you might now consume it at all.

Like it or not - this is a valid concern from the belief in the true presence.

Most of BMED's arguments are rooted in sound history and theology, even if he doesn't get them exactly right. And he's trying to fend off serial hit and runs by a whole pack, which doesn't exactly lend itself to detailed explanations and thoughtful discourse.

The theological basis for "ever virgin" is extrabiblical, and neccesitates saying why the Scriptures don't really mean what they apparently say. There is no persuasive evidence that the church under the apostles believed it at all. We can debate the issue, but the earliest reference will be the Protoevagelium, a decidely non-biblical text and "pious" forgery. Not the best basis for a sound doctrine. But if you want to go there, we can.

The history of purgatory is similar. And papal infallibility. And any of a dozen doctrines that are defended on the basis of tradition. Again we can debate them in a meaningful manner, but apparently ad hominem attacks work better.

Wow, can I just jump in and say not all CofC'ers are like they are being made out to be on this board. Most of my friends are Catholics. I've attended their church many times. They have different customs, but I don't care. The basic tenets of belief are the same. I think most of these disagreements are pretty petty.

"It takes a big man to admit he's wrong. I am not a big man."

BMED argued that evervirgin was created in the 1500s.

The Orthodox who split with RCC much earlier beleive the same thing so it must not have been created in the 1500s.

What BMED has done is taken crap that Prots point to for Catholicism being wrong at face value and uneducatedly throw them out on the board. His arguments have no sound theological basis because he doesn't understand the theological basis for his arguments, or know the theological basis for the RCC position and thus doesn't even have an understanding of what the RCC position really is.

BMED is essentially taking what he has heard about the Catholic church and repeating it on this board.

When did the RRC adopt the ever virgin concept as doctrine? Maybe is wasn't invented in the 1500s, but it did not become "truth" until well after the time of the apostles. BMED may have missed the details, but his "big picture" view on the doctrine was not wrong. So is he more wrong than those who attack him both personally and vitriolically?

Or was he wrong for attacking other personally.

If you want to come on here and proclaim you are right and others are wrong you may want to leave half truths out of the equation.

If you are going to blast someone's religion, at least have an understanding of what you are blasting. He blasted several things, and couldn't even blast the RCC for the correct things. He sounded like the little boy who tells everybody else that they are wrong because his daddy said so.

Frankly, its pretty sad to see people tell me what I believe theologically because thats what they read from a Prot apologist, their Sunday school teacher, or their pastor told them.

After reading through BMED's uninformed rants, I am glad that I am no longer in my ill informed youth, like he is. I used to think I knew everthing when I was 19. Now that I'm an old geezer,looking back, I knew very little. One day BMED will grow up and actually research Catholic theology and apologetics and see how it all ties together. An excellent start, for you BMED, would be to go to a former Evangelical, now Catholic, website, HERE.

I've studied what other religions teach over the years, and I'm hoping that BMED will actually study Catholicism to prove it wrong. Both John Neumann and Scott Hahn, former bigtime protestants, actually did that. After looking at it all, they decided they were wrong and the Church was right.

Of course, if you prefer your personal opinion to fact, BMED, please, keep your head in the sand....

[This message has been edited by Thaddeus73 (edited 7/9/2008 5:44p).]

Bulldog, BMED has posted on this thread (now on page 6) and has done a marvelous job at slaying an army of strawmen. I have no idea where his concept of Catholicism comes from, but it Seamaster and other Catholics on this board have demonstrated the falsity of his claims. If he wants to discuss Catholicism, there are many here that would love to discuss the teachings of the Catholic Church, but when confronted with such absurdities such as BMED's claims, he can expect to be rebuffed rather gruffly.

This should help all of us remember what the only purpose of the sacrament was. The sacrament is a token and tokens are usually things that are symbolic of a spiritual truth or reality, but they are not the reality itself! For example the lamb's blood upon the door posts of the Israelites, which saved the firstborn from physical death, was a token (meaning symbol) of the blood of Christ that would save them from spiritual death, but it was not the actual blood of Christ (Ex. 12:5-14). The lambs that were sacrificed in Israel were tokens of the Lamb of God and his sacrifice, but they did not become the Saviour himself. An angel told Adam: "This thing (meaning sacrifice) is a similitude of the sacrifice of the only Begotten" (Moses 5:7) The foregoing tokens were symbols and nothing more. Likewise the bread and wine are tokens or symbols of the flesh and blood of Christ - nothing more.

As one partakes of the bread he is reminded of the flesh of Christ, which was crucified and resurrected, thus bringing about immortality for all. As one drinks the cup he is reminded of the blood of Christ that was shed in the Garden and on the cross, thus bringing about the opportunity of eternal life (life in the presence of God) for all. Thus, the bread reminds us of Christ's triumph over physical death, and the water (or wine) reminds us of his triumph over spiritual death. As we stretch forth our hand to partake of these tokens or emblems, we recommit ourselves to take upon us the name of Jesus Christ and to follow his example. Such a process helps bring us into spiritual alignment with Christ. These acts of remembering Christ and committing to be more like him invites God's Spirit into our lives. Accordingly, there is no need for a mystical transformation of the tokens.

If only the Catholic church could have a revelation saying that wine shouldn't be used. Maybe, just maybe, we could be lucky enough to have Joseph Smith reveal to us that water is more appropriate.

Rab -Only when your enemies are trying to poison you. The Lord revealed that water would be just fine. Remember it is a token or a symbol

Wow, this thread gave me some good chuckles. A lot of folks simply do not know Orthodox Catholic teaching.

Let us keep in mind that many defined doctrines did not have to be defined for a long time because they were accepted by the whole Church and were only defined when heresy against them arose. So even if mary as Ever Virgin was not officially defined, it was historically held by all of Christendom.

For those wanting to read a compiling of early Christian writings on the positions of the early Church, I recommend:
The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John R. Willis, S.J.
published by Ignatius Press

For those who feel the Catholics are not proving their points effectively, I offer this challenge: prove that the early Church did not accept these positions and show the quotes from the early theological writings of Orthodox Christians, in their context, that definitively prove this to be the case.

Also, the theological point of Mary being ever virgin is not extra-biblical.... it is in fact pre-biblical. Semantics, maybe, but let us frame the argument correctly.

I was raised in the Episcopal faith. When I was in junior high our Sunday School class met in the area off the sanctuary where the robes and stuff are kept. If our teacher left us alone we'd get into the communion wafers and eat them like crackers.

We tried and tried and tried to get our vile little hands on the wine, but it was kept under lock and key.

Transubstantiation aside, it's bread. A cracker a wafer. It, in itself, isn't important. It's the meaning and symbolism that have weight.

I appreciated communion at Church of the Redeemer in Houston. The priest would announce, "The gifts of God for the people of God."

No nonsense about who could and could not receive. Just an open invitation to all who cared to listen.

I wonder about those who thought Mary was never to enjoy wedded bliss i.e. the union of man and wife, and thus remaining a virgin throughout out mortality have given any thought to Joseph and what this meant for him. What a great deal this must have been for Joseph never to have been intimate with his wife. I guess you could make the argument that he was the first celibate priest.

As a note though the Real Presence of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity is only present in consecrated hosts and wine in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches because their priesthood has maintained valid Apostolic succession and Holy Orders. In other Christian groups... it is just that bread and wine. in a strict theological point of view.

I just want to say that it is interesting that everybody pretty much ignores what Bob Dunn has to say about anything on this board. I think that finally, in the 5th incarnation of Bob, everybody is just tired of it.

quote:

---

I wonder about those who thought Mary was never to enjoy wedded bliss i.e. the union of man and wife, and thus remaining a virgin throughout out mortality have given any thought to Joseph and what this meant for him. What a great deal this must have been for Joseph never to have been intimate with his wife. I guess you could make the argument that he was the first celibate priest.

---

That's why Mary is often refered to as Joseph's "most chased spouse"

Argue semantics and church tradition all you want. But if someone who knows nothing of religion picked up a bible and read it, he would NEVER come to the conclusion that Mary was anything more than blessed because she was chosen to have Cbrist. Most understand what the bible is referring to when it says Joseph did not "have union" or "know" her until after Christ was born. It's not referring to a rousing game of trivial pursuit. Most understand that when Jewish church leaders were questioning Christ's authority " isn't this Joseph's son, and aren't his brothers and sisters here with us...(names included)" they were not cousins or whatever wordsmithing the church does with this. The point for them would have no meaning otherwise. And, on more than one occassion Christ himself places her no higher than those other believers around him, "when told your mother and your brothers are outside wanting to talk to you he makes the point of saying "who are my mother and brothers, these around me are my mother and my brothers...." The perfect opportunity to make clear what Mary was and he said nothing to support the RCC position. Heck, the mere absence of anything addressing the RCCs venerated position is monumental and crushes the entire notion.

Unfortunately when many of the false traditions were brought to light by the reformation and later debate when the bible was broadly published for the common man to read, RCC theologians were no longer looking to the bible for truth, they spend there time trying to back tradition into scripture. This is very evident on this board at times.

[This message has been edited by AgCPA (edited 7/10/2008 8:52a).]

quote:

---

Unfortunately when many of the false traditions were brought to light by the reformation

---

What did John Calvin have to say about Mary's perpetual virginity?

And...I am going to go on record from now on and simply not respond to strawmen arguements anymore. An example being, "The RCC puts Mary higher than Jesus."

quote:

---

when the bible was broadly published for the common man to read, Protestant theologians were no longer looking to the bible for truth, they spend there time making up novel doctrines and destorying the faith once transmitted by the aposltes.. This is very evident in our current times.

---

FIFY

Gay ministers. Changing the name of the blessed Trinity. Marital fidelity no longer an issue. Dorito and Dr. Pepper eucharist. Etc etc...



[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 7/10/2008 9:15a).]

This thread is still going? I guess it's been too long since the last 100 years war on here.

What we need now is a good ol Mormon thread, paging el sid....

quote:

---

Gay ministers. Changing the name of the blessed Trinity. Marital fidelity no longer an issue. Dorito and Dr. Pepper eucharist. Etc etc...

---

What garbage. Any protestant who claims fidelity or heterosexuality are no longer issues are simply wrong and in the vast minority. And no protestant church I've ever been to has a different "version" of the trinity than the RCC.

BTW, there are catholic churches with gay priests. i don't agree with that, either.

quote:

---

And no protestant church I've ever been to has a different "version" of the trinity than the RCC.

---

PCUSA several years ago announced that an "acceptable" baptism formula would be something like, "Womb, Spirit of Love and Creator"....because "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is too masculine and it is not "inclusive" enough for the female sex.

They aren't the only ones. Just the biggest.

Well, they're wrong. I can promise you the majority of protestants would not agree with that.

I've been to hundreds of baptist and methodist services over the years, and I've never once seen anyone use anything but "father, son and holy spirit"

More evidence that you can't take a live branch (Protestantism) from a dead tree (ongoing church).

quote:

---

Unfortunately when many of the false traditions were brought to light by the reformation and later debate when the bible was broadly published for the common man to read

---

Luther taught that Mary was "ever virgin". Calvin called Mary the "treasurer of grace". The Gutenberg bible was published in the century before Luther, with all 73 books in it.

The uninformed comments on this board are astounding.

Luther had many problems with his theology besides Mary. He elected to throw out the Book of James because a portion of it spoke of works, contrary to his belief in salvation by grace alone. Based on the same rationale, would he discard the book of Revelation because it insisted that as to the dead "their works would follow them" (Rev. 14:13) and that the dead would be "judged every man according to their works" (Rev. 20:13)? Worse yet for Luther, the book of Revelation records that an angel from heaven reprimanded the Saints at Sardis because their "works" were not "perfect before God". This angel then promised the faithful Saints that "they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy" (Rev. 3:2-4). Those terrible words to Luther, "works" and "worthy" were being used by an angel of God. So, would Luther nonetheless discard these angelic words as being inconsistent with that portion of the Holy Writ he chose to follow? Yet if Luther threw out the Book of revelation, then he should rightfully discard all the writings of its author, John. This would necessitate the removal of First, Second and Third John, particularly since John wrote the following: "He that saitheth, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whosoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected" (1 John 2:4-5). Peter likewise would not be exempt from Luther's pruning process, for Peter had declared the Father "judgeth according to every man's works" (1 Peter 1:17), and that it was "the will of God" that men be engaged in "well doing" (1 Peter 2:15). There is much more that many of you will find interesting, especially since h believed in the deification of man and plural marriage.

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 7/11/2008 6:41p).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

What he did was sacrilige

---

You have GOT to be kidding me

The guy took a cracker. As if it werent mind-boggling enough that catholics actually believe they are consuming the blood and body of christ, they now think itis a sin to walk out of church with a effing cracker.

---

Dude, BMED, you sound a lot like PZ Myers. take a look, and see the kind of crap he's been posting about this episode. Not the kind of company I'd want to keep...

quote:

---

I wonder about those who thought Mary was never to enjoy wedded bliss i.e. the union of man and wife, and thus remaining a virgin throughout out mortality have given any thought to Joseph and what this meant for him. What a great deal this must have been for Joseph never to have been intimate with his wife. I guess you could make the argument that he was the first celibate priest

---

Holy Tradition, which the Apostles taught, says that Mary was consecrated to God at a young age. When she left the Temple, she was betrothed to a much older man who had children of his own from a previous marriage.

He was her caretaker not her lover. IF you look at the earliest icons of the Nativity, you see Josepj depicted as a white-haired man, sitting off to the side, not in the central portion of the icon where Mary and Jesus are.

He did not expect to have sex with Mary. He knew going in that that was not to be, even though he didn't know about Jesus yet.

That's one of the reasons he was chosen to be the caretaker of Mary and the guardian, or father on earth, of Jesus.

He was known as Joseph the Just. He would have understood perfectly ,in that time and place, that Mary's consecration precluded sexual congress with a man, and what consecration meant.

Finding out that she was pregnant was all the more shocking and hurtful to him. He thought that she had broken her vow to God.

That is what the Apostles taught, but , of course, if you throw out all Holy Tradition passed down by the Apostles and only accept the basic part that ended up in the Gospels,this kind of discussion is what you end up with.

The Bible, after all , is the story of Jesus' life, not Mary's.

As time passed and heresies popped up , it was declared a doctrine to ensure uniformity of belief throughout the universal Church.



[This message has been edited by primrose (edited 7/11/2008 3:36a).]

[This message has been edited by primrose (edited 7/11/2008 3:44a).]