Saturday, August 08, 2020

Please pray for me, my family, and my health!

Dear Friends:  

This Covid19 (novel coronavirus) crisis has brought much of our world to a crashing halt.   I have been under treatment for wet type macular eye degeneration since late 2017.  My retinal specialist told me today that my eye scans are showing progress and for that I rejoice.

However, I am fearing new health issues that may be of more severity.  I had blood tests taken in February.  I was not told of any results.  My husband asked me to stop by our doctor's office and pick something up -- I thought he meant his own recent test results for which I asked and was given.  I then asked if I could please have my own report of the February tests.  Most results were normal and unremarkable.  However, I noticed one highlighted item that was a greatly elevated eosinophil count.

I placed an inquiring account to my doctor after I googled and learned for the first time a new term, "eosinophil."  That call has not been returned.  I understand.  Our doctor like about everybody else has been more than overworked through this pandemic season.

However, recently, I have noticed my facial skin getting dryer and dryer.  Today, I noticed that in parts it was nearly bright red including portions of my upper front neck.  I did some googling to seek what that might be a possible symptom of.  To my horror, I came up with many references to it being an indication of eosinophilic disorders--some possibly serious, even fatal.

I have been more fatigued than usual lately.   I am still doing limited amounts of court work for my past clients who still seek me out for their personal emergencies.

I do not know what lies ahead, but I will confess that I am more than a little apprehensive.  My husband Barry is severely disabled and I have had some mobility issues lately.  I have outlived 3 of my younger siblings already who died of natural causes.

I do not know exactly medically is in store for me, but I will confess apprehension and possibly fright tonight.  Hopefully, it is nothing significant, as I feel still have much to do in my work in informing and warning of significant developments on the now re-burgeoning New Age/Mindfulness/Occupy Movements scene.

Please, please keep me and my family personally in your prayers.  I am praying the Lord will show me His will and give me the grace to accept what may come.

Sincerely,


CONSTANCE 

  

834 comments:

1 – 200 of 834   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Dear Constance, please be assured that you and your husband are in all of our thoughts and prayers. We love you!

Anonymous said...

Ditto 6:27 AM

Anonymous said...

Looking for feedback from everyone.

What do you all make of Trump's recent statement?

President Donald Trump addressing a gathering of his top Republican Party officials and cryptically telling them: “I Have a Lot of Enemies… this May Be the Last Time You’ll See Me for a While”. [Watch video HERE at 1:15:30 time mark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4532&v=MXxacbUEeuA&feature=emb_logo



Anonymous said...

Just came across this must see video . . .

Is President Trump in hiding? What is going on?

https://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2020/08/la-marzulli-trump-in-hiding-what-is-going-on-2513196.html


Anonymous said...

Some people are wondering if a presidential coup is happening?

Trump's enemies don't want to wait until November 3rd to see if he can pull off another win.

We all need to pray for our president's safety.

Anonymous said...

Regarding my earlier post at 6:07 PM

For some reason, that video I sent (asking 'Is Trump in hiding?') begins at the 15 minute mark. Please move the arrow over to the left to the very beginning.

Sorry for the confusion.

paul said...

Dear Constance,
May the Lord give you peace and comfort as much as you need.
His mercy endures forever.
Keep your eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of the faith. He knows how to comfort us through anything and everything.
His mercy endures forever.
The devil is a liar. He comes to kill to steal and to destroy.
God's mercy endures forever
Jesus can and will bring you peace in the face of anything.

Anonymous said...

President Trump warns of new Deep State coup attempt...

https://www.infowars.com/saturday-live-trump-warns-of-new-deep-state-coup-attempt/

Anonymous said...

Is the movie "Eyes Wide Shut" related to what is happening now?

Austrian doctor Arthur Schnitzler wrote a novella called Traumnovelle he published in 1926—whose English translation of is “Dream Story”, and is best described as an occult based demonic sexual fantasy revolving around the power and use of masks in satanic rituals—that Stanley Kubrick bought the rights to and turned into the final movie he ever made called Eyes Wide Shut—a movie Kubrick made, then died six days after showing his final cut to Warner Brothers Pictures in 1999—was described as “an erotic mystery psychological drama”—but whose true Jungian themes portrayed in were a warning about:

The global occult ritual of mask-wearing signals your consent to your new, subservient position, under your new masters, and the loss of your position as a vocal representative of, or mouthpiece for, the Word of God on this earth.

The global occult ritual of hand washing represents the washing away of the old order (i.e., the Christian Order you once belonged to), so a new order can be ushered in and firmly established.

The global occult ritual of six feet of “social distancing” symbolizes the breaking apart of the Body of Christ on earth, so it no longer functions as a stable and cohesive unit.

The global occult ritual of lockdowns symbolize isolation from everything normal so you can be “purified” from your old ways…surrender your former status to the new order…sacrifice your very self to the new order…and finally, willingly submit to the new order through obedience to it.

And this will go on until the “new you” evolves like a Phoenix from the drama and trauma, straight into the waiting arms of Satan himself, ultimately.

Anonymous said...

Here is a highly unusual photo of White House staff lined up outside to see their President off as he was boarding Marine One to travel to Ohio...

https://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2020/08/you-all-know-why-trump-has-now-left-the-white-house-_drawandstrike-3208823.html


For those who may have missed the reason WHY, here it is again...

President Donald Trump addressing a gathering of his top Republican Party officials and cryptically telling them: “I Have a Lot of Enemies…This May Be the Last Time You’ll See Me for a While”. [Watch video HERE at 1:15:30 time mark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4532&v=MXxacbUEeuA&feature=emb_logo


Anonymous said...

All presidents have LOTS of enemies. But yes, we should keep Donald Trump in our prayers.

Anonymous said...

Why they want Trump out...

Trump is getting closer to his promise of draining the DC Swamp... and Obama, Hillary & Biden are FRANTIC to keep their secrets from being exposed!!! They certainly don't want him to be President for 4 more years... so that he can expose everything from: 1) the Uranium One scandal; 2) billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid to corrupt governments (that the Globalists want to continue to flow); 3) all of the secrets stored on Anthony Weiner's laptop computer (from Hillary to 'Pizza-gate').

Anonymous said...

Trump could also expose Big Pharma... and Bill Gates!!!

Anonymous said...

Blackout coming...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QlWWI_9vFw&feature=youtu.be

Craig said...

Constance,

I'm so very sorry to hear of your health troubles. I will keep you in my prayers and thoughts.

Anonymous said...

August 9, 2020

FACTS ARE SWIRLING, NOT RUMORS! TRUMP IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE DEEP STATE THE SHOWDOWN IS HERE! SUNDAY LIVE!.mp4

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f30a0da68370e02f2b82266

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"You wrote: The ousia or substance of Jesus' divinity most definitely is NOT the same substance as that of His humanity.

I never said nor intimated anything of the sort. I'm quite familiar with Eutychianism, aka monophysitism, and steer clear of it.

But nice attempt at dodging the issue."

I didn't duck the issue, I tackled it head on. your words whatever your intention, were monophysite. so now you say,


"Christ's Divine ousia is inseparable from His Divine-human 'Person'."

Hypostatic union not ousia union, fine. however the following is a non sequitur:

" Thus, there is no valid defense to making any sort of image of God, i.e., Jesus, aka, YHWH/God in flesh."

it is impossible to make an image of His divinity, though apparently He was capable of making a pre incarnation epiphany in a human form.

It is not impossible to make an image of His physical reality, and his divinity is implicit in it in so far as it is an image of HIM Who is both divine and human.

Luke the physician allegedly made the first image of Christ, drawing a picture of Him as a child with His mother on a table top when He was adult.

In any case, the very fact He has become flesh, ruins your argument.

The CONTEXT of the prohibition on images was the worship of the image as a thing in itself, or the false god it referred to. Paul warns that those who as a concession to custom at some events or parties honor such, figuring the idol is nothing, are giving honor to the demons that hide behind it, to the false god that is the original of the image. THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH RELATIVE VENERATION OF ICONS IS BASED: that honor given the copy goes to the original so honoring an icon of Christ or of a saint gives honor to Christ or the saint. Not to the icon.

The rest of your remarks ignore that it was precisely LITERAL understanding of Christ's words, that those who left Him over the flesh and blood eating issue were taking. And that He did not correct their "misunderstanding" of this "metaphor." John chapter 6. Not even to the disciples who He asked if they were going to leave also, but they said He had the words of eternal life, so they couldn't leave. nowhere else to go. They had to accept His word on this.

YES the Pashal lamb was the prefigurement of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. As John the Baptist said, He is lamb of God Who takes away the sin OF THE WORLD. The Passover out of Egypt situation was then for the Israelites, and now is a general situation that will show fully in His physical return to rule.

The rejection of "chiliasm" by the early church was of a TIME LIMIT of 1,000 years on His rule, not of His physical rule itself on earth, something misuderstood now by most RC and EO. The Creed says, "Of HIs kingdom there shall be NO END."

"(Anyway, it’s not as if individuals could literally eat His flesh and drink His blood after the Resurrection!) Returning to seriousness, I just cannot fathom how anyone can interpret this in any kind of literal manner."

Really? remember the multiplication miraculously of the loaves and fishes? How about teleportation into a locked room? Think He cn't multiply and teleport His flesh and Blood?

I don't care what Blessed Augustine says, and saints are not infallible and he had many errors incl. the filioque, I take Jesus at His word. So did Justin Martyr, and Ignatius of Antioch, student of The Apostle John and of a student of the Apostle Peter.

"That is incorrect. Insane people don't EXPECT anything -- they're insane." wrong you know nothing about insanity.

Craig said...

General statement: The person making any claim is the one whose burden it is to defend said claim, upon challenge.

--------

Christine,

You wrote: it is impossible to make an image of His divinity, though apparently He was capable of making a pre incarnation epiphany in a human form.

It is not impossible to make an image of His physical reality, and his divinity is implicit in it in so far as it is an image of HIM Who is both divine and human.

Luke the physician allegedly made the first image of Christ, drawing a picture of Him as a child with His mother on a table top when He was adult.


The bolded portion is EXACTLY my issue with making ‘Jesus’ statues. Quite simply, we are to make no image of God/YHWH, and Jesus is God/YHWH, is He not? And since a statue of ‘Jesus’ must necessarily include His Divinity—His Divine nature—as you’ve expressed above, it’s clearly forbidden.

Again, the mere fact that God makes a Divine-human image (the Incarnation) does not give us the right to do same. We aren’t God.

I’ve never heard anything like your claim about Luke. Can you cite a source for this?

You wrote: In any case, the very fact He has become flesh, ruins your argument.

How does the very fact of the Incarnation—something the Trinity did—justify the making of ‘Jesus’ statues? That is a non sequitur. And see my arguments above.

All this is irrespective of the claims about veneration; that’s a whole different subject and argument. I’ve specifically differentiated the erecting of statues of ‘Jesus’ from the veneration of them. Phrased another way, my argument is with respect to the making of a ‘Jesus’ statue in the first place, not about its subsequent veneration. These are two separate things, and my focus is on the former. I’ve alreadly made this clear.

You’ve twice now claimed I’ve promoted monophysitism (Eutychianism). Yet you’ve provided no evidence for your claim. Simply asserting I’ve stated thus-and-such is not evidence. However, I assure you, if you think my words were somehow ambiguous to the point that you understood them to imply monophysitism, that was not my intention. It’s not my belief. Now show me where I supposedly promoted a monophysite Christology.

Craig said...

If you put Ignatius’ words in proper context you’ll see he’s polemicizing against Docetism NOT promoting the ‘real presence’, much less transubstantiation. From his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (see here for other translation), chapter 2, we find:

For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself—not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only (it is they who exist in appearance only!). Indeed, their fate will be determined by what they think: they will become disembodied and demonic.

This is what Docetist’s believe—they deny Christ’s bodily flesh, thus rejecting His real suffering on the Cross and the subsequent Resurrection. This sets the tone for chapter 5:

Certain people ignorantly deny him, or rather have been denied by him, for they are advocates of death rather than of the truth. Neither the prophecies nor the law of Moses have persuaded them, nor, thus far, the gospel, nor our own individual suffering; for they think the same thing about us. For what good does it do me if someone praises me but blasphemes my Lord by not confessing that he was clothed in flesh? Anyone who does not acknowledge this thereby denies him completely and is clothed in a corpse. Given that they are unbelievers, it did not seem worthwhile to me to record their names. Indeed, far be it from me even to remember them, until such time as they change their mind regarding the passion, which is our resurrection.

Here Ignatius continues his polemic against them, essentially repeating by paraphrase what he earlier said. This sets up chapter 6. The words below are a direct continuation of the immediately preceding:

Let no one be misled. Even the heavenly beings and the glory of angels and the rulers, both visible and invisible, are subject to judgment if they do not believe in the blood of Christ. Let the one who can accept this accept it. Do not let a high position make anyone proud, for faith and love are everything; nothing is preferable to them. Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ that came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no concern for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner or the one released, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist [thanksgiving] and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist [thanksgiving] is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up.

[cont]

Craig said...

[cont]

I’ve added the brackets above, because this is where the entire doctrine surrounding the ‘Eucharist’ gets twisted up by many. The word simply means the noun “thanksgiving”, or “thankfulness”, depending on context. In the Synoptic Gospels, each time Jesus speaks of the future “Lords’ Supper” (this exact phraseology in 1 Cor 11:20) He does so by using the verb form eucharistō, not the noun form. Moreover, Jesus uses this in a dependent clause, followed by the independent clause/sentence: giving thanks, He broke the bread…. In other words, the thanking precedes the breaking of bread, with the thanking expressed as the non-finite participle, compared to the breaking expressed as the finite (main) verb. My point is that it’s the breaking of bread, then eating it, and drinking from the cup, that defines the “Lord’s Supper”. Now, for sure, the preceding giving of thanks is integral to it; however, the ‘main event’, so to speak, is in the eating of the bread and the drinking from the cup, which signify the breaking of Jesus’ body and shedding of His blood. We needn’t—and shouldn’t—impute some mystical ‘real presence’ (especially via some extra-biblical transubstantiation) into the rite.

Your insistence that Jesus didn’t correct their misunderstandings overlooks Jesus’ explanation in John 6:63.

Now, surely, Ignatius is using the term (2nd instance) to denote the rite—the rite of giving thanks—yet, a lot of confused individuals think the eucharist is the wafer/host. Even the translation above can lend toward this misunderstanding that ‘the eucharist’ = the flesh of Jesus. But, Ignatius isn’t making an identity statement. He is using figurative language, as he does throughout this polemic. Yet note that Ignatius does not include the blood/wine or cup in his latter statement. Is ‘the eucharist’ strictly Jesus’ flesh, excluding His blood (the cup)? Of course not. Ignatius’ focus is on the physicality of Jesus over against its denial by the Docetists. So, again he’s not claiming the ‘real presence’ in the eucharist; he’s refuting Docetists by using this figure.

Once again, we have to look at the sentence structure. It is not uncommon to translate non-finite verbs as finite verbs to make the translation a bit more readable in English. But even that is unnecessary here. Let me translate:

eucharistias kai proseuchēs apechontai, dia to mē homologein tēn eucharistian sarka einai tou sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou…
thanksgiving and prayer they abstain, because the not to-confess the thanksgiving flesh to-be of-the Savior of-us Jesus Christ…
They abstain from thanksgiving [eucharistia] and prayer, because they fail to confess the thanksgiving [eucharistia] to be flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…

“Abstain” is the finite verb; the others (“to confess”, “to be”) are infinitives and they are in the subordinate/dependent clause.

Anonymous said...

Ghislaine Maxwell’s List Became Unsealed Yesterday—Look at the Democrats & Republicans Connected to Jeffrey Epstein!

https://beforeitsnews.com/crime-all-stars/2020/08/giselle-maxwells-list-became-unsealed-yesterday-look-at-the-democrats-republicans-connected-to-jeffrey-epstein-2482164.html


Craig said...

Resurrection of the Ottoman Empire?

Clash of Civilizations & Turkish Neo-Caliphate RISING

Anonymous said...

In John 6:54 ~ Jesus did not mince words; He spoke directly and explicitly:

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Therefore, those who do not believe or ACCEPT John 6:54 are going AGAINST the scriptures!!!
We are talking about the Sacramental presence of the RISEN LORD.

Receiving the Holy Eucharist is NOT cannibalism... as we are receiving the LIVING CHRIST, WHOLE AND ENTIRE, BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY.



Anonymous said...

Furthermore...

If it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6





Craig said...

Anon 5:15/5:45 PM,

I'm not going against the Scriptures; I'm disagree with your cannibalistic interpretation.

Anonymous said...

Me too, Craig @ 5:48PM

Why do some want to go there?
Jesus' words are spirit and those that worship Him, worship Him in spirit and truth.
I take communion by faith for it's symbolic meaning to His very physical and spiritual act, just like I received His salvation by faith.
Why do some want it to be as though Jesus has to repeatedly die so they can sip the wine and take a cracker? Just like I see no need for a crucifix with a little Jesus hanging on it...that cross happened, but He is not still on it!

He died..once..once and for all.
And then He rose. His power over sin and death is why I love Him!

Craig said...

The biggest problem with the RCC and EO interpretation is that the Synoptic Gospel tradition of giving-thanks (eucharistō [verb]) and the breaking of the bread (symbolized by Jesus’ sōma body) and the drinking of the cup is conflated with John 6:43—65. In the section in John eucharistō is NOT used (it is, though, found in 6:11, 23 for feeding the 5000), AND the word used in 6:51 (my flesh), 6:52 (his flesh), 6:53 (the flesh of the Son of Man), 6:54 (my flesh), 6:55 (my flesh), 6:56 (my flesh), 6:63 (the flesh over against Spirit and spirit) is sarx.

In other words, the Synoptic accounts are uniform in using sōma (body) to represent Jesus, while John uses sarx (flesh). The two accounts are NOT equative. More accurately, perhaps, the clearly symbolic nature of the Synoptic accounts (as interpreted by Jesus’ words) is reinterpreted through the semi-literal (and semi-cannibalistic) interpretative lens of John 6:43—65. In the Synoptics, Jesus, after giving-thanks, broke bread, and then described this bread as representing His body, and this was to be eaten “in remembrance of Me”. Why would we think John would change that into something semi-literal?

I looked over the apologetic provided by the link @ 5:45 PM:

If it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.

How about it IS truly immoral in a literal sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, so he’s giving us his flesh and blood to eat in a symbolic sense.

The link goes on cite a few Scriptures in which eating flesh and drinking blood are

understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.”

But that’s precisely the point!. On its face, the latter part of the quote is a non sequitur. How can persecuting and assaulting someone result in providing them life? This is why they were thinking he was speaking literally and couldn’t square that with the clear prohibitions against cannibalism both from a religious and a moral perspective. But that’s because HE DID mean ‘the Jews’ were going to persecute and assault Him. And the result (the Lamb as Passover meal) would provide LIFE to those believing in Him, to those ‘partaking in this meal’ in a symbolic sense.

And, of course, His disciples didn’t make the connection either.

And this makes Jesus’ explanation understandable: “What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?” (John 6:62). That is, Jesus was symbolically speaking about his crucifixion (eat my flesh, drink my blood), which would result in His subsequent Resurrection. Thus, 6:62 can be roughly paraphrased, “if you’re having a tough time with that [eating my flesh, drinking my blood], wait’ll you see this [the Resurrection]!”. He then further clarifies His meaning in 6:63.

[cont]

Craig said...

[cont]

More from the link:

If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.”…When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.

But what of ol’ Nicodemus? He was obviously misunderstanding Jesus. And Jesus didn’t provide explanations that Nicodemus fully understood (“If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?). And Jesus used similar language in 3:6 (flesh gives birth to flesh but S/spirit gives birth to spirit) as 6:63 (The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing).

And here’s the kicker (point 3):

On another level very closely related to our last point, Christ said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” because he wills to eliminate any possibility of a sort of crass literalism that would reduce his words to a cannibalistic understanding. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world.

And this interpretation (the bold above) is precisely why the “Eucharist” (nominalized and Capitalized, understood as the Supreme Sacrament) is so important in the RCC (EO?) interpretation, because it is the means by which one receives eternal life. Without it, no eternal life. Some may say, ‘no, that’s not what we mean.’ But if you read John 6 through this lens, that is the only conclusion (6:51: “…he will live forever”; 53: “…you have no life in you”; 58: “…will live forever”).

Now riddle me this. If the RCC (and EO?) interpretation is the correct one, making it absolutely integral to salvation, then why did Jesus say, “Do this in remembrance of Me” in the Synoptics? Why didn’t he provide this semi-literal my flesh-is-life interpretation in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? And why did he use sōma, “body” (Synoptics) instead of sarx, “flesh” (John)?

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 5:48 PM

I don't have a 'cannibalistic' interpretation... I only have the interpretation of JESUS Himself. The actual spoken WORDS of Jesus according to Scripture couldn't be more CLEAR. Jesus spoke very directly. He did not speak in riddles... or play games with us.

Remember: We are talking about the Sacramental presence of the RISEN LORD (not His HUMAN body).

On Judgement Day, Jesus will explain it all to those who don't understand.

(I, too have a question for Jesus... please explain the mystery of the Trinity to me.)

This 'debate' is not between you and me... it is between you and Jesus.

We can't have it both ways... a 'cafeteria-style selection' of scripture ~ carefully accepting only those passages that we like, and rejecting the passages that we don't like.

Craig said...

Anon 10:42 PM,

I'm not intending to be unkind, but you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all. At root we have different interpretations of the text. That's really what it amounts to. Your persistent, "This 'debate' is not between you and me... it is between you and Jesus" fails. Again, it's a difference of interpretation. I think your interpretation is at odds with Jesus' clear words. Yet I don't say to you, "this debate is not between me and you, it is between you and Jesus."

You offer no actual rebuttals. Your responses are essentially just repeating the same mantra, amounting to: 'my interpretation (the RCC one) is the correct interpretation and yours isn't'. But you fail to address any of the points made. Your last line is not even correct. I absolutely accept the entire Scriptures; but I reject your interpretation of this passage. Again, it's that simple.

Why do you (and the RCC) read Matthew, Mark, and Luke through your interpretation of John 6:43—65, when the terms are different in the two (sōma, “body” vs. sarx, "flesh"), and John completely lacks eucharistō in the first place? My last paragraph @ 9:34 PM is my challenge to you and any other reader.

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 11:10 PM

It's the truth... your 'argument' is NOT with me ~ it is with Jesus.

Only you, and you alone, can make the decision to ACCEPT the words of Jesus on faith.

Your pride and arrogance always seems to get in the way... not to mention your superior attitude towards Catholics (wanting to play childish mind games of 'gotcha').

Enjoy arguing with yourself.

I can't help a person who 'keeps stepping on his own air hose.'

Good night . . .


Anonymous said...


Craig to Anon 10:42 PM

"I'm not intending to be unkind, but you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all. "

Shows everyone who is the one who is stepping on their own air hose.
It is not you, Craig.

Same old dogmatic party line (my church is right and yours is not) is no answer at all.

Anonymous said...

EATING THE EUCHARIST IS NOT CANNIBALISM -- HERE'S WHY

From Msgr. Charles Pope (April 21, 2020)

Question: I have a friend who is Christian, not Catholic, and believes in the symbolism of the Eucharist and not that it is the true body and blood of Our Lord. She asks how we can eat the real body and blood of Christ, because would that not be cannibalism? I do not know the answer to that. Can you explain?
— Name, location withheld

Answer: In cannibalism, certain human beings kill another human being and then eat the dead flesh. Such a practice is both murderous and abhorrent. But the Eucharist is nothing like this. First, we are not eating the dead flesh of a dead human being. We are receiving the living Christ, whole and entire, body, blood, soul and divinity. Further, this living and glorified Lord freely offers himself to us. He said: “No one takes my life from me. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again” (Jn 10:18). Our receiving of him harms him in no way. Thus there is simply no relationship to cannibalism. It is true that we partake of the body and blood of the Lord, but we must recall that he is glorified. He cannot be killed, dismembered, roasted and eaten.

As to his true and not just symbolic presence, Jesus himself affirms: “I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Jn 6:49-51).

When the Jews object, like your Christian friend does, JESUS DOES NOT BACK DOWN -- HE DOUBLES DOWN. Scripture says: “The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink'” (Jn 6:52-55). At the Last Supper Jesus also says: “Take and eat; this is my body. Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant” (Mt 26:26-28).

Thus it is pretty hard to insist on a merely symbolic presence as your friend does. She has to ignore a lot of Scripture to do so. Add to that the consistent teaching of the early Church Fathers and her position is also novel.

We are not cannibals. We receive a living and glorious Lord who freely offers himself to us for our nourishment so that we can become the one we receive. He is very much alive and very desirous that we receive him.

https://www.osvnews.com/2020/04/21/eating-the-eucharist-is-not-cannibalism-heres-why/

RayB said...

Just a few thoughts ...

For years, I have run into this exact same problem when dealing with "religionists" that have been TOLD what to believe by their church hierarchy. The problem in dealing with "religionists" is that they really don't believe in the AUTHORITY of the Scriptures. This point cannot be emphasized enough. When pointing out a number of verses and passages that go against what their stated beliefs are, instead of fearfully considering what the Word declares, they simply ignore it.

With that in mind, dealing with Roman Catholics is a very difficult challenge. I put most Catholics in a category that is very similar, in at least one sense, with the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Like the aforementioned, Catholics are TOLD what to believe by their hierarchy. Catholics are taught that the Bible, traditions, the Catechism, the Magisterium and the Papacy, is their "authority." For the Catholic, anything, including the Scriptures, that does not comport with their "taught" belief system will be quickly rejected. Think about this; Catholics have been taught what to believe from the time of their infancy. Without this indoctrination, the Catholic Church would not exist. Consider this; by merely reading the Scriptures, would ANYONE ever conclude that the peculiar teachings of Catholicism is the "true faith?" Of course not. The reason is that the Scriptures and Catholicism are in MAJOR conflict. That is precisely why the Scriptures are deemphasized, and why non-Scriptural "traditions" etc. are emphasized. It's why the Epistles are simply ignored, why Peter I & Peter II teachings are never read or studied; the Epistles never mention ANY doctrines and dogmas that are peculiar to Roman Catholicism, in fact, the OPPOSITE is declared.

Long ago, I read a statement by a Catholic priest that I never forgot. Upon reading the entire New Testament (for the FIRST time), this Catholic priest concluded that "either the Bible is true and Catholicism is false, or, Catholicism is true and the Bible is false. The two simply cannot be reconciled."

Dealing with even the most "devout" Catholics over the years, I have consistently found an astonishing ignorance when it comes to the Scriptures. To the believer, being "born again" is the paramount issue, without which one cannot see the Kingdom of God. Yet, a few years back, I had a devout, 90+ year old Catholic (my attorney friend) ask me before he died; "what's all this talk about born again?" Very sad!

Not unlike the religious system of the Pharisees, Catholics are purposely kept in the dark by their hierarchy in order to keep them in spiritual bondage. It is these types that Christ warned us about when he said "let no man deceive you." The hierarchy is made of men, and, they are deceivers ! Trust either God's Word, or men. It's YOUR CHOICE.

Anonymous said...

1:50 PM

As Constance has brought out many times right here on this blog... ALL of the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish) have been infiltrated by the New Age Movement... as their goal and agenda for a new One World Religion will NOT include Protestants, Catholics, or Jews. We may ALL end up being beheaded (or worse)... and I am more than ready to meet my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

However, we traditional Catholics remain faithful and true to the BASIC THEOLOGY that we have been taught by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ nearly 2,000 years ago (as of the coming year 2033).

RayB, Craig and others can continue to twist and distort the beliefs of 1.2 MILLION Catholics and post disinformation on this blog (ad nauseum)... but, it won't have ANY effect on our beliefs, which we know to be TRUE... as they come FROM Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (not from FLAWED men, who have led you down 'a crooked path' full of errors... e,g, Martin Luther and King Henry VIII, etc. due to their sin of false pride).

You and other 'Cafeteria Christians' are the ones who are 'ignorant' about Scripture... or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

According to your very last paragraph, RayB... you are actually calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver'... because our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture. You are the ones who choose (by your own free will) to reject His words.

No wonder you Protestants have to have weekly bible study... as there are so many inconsistencies in your MANY versions of the bible, which end up contradicting each other... and, therefore, must be very confusing for all of you.

Bottom line: THE BIBLE HAS NO VERSIONS... THERE IS ONLY ONE ~ THE TRUTH!!!

Now, do yourself a favor and please stop wasting my time and yours. You are not going to win this 'debate' with me.


Anonymous said...


Same old different post, 3:34 PM

What you fail to understand is that the Bible you read includes the very Scriptures you are dismissive of.
So by your own words and your own Bible you are not following Jesus' direct words, words He repeated and emphasized, He does not waste words, or time, frankly, for you to believe and trust for your own salvation.
So do yourself a favor and spend your time (arguing instead of believe?) with this:

-- Douay-Rheims Bible version --
[1] And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. [2] This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. [3] Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

A spiritual birth.
(And by the way He told this to Nicodemus, a grown man, for whom it was too late to baptize as an infant, so infant baptism is not what Jesus was meaning).
I know Catholics rely on that for salvation because they have told me so, but do notice that the thief next to Jesus on the cross, was not baptized. He could not get down off of the cross he was hanging from to go do a good deed if he wanted to, either. Baptis and works do not save...anybody.

Dear 3:34 PM, you really need to take Jesus words for what He says and means from HIM, He is the Lord...not your church.
I don't trust my church. I trust the Lord Jesus. He is worthy of that.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 6:10 PM

It is YOU who really needs "to take Jesus words for what HE says and means from HIM"!!!

Don't dictate to me... what YOU are unwilling to do yourself!!!

Yes, He is my Lord... that's why I take HIS WORDS very seriously... it's a SHAME you refuse to do the same.

The only reason why we are constantly defending our 2,000 year old Catholic FAITH... is because a few Protestant Evangelicals on this blog have been attacking our faith for the past 15 years. (Obviously they are very insecure in their OWN faith... to spend a countless number of hours, days, weeks and months attacking us.)

And we are not going to sit back and take it... we WILL fight back!!!

Constance has always welcomed us and shown us respect. Yet, here you are full of HUBRIS.

Anonymous said...

You don't KNOW me... you don't know whether I have been born again or not.

Yet, here you sit behind your keyboard... daring to make assumptions about me?

All you know for SURE is that you are an arrogant prick... full of HUBRIS and false pride.

Anonymous said...

Then why did you blow that statement from Jesus off with an arrogant rant about not needing to be born again a couple of threads ago, 7:51 PM ??

You mocked.


It seems like you have a whole lot more fight than you have faith.
If you believe those words of Jesus "you must be born again" then why didn't you just simply agree?
Shouldn't that be common ground if that is true in you?

RayB said...

Anonymous said @ 1:50 PM (in part):

"According to your very last paragraph, RayB... you are actually calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver'... because our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture."

Dear Anonymous,

Please refer me to the Scripture verses in which, in "HIS WORDS" clearly teach these "Catholic beliefs" as being "stated in Scripture":

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The Immaculate Conception of Mary

The Assumption of Mary into Heaven

Mary sitting next to Jesus on the Throne of God

Instructions to PRAY to Mary, along with to the "Saints" of RC

Mary making intercession for "believers" to her Son

The Veneration of Mary

The Rosary

Missing Mass on purpose is a Mortal Sin, worthy of Eternal Damnation

Explaining the difference between Venial and Mortal Sins

Purgatory

Indulgences

The annulment of marriages

The Sacrifice of the Mass

Mass for the Dead

Prayers for the Dead

The office of the Priest

Confessing sins to a Priest

Obtaining forgiveness from a Priest for Sins

The office of the Papacy

The Infallibility of the Pope

The Magisterium

The College of Cardinals

Clerical Celibacy

Infant Baptism

Holy Water

Veneration of Relics

The creation, sale, and veneration of statues and images

Anonymous, I could go on but I'll stop here. If you can provide answers to even HALF of these, in which Jesus was the author of these "Catholic beliefs," I'd love to see it.

Thank you in advance for providing us with this valuable info.






Ruth of Exeter, UK said...

Dear Constance - I was so sorry to hear that you are having additional health issues and I pray with all my heart that you and your family will get through this. With love and respect from Exeter UK.

Anonymous said...

To RayB @ 11:59 PM

First of all, your 'concerns' have been addressed too many times to count over these past 15 years on this blog. (What a shame that you're not actually earning money in your 'blog career' of attacking Catholics with constant attempts at 'gotcha' ~ all while pretending to 'love thy neighbor as thyself').

Yet, surprise, surprise... no matter how we Catholics answer, it is NEVER enough to satisfy you, Craig, Paul, etc. In other words, you really don't WANT to know why we Catholics believe as we do. Au contraire ~ you just want to very SMUGLY give yourselves reasons why you will continue to rant against Catholics on an almost daily basis... for 'sport' and a very twisted idea of entertainment (on a blog that was never set up to be 'a Protestant blog' in the first place).

In your very LONG list of bullet points, I will be more than happy to address many of them once again. I am not doing this for you, Craig, Paul, etc. I am doing this for those sincere Protestant Christians out there (the quiet observers who never post), who may genuinely be interested in learning more about our traditional Catholic faith (which was created by Jesus Christ Himself in the year 33 AD).

While our Catholic beliefs are supported by scripture, it must also be pointed out (and my dear friend, Susanna has addressed this many times here on this blog) that we Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura. (Where does the bible state 'bible ALONE'???)
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-logical-part-i

Because these answers are much too LENGTHY to post here, I am going to refer you to the links which document scriptural support for our beliefs. (In other words, I am willing to do the work; now it's up to YOU, RayB to also do the work.)

Anonymous said...

Matthew 4:4, 1:20 PM.

And no cherry-picking..
No adding to, or taking away, either.
Revelation 22 wraps up with a dire warning.

You say you believe and love God, is it of utmost importance to you then what the Lord said to conclude His Book?

Anonymous said...

(Continued . . . )

The sacrifice of the Mass . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-mass-is-profoundly-biblical

Confession of sins . . .
https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/confession-of-sins---how-biblical-is-it.html

Mortal and Venial sins . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mortal-and-venial-sin

Why Catholics believe in Purgatory (and therefore we pray for the deceased) . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

Infant Baptism . . .
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/infant-baptism/

The Immaculate Conception / Mary's perpetual virginity . . .
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-support-for-marys-immaculate-conception

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

Mary's roll as Queen of Heaven . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-marys-queenship-biblical


Anonymous said...

(Continued . . . )

The sacrifice of the Mass . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-mass-is-profoundly-biblical

Confession of sins . . .
https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/confession-of-sins---how-biblical-is-it.html

Mortal and Venial sins . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mortal-and-venial-sin

Why Catholics believe in Purgatory (and therefore we pray for the deceased) . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

Infant Baptism . . .
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/infant-baptism/

The Immaculate Conception / Mary's perpetual virginity . . .
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-support-for-marys-immaculate-conception

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

Mary's roll as Queen of Heaven . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-marys-queenship-biblical


Anonymous said...

(Continued . . . )

The infallibility of the Pope . . .
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility

Priestly celibacy is a tradition (not a Catholic doctrine) . . .
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-argue-for-priestly-celibacy

Holy Water . . .
https://catholicgentleman.net/2013/12/spiritual-weapons-holy-water/

Statues and images . . .
https://www.catholicshare.com/the-bible-supports-catholic-use-of-images-and-statues/#axzz6UvKdlcMC

Anonymous said...

Hey, 3:55 PM... I'll just leave the 'cherry picking' to you, since you are really good at it.

paul said...

Unnamed Anonymous @ 1:20
It's not true that Ray B or I, or any other Protestant that I know of, who indeed are not "quiet observers" but engaged and concerned, yes, (I don't have any qualms about saying I'm a PROTESTANT) Protestant. The MILLIONS of People murdered by the Roman Church don't need me to apologize for being a Protestant. The MILLIONS of Bible believers wouldn't want me to apologize for coming against the Papacy that has all that blood on it's hands.No, I'm not quiet and I'm not apologetic.

As far as your scriptural question, try Isaiah 8:20 "To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to THIS WORD, it is because there is no light in them."

Actually I've noticed quite a few scriptural statements that make the very claim that you "Scripture Plus Tradition" people people have wrong.
But you don't want to listen. You want to worship your RELIGION, and not the Lord God Almighty.
So, why do you follow the Traditions of men and not the commandments of God?
Your Catholic beliefs are NOT supported by scripture. Au contraire.
You talk about; "our traditional Catholic faith (which was created by Jesus Christ Himself in the year 33 AD). "
Oh so it was that year? Why?
How?
That year?...
_Huh. Who knew?
Right, and the first Catholic Pope was Peter, who never in his life even heard the word or the idea, of a man called Papa. No.
Quite the contrary. Jesus had told Peter and all the Apostles not to call any man on earth "father" because there is one in heaven who alone is father. But your "sacred" tradition disagrees with Jesus, again and again.
Oh yes I protest, alright.
The cult of Nicolaitans refers to those who hold power over the people, like a Pope or a Cardinal, neither of which is mentioned in the Bible. That wasn't and isn't the government that Jesus gave to his FRIENDS.

_MILLIONS of Bible believers; murdered by the Vatican.
Millions, over hundreds of years.
Millions.

Anonymous said...

Great post at 4:15 PM, paul.

Anonymous said...

And to add to my post above, so many of my Huguenot ancestors were slain by the Catholics in France and one in particular fled to England. He is my 11th great grandfather named Nicholas Lanier.

Anonymous said...

Paul @ 4:15 PM

The very fact that you are responding to my reply to RayB just minutes after my 4:04 PM links and 4:08 PM links (continuation) that I sent, which document and support our Catholic beliefs, shows what a real JERK you really are... that you won't even show a Catholic the courtesy of reading any of the information that I posted.

You and RayB and Craig can't have it both ways... demanding scriptural proof of our Catholic beliefs... and then continuing to trash those beliefs.

YOU, Paul don't get to play 'GOD' on this blog!!! How can you even sleep at night???

Looking forward to seeing you on Judgement Day... when ALL of this WILL be sorted out!!!

But... you are so arrogant, you will probably still argue with Jesus Himself.

Meanwhile, enjoy wallowing in your bitterness and hatred... while daring to still call yourself a 'christian'.

Anonymous said...

Reply to Anonymous @ 4:31 PM . . .

What are you in the 7th grade? LOL

Do you want to go 'tit for tat' little boy?

Well, for that matter, the British (mostly anti-Catholic PROTESTANTS) were guilty of causing the Irish Potato Famine GENOCIDE which drove my Irish ancestors to leave Ireland and move to America during the period 1845-1849.
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-famine-genocide-british

Now, do YOU accept responsibility for that??? Of course not... not any more than I am going to accept responsibility to what happened to your Huguenot great grandfather.

Bottom line: Throughout history, there have been wars between countries and religions.

Meanwhile, do try to get over yourself . . .

Anonymous said...

Is so easy to scroll past the vast number of links to Catholic Never Never Land where the Bible, God's Scripture and Holy Cannon of 66 divinely inspired books written by the Spirit of God and imparted to select men who knew and loved the Lord, is merely a name drop, a neglected and sidelined source, for their purposes a revisioned pick and choose cafeteria, as an excuse to establish traditions of Nicolaitan men (future popes) who took the preeminence just as Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter describe and and Apostle John (3 John) warned the early church they were doing, even before they were martyred.
The Vatican of today reeks of abuses of every stripe, just as it did when it's bitter root took hold so early in Christendom.

I can and do differentiate between Catholic church laity and the Catholic hierarchy, however.
God bless them with eyes to see and come out from under the bondages imposed on them.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there have been 5:10 PM.
I don't deny there has been abuses.
In fact, I am appalled at persecution going on in the world that is happening (as we speak) to Catholics as well as Protestant Christians.
Have particularly called out (several times over time) church abuses of other denominations besides Catholic, right here on this blog.

But I don't see you calling out your leadership for the abuses of Catholicism.
Why is that?

Anonymous said...

A Negro ex-con who did five years for holding a pregnant woman hostage at gun point, tries to pass a fake twenty dollar bill, acts erratically, resists arrest, then dies of a Fentanyl overdose (possibly due to other co-morbidities) when being restrained, but….cries out for his momma!:

Wall to wall coverage, universal outrage, riots, looting, DWL rationalizations of the same, hundred of millions of corporate money pledged to stamping out “systemic racism”, hyperbolic screaming, “DEFUND THE POLICE”, white progs prostrating themselves before neo-Marxist agitators known as Black Lives Matter….

A White child playing with his sisters outside his father’s house is fatally shot in the head by an angry Negro with a criminal record:

Crickets. Barely a local story.

This juxtaposition explains the state of America (indeed, much of the Western World) more succinctly and boldly than just about anyone of us ever could

Craig said...

Regarding Anon 1:03 PM, I offer food for thought:

Msgr. Charles Pope appeals to Matthew 26:26—8 for justification, but let’s put it in proper context:

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

Now note: (a) Jesus instructs them to eat his body and blood (b) which is described as “my blood of the new testament which shall be shed…. The “shall be shed” refers to the Crucifixion, which was a yet-future event when Jesus spoke. In other words, Jesus was instructing them to eat his body and drink his blood RIGHT THEN AND THERE, pre-crucifixion. This is clearly symbolic in meaning, in which the bread and the wine were substituting for his soon-to-be dead body and yet-to-be-shed blood.

Also note the purpose for Jesus’ shed blood: unto remission of sins. So, the yet-future blood-shed (from the standpoint of Jesus’ then-present words) was for remission of sins. Thus, (a) there is a symbolic commemoration of Jesus’ shed blood, and (b) Jesus’ shed blood would literally be to remit sins. The shed blood was to Atone.

The parallel passage in Mark is nearly identical. Yet Luke 22:17—20 adds something else, making explicit the intended symbolic nature:

17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you:
18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Yes, “Do this for a commemoration of me.” Not create a rite in which you literally eat my flesh and blood via some extrabiblical metaphysical transubstantiation process.

If we are to understand Jesus words here as either a continuing ordinance or sacrament, we must do so in the contexts provided. As such, just as the disciples symbolically ate his body and blood at
The Last Supper, we are to eat his body and blood symbolically.

We eat and drink in commemoration; Jesus shed his blood to Atone.

If you attempt to read a post-Resurrection meaning of John 6 through the Synoptics, then you must harmonize the passages such that the meaning is symbolic. Now, if you attempt to read a literalistic meaning of John 6 through the Synoptics you wind up contradicting the clearly symbolic nature of the Synoptics. In other words, there is no way to do say without entailing self-contradiction.

Craig said...

*to do SO without entailing self-contradiction.

paul said...

Millions.
MILLIONS of MURDERS at the hands of the Roman Papacy.

As far as not giving you the chance to be heard in regards to whatever Vatican publications you may have, I grew up Roman Catholic and even as a little kid remember thinking what- the...?
Priests drinking and smoking and cozying up to me ever so patiently looking for an opportunity...
Oh I remember well.
But God protected me then as He does now.

MILLIONS of murders at the hands of the papacy. All over Europe. In Germany in the 1930's and 40's. Hitler and Mussolini were "devout Catholics". In Serbia; hundreds of thousands. In Yugoslavia hundreds of thousands In Croatia hundreds of thousands, murdered by the Vatican backed Ustashi's. In Mexico in the 1930's. In France. In Germany. Both Christians and Jews were murdered by the Vatican all through the history of the Roman "church" .
MILLIONS.


At least now the mask is off. This Pope is a Communist

Anonymous said...

Sexual abuse is happening all over the world in every country in every institution. It's happening in the Catholic Church AND in the Protestant Churches. It's happening in the homes, in the schools, in the Boy Scouts, in the military, in the Amish community... and on and on. It proves one thing... that Satan knows his time is growing shorter and he is trying to destroy souls so they won't go to Heaven.

Sexual abuse did not begin or end with the Catholic Church... and I know for a fact that the majority of Catholic priests (many whom I know personally) are good and holy men of God, who take their priestly vows very seriously.

God will deal directly with those who disobey His commandments. Punishment WILL be waiting for them... if not in this life, it will happen in the next life.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church leadership in my city & state (and another city & state that I previously lived in) have been dealing with it directly... having forced those 'rotten apples' out of the priesthood... also calling each one of them out by name, date and incident (which was also printed in the newspaper).

Anonymous said...

Paul:

I am now enjoying my retirement years, but I have been a Catholic all of my life. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and church every Sunday and Holy Day. Over the years, several relatives and friends of mine have joined the priesthood or entered the convent. I have NEVER in my ENTIRE life had a priest (or a nun) say or do anything remotely inappropriate to me (in either word or deed).

Evidently, this has happened to other people... but, fortunately, it has NEVER happened to me.

Again... Satan is alive and well, and he is going to keep on trying to take souls to hell.

Anonymous said...

The jury is still out on Pope Francis. I leave everything up to God. He will handle it.

Anonymous said...

Craig:

Look... you are NEVER going to convert me, and I am never going to convert you.

So, what is your actual purpose for this constant back and forth.

I have given scriptural support for our Catholic beliefs. You either accept what we believe or you don't... period, end of subject. (I don't care either way.)

This is so UNFAIR that there are 3 of you (you, RayB and Paul) here on Constance's BLOG (this is not YOUR blog)... who attempt to bully Catholics, and who arrogantly DARE to set yourselves up as OUR 'judge and jury' But, guess what? Your're NOT!!!

These regular attempts to try to bully Catholics... playing head games of 'gotcha' is almost laughable... except that it's really more pathetic than funny.

Craig said...

Regarding Anon 1:03 PM (and etc.), I offer more food for thought:

With Msgr. Charles Pope, as with the RCC, this is a case of wanting your Eucharist and eating it too. The position entails great examples of the circular logic fallacy and the fallacy of equivocation. Setting aside the obvious contradictions between the Synoptics and a literal interpretation of John 6 (as shown above @ 6:51 PM), I will speak here only of the literal interpretation of John 6:

(1) Jesus’ original claims in John 6, understood as implying cannibalism by his hearers, is NOT metaphorical but literal (that’s why so many deserted Him), and these claims are conditioned: if you don’t eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, you will not have eternal life.

(2) Assuming this literal meaning of John 6, that then forms the basis for a symbolic rite, the Eucharist—even though this word isn’t found in the John passage.

(3) It is symbolic because a wafer (host) and wine are to be substituted for Jesus’ body and blood.

(4) But the host and wine must first be altered into Jesus’ REAL presence via Transubstantiation (though this wasn’t canonized until the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215). Without the Priest performing this act, Jesus would NOT be present. This transubstantiation process then is claimed to transform this clearly symbolic act into a semi-literal one. It wouldn’t be literal unless we consume his literal post-Resurrection body, such as the one describe in the latter portions of Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and Revelation (1:13—16). Instead, the process offers a substitute, mystical version of his body, though it is claimed to be literal.

(5) After transubstantiation, the host and wine can be consumed by the communicant. This ‘real presence’ is understood NOT as the implied cannibalism of Jesus’ words in John 6, but is understood to be His entire body and blood post-Resurrection [at odds with Matthew 26 and parallels]. That is, according to the RCC, John 6 doesn’t actually imply cannibalism—though this is integral to the argument’s premise in (1)—but implies His post-Resurrection body, and, since it is eaten whole rather than in part and is not killed in the process, it is not understood to be cannibalistic.

(6) And this interpretation entails Jesus’ stated condition: if you don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood, then you will not have eternal life. Thus, the RCC Eucharist MUST be observed/partaken or the individual will NOT receive eternal life. This entails a faith + Eucharist (+?) = salvation. Without the Eucharist, no salvation.

So……How many Eucharistic rites are sufficient to achieve salvation?

Any RCC adherent is welcome to correct anything I have incorrect in the above.

Now, here’s what seems to be the best interpretation. Jesus meant what He said, but ‘the Jews’ and the disciples misunderstood His meaning. We are to ‘eat’ Jesus symbolically through belief in His death, burial, and resurrection, his death constituting the fulfillment (or being the higher meaning of) the paschal Lamb sacrifice. This sacrifice provided atonement for our sins, and this is what provides eternal life—to those who believe.

Craig said...

Anon 7:30 PM,

For me, I yearn for the truth. Wherever that leads. I've investigated the claims in RCCism, and I find some (not all) of them wanting.

I don't usually jump into these sorts of discussions; but, the initial post of Constance discussing the issue of statues opened the door. I quoted the Catechism to provide fair and proper context. I find that it does not support statues of Jesus, precisely because of Jesus' Divine nature.

Then, when the subject of the Eucharist came up, I engaged.

You provided justification for the RCC understanding of the Eucharist via Msgr. Pope. I feel I've engaged fairly with the evidence he provided. You are welcome to rebut. But I don't think you can escape the incongruity in attempting to impose a literalist interpretation of John 6 unto the Synoptics. If there's a way to do it that I've missed, I'm all ears, so to speak.

Craig said...

One thing I left off my earlier comment @ 7:50 PM:

Oh, and, contrary to Msgr. Pope, the early church fathers are hardly consistent in this interpretation. Witness my debunking of this claim as it relates to Ignatius and my earlier citation of Augustine.

RayB said...


Kamala Harris Failed to Prosecute Catholic Priest Sex Abuse Cases Despite Victims’ Pleas

Can you guess why? Maybe, just maybe, it had to do with the fact that, Kamala Harris, a staunch PRO-ABORTIONIST, received an "unusual influx of unparalleled donations from high-level officials of the Catholic Church." Hush money, by the BILLIONS, was paid by the Catholic Church directly to the victims. Is this a case where a high level law enforcement official was also bought off?

The old saying goes something like this; if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck!

Read the rest of the story on Breitbart:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-failed-to-prosecute-priest-sex-abuse-cases-despite-victims-pleas/

Anonymous said...

Craig said:

If you put Ignatius’ words in proper context you’ll see he’s polemicizing against Docetism NOT promoting the ‘real presence’, much less transubstantiation. From his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (see here for other translation), chapter 2, we find:
__________________________________________

Putting Ignatius in proper context means comparing his writings not only with the words Christ spoke in the Gospels but also with those of the other Church Fathers. Actually, Ignatius is polemicizing BOTH against Docetism and FOR the Real Presence. The Docetists denied Christ's bodily existence. This related directly to Holy Eucharist because, if Christ did not have a real bodily existence, there could be no Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as established by Christ.

In any case, regarding the Real Presence, the Gospels speak loudly and clearly enough for themselves. A person has to ignore a lot of Scripture in order to insist on merely a "symbollic" or "metapholrical" interpretation of Chirist's words. And when some of Christ's disciples walked away after He told them that, unless they ate His flesh and drank his blood they would have no life in them... Christ didn't back down, he DOUBLED down. There is no escaping the fact that Christ literally meant exactly what he said.

The part that non-Catholics leave out when making their ignorant charges of "cannibalism" is that when Catholics eat the body and blood of Christ, they do so under the FORM of bread and wine. This is the unbloody sacrifice that hearkens back to Melchizedek. This is how the one Sacrifice of Christ is applied in time. It is a re-presentation of that ONE Sacrifice.

It is to be noted that in no way do Catholics believe that Christ continues to be crucified physically or die a physical death in Heaven over and over again. However, they do believe that the Mass does participate in the everlasting sacrifice of Christ. First, one must not separate the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross from the events which surround it. The sacrifice of our Lord is inseparably linked to the Last Supper. Here Jesus took bread and wine. Looking to St. Matthew's text (26:26ff), He said over the bread, "Take this and eat it. This is my body"; and over the cup of wine, "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." The next day, on Good Friday, our Lord's body hung on the altar of the cross and His precious blood was spilt to wash away our sins and seal the everlasting, perfect covenant. The divine life our Lord offered and shared for our salvation in the sacrifice of Good Friday is the same offered and shared at the Last Supper. The Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday, and the resurrection on Easter form one saving event.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II sums it up well: "At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. This He did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross through the ages until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (No. 47).

Anonymous said...

At 9:33 PM Craig said:

"How about it IS truly immoral in a literal sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, so he’s giving us his flesh and blood to eat in a symbolic sense."

_____________________________________________________

No, Craig, He is giving it to us under the FORM of bread and wine!!! That is precisely why it could not be "immoral." As stated elsewhere, a lot of Scripture has to be misinterpreted and/or ignored to get to the idea that Christ is giving us His flesh and blood to eat in merely a "symbolic sense" or in a "cannibalistic" sense. To accuse Catholics of cannibalism, moreover, is, in a way, a denial of the Resurrection. The Body and Blood of Christ is His glorified Body and Blood and it is the LIVING WORD INCARNATE. Not only that, but Jesus Christ is truly God as well as truly man. As St. Augustine once said, the whole point of being "almighty" is that God can do whatever He wants - including changing bread and wine into His Body and Blood as food for those who believe in Him. To put it bluntly, if I can believe in the Resurrection of our Lord, I can believe in bread and wine becoming Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...and the reason I believe this is because Jesus said so at the Last Supper.

Craig said...

Anon 10:47 PM,

If, as you claim, Ignatius is polemicizing against Docetism and the Real Presence, then Augustine, a recognized Church DOCTOR by the RCC, didn't understand it. Augustine explicitly denied any sort of literal "Eucharist" as per the RCC practice. In other words, if the Real Presence was uniformly understood then (a) Augustine would have not spoken against it, and (b) since he DID speak against--not once but twice--then surely he'd not be recognized as a "Doctor" by the RCC, would he?

And, as I've noted, the Last Supper predates His Crucifixion (obviously), which means when Jesus instituted it could not have been literal in any sense since He had not yet died. We are to commemorate the Supper symbolically, not literally. This, then requires us to interpret John through the Synoptic lens, not vice versa. To interpret John literally, and to subsequently interpret the Synoptics through that lens results in self-contradiction.

Craig said...

Anon 10:55 PM,

You wrote: No, Craig, He is giving it to us under the FORM of bread and wine!!! That is precisely why it could not be "immoral."

Well, then it's not "literal", is it? It's something 'other than' his body and blood--via a methodology that didn't exist until the 13th century.

This is where it makes much better sense to understand John 6 as literal with respect to the condition regarding eternal life, but symbolic in the understanding of what constituted eating his flesh and drinking his blood. We symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood in commemoration of his crucifixion. John's depiction is such that is was fulfill (or be the higher understanding of) the Passover Paschal Lamb. He WAS the meal! If we 'eat' that meal--we believe in his crucifixion as Atoning for our sins and we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, then we inherit eternal life!

Craig said...

Let me add this. On the one hand, I have no trouble envisioning the Lord being in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper in some quasi-mystical sense. But, I deem it completely unnecessary to REQUIRE Jesus to be in the wafer and wine AND, as implied the RCC Eucharist, that one MUST partake of it as a condition of salvation. This is the logical entailment of taking John 6 literally in the way the RCC does.

Anonymous said...

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new memorial sacrifice – the Eucharist. The true Lamb of God was about to be slain and all was to be new. But first, Christ would suffer and die on the Cross, the sacrificial offering that frees us from the bondage of sin and death, before rising, which is our pledge of new life.

In the context of the Passover meal, Jesus said a blessing as he took the unleavened bread and the cup of wine. “This is my body that is for you,” he said. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Bidding his Apostles and through them us to eat and drink, he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

Craig said...

To the recent anon RCC adherent,

I assume you missed my earlier references to Augustine, so I'll repost:

In reading through F. F. Bruce’s Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1983), I came to his sourcing of Augustine. There are two, the first of which comes from On Christian Doctrine 3.16, in which the ‘Church Father’ (“Doctor” of RCC) acknowledges that it cannot be literal, “it is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us” (Bruce, p 24).

In Homilies on John 26.1, Augustine writes the pithy epigram Crede et manducasti, “Believe, and you have eaten” (Bruce, p 24).

Anonymous said...

Craig,

No 'quasi-mystical sense' mumbo jumbo!!!

Here is what you fail to understand: Because He is JESUS (and you're not)... HE can do anything HE wants to do!!!

Where do you get the idea that you (a mere mortal) is 'supposed' to understand???

Craig said...

Anon 11:26 PM,

Like a boomerang, back at ya:

Where do you get the idea that you (a mere mortal) is 'supposed' to understand???

You are over-interpreting John 6, which leads to your error. But, you claim I'm the one in error. If we are both 'mere mortals', how do we resolve this? You claim to appeal to Jesus, but that's YOUR 'mere mortal' understanding of Jesus' words.

See how that works?

It's disappointing that you resort to emotional arguments as opposed to more reasoned ones.

Anonymous said...

The difference between us is that I ACCEPT the words of Jesus... based on FAITH in HIM!!!

Yes, Craig... we are BOTH mere mortals.

There is a lot that I don't understand. For example, when I meet Jesus, I will ask Him to please explain the Blessed Trinity. Meanwhile, I accept this teaching on faith alone.

P.S. Can't help but be 'emotional' when I have been dealing with so much HUBRIS for the past 15 years from anti-Catholic bullies!!!




Craig said...

Anon 11:22 PM,

Your entire post is reasonable, but I reject, in part, your premise At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new memorial sacrifice – the Eucharist.

Here’s why. First, Jesus instituted a commemoration, not a “sacrifice” (“Do this in remembrance of me”). Second, you are using “Eucharist” as a noun, thereby anachronistically imposing the RCC doctrine upon the text. Scripture uses it in these contexts as a participle (verb) in a subordinate clause, yet Jesus is also recorded using eulogeō, blessing (again as a participle in a subordinate clause). Though many translations convert the participle to a finite verb, the translations more functionally equivalent (like terms for like terms) would be:

Matthew 26:26: …and giving-blessing (eulogeō), He broke…this is my sōma (body)
Mark 14:22: …and giving-blessing (eulogeō), He broke…this is my sōma (body)
Luke 22:17: taking the cup, giving-thanks (eucharisteō), He said…
Luke 22:19: taking the bread, giving-thanks (eucharisteō), He said… this is my sōma (body)

Paul splits the two, using eucharisteō from Luke but “He broke” from Matthew and Mark:
1 Cor 11:24: giving-thanks (eucharisteō), He broke…this is my sōma (body)

John uses neither of the participles (nor their noun forms) and consistently uses sarx (flesh), not sōma (body), throughout this part of John 6, as exemplified here:
John 6:53: unless you eat the flesh (sarx) of the Son of Man

Anonymous said...

Craig, there is more than one Catholic posting today... so you may have to wait until tomorrow for a reply from him or her.

Craig said...

Anon 12:22 AM,

I understand. See my 11:23 PM, which was meant to refer to the other (others?) over against 12:19 AM. The writing style/tone is much more lucid and irenic--though, understandably passionate. We should fight for what we believe! But I believe we should do so in a tone that doesn't come across as overly negative. The new anon poster succeeds in that with spades.

I know the early church polemics were hot and hostile. And even the later ones were. But I don't find that very becoming. Or very Christ-like.

Anonymous said...

If the Pope isn't building an army of wolves you tell me what any of these men (Joel Oseen, Mike Lee, Tim Timmons, Dirk, etc.) have to do with Christianity and ecumenism. Not one of those supposed "evangelicals" tried to even save Mr Bergoglio or share the gospel with him. The chance of a lifetime to speak to the world's largest cult leader and win him over for Jesus and they don't even try.

Please come out of her and repent of her evil ways. she is building an ecumenical army of more heretics and false teachers. Jesus died for you. It is finished. You don't have to do anything more.

Oh, and bless you miss Cumbey. You are in my prayers.


"Joel Osteen, senior pastor at Houston's Lakewood Church, was part of a group that met with Pope Francis at the Vatican on June 5, 2014. File photo.

The unofficial meeting also included Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah; former U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne; Tim Timmons, a pastor and author based in Newport Beach, Calif.; and Gayle D. Beebe, president of Westmont College in Santa Barbara, Calif., according to the Deseret News of Salt Lake City." https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Osteen-meets-with-Pope-Francis-at-Vatican-5533805.php


Mike Lee - Prominent Mormon

https://www.deseret.com/2014/6/5/20466712/sen-mike-lee-dirk-kempthorne-joel-osteen-meet-with-pope-francis-at-vatican#sen-mike-lee-r-utah-left-shakes-hands-with-pope-francis-during-a-meeting-with-the-pontiff-on-thursday-june-5-2014-at-the-vatican-lee-was-part-of-a-delegation-of-political-and-religious-leaders-from-the-united-states-in-the-middle-is-u-s-senator-dirk-kempthorne-r-idaho

Tim Timmons

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-feb-14-me-8085-story.html

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 12:35 AM

Maybe you need to stop and remember how you yourself have set the 'tone' of a debate rebuttal more than once with words like, "I don't mean to be unkind but . . ."

Also, Paul is one who comes across as very angry and hostile towards Catholics. Several Catholics have complained about him over these past 15 years.

And, when any of you makes outrageous statements like "Come out of her"... as if we would EVER leave the Catholic faith that Jesus Himself created nearly 2,000 years ago. That is NEVER going to happen... because, each one of us is willing to give our life for our faith. And we have the promise of Jesus Himself when He said: "... and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16-18)

So, you see... it's a two way street. We Catholics don't find the behavior of a few Protestant Evangelicals on this blog very 'Christ-like' either.

You've got to give respect... in order to earn respect from us.

RayB said...


"Respect" = "agree with us entirely, or we won't respect you."

What exactly does "Christ-like" mean? Does it mean that Christ compromised his truth with lying dictates of the Pharisees in order to have "peace"?

The Christ of the Scriptures was CONSTANTLY at odds with the "religious" opposition of his day. That religious institution also proclaimed that they, and they alone, were the only true body of believers. What did Jesus say to these professors of faith? Jesus knew their hearts, and knew that their faith was not based upon a fearful faith in his Word. Sound familiar?

Here is just one of MANY examples:

John 8: 36-45

36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Craig said...

I'm not intending to be unkind, but you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

I did not mean: I'm not intending to be unkind, but [being unkind] you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

What I meant was: I'm not intending to be unkind, but [it may come off that way] you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

In other words, I knew my statement about your perpetuation of the same type of ‘argument’ may come off wrongly (as a sort of ad hominem), so I wanted to preface it with a statement to preemptively counter that notion. To better convey what I meant, I should have stated it more like:

I'm not intending to be unkind when I say the following. You tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

When I want to be frank I’ll either provide no preface at all or I will actually state, “Let me be frank.”

Craig said...

Well, I really fouled up 9:20 AM. I wrote this in MS Word first, but missed the first part! Here's my intended comment:

----

Anon 2:34 AM,

You misunderstood my words, which I admit were not phrased well and thus did not proerly convey my intention. This is what I wrote:

I'm not intending to be unkind, but you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

I did not mean: I'm not intending to be unkind, but [being unkind] you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

What I meant was: I'm not intending to be unkind, but [it may come off that way] you tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

In other words, I knew my statement about your perpetuation of the same type of ‘argument’ may come off wrongly (as a sort of ad hominem), so I wanted to preface it with a statement to preemptively counter that notion. To better convey what I meant, I should have stated it more like:

I'm not intending to be unkind when I say the following. You tend to come back with the same 'argument', which is no argument at all.

When I want to be frank I’ll either provide no preface at all or I will actually state, “Let me be frank.”

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 11:06 PM

Jesus Christ is truly God as well as truly man. As God, He is not subject to time. Therefore, no contradiction exists regarding the Last Supper predating Christ's passion death and Resurrection; no contradiction exists with regard to Mary being conceived without sin in view of the FUTURE merits of her Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As for St. Augustine, Protestants INTERPRET St. Augustine's writings on the Holy Eucharist in a purely "symbolic" way just as they do the Scriptures. But St. Augustine never denied the Real Presence. When all of Augustine's remarks on the subject are taken into account, it is very difficult to argue that he didn’t accept the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For Augustine, the Eucharist, objectively speaking, is both sign and reality. Indeed according to the Catholic understanding, the Holy Eucharist is a Sign as are all the other Sacraments of the Catholic Church. A Sacrament is defined as an "outward SIGN instituted by Christ to give grace."

If you are satisfied with the Protestant interpretation of Holy Writ and St. Augustine, fine, but peddling the old anti-Catholic shibboleth of "cannibalism" not only shows that you do not fully understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, but it is also disappointing to those who thought you were better than that.

Anonymous said...

Is so easy to come off as unkind to people who are already, and perpetually, inflamed.
And there is no real back and forth civil dialogue, just the same dogmatics from someone who is being unkind to think that everyone has to agree with them or else (tends to be prone to an accuser stance).
The one anon poster is playing an "us v them" game and is not answering actual questions, just linking people to Catholic sites, because really this person is stumped by having their own words coming back to bite them that disagree with Scripture they supposedly believe (until someone presses the questions closer).
That is intellectually dishonest.

But whatever, this is just a blog.

Carry on......

Anonymous said...

Craig,

On the subject of the Last supper preceding Christ's death, Jesus is truly God, as well as truly Man, and His divine Nature is not subject to time. When we speak of the Immaculate Conception, for example, we understand it to mean that Mary was pre-redeemed by the FUTURE merits the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The Blood of the Covenant

The New Covenant redemptive sacrifice had already begun at the Last Supper

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-blood-of-the-covenant

Craig said...

Anon 10:59 AM,

Though God is not subject to time, the Incarnation came IN TIME. In our history, Jesus came at a particular point in time, and his earthly life was lived in a succession of events. So, I don't think we can use your argument to counter the sequence in the Synoptics and John. To use your logic here would seem to deny a real Incarnation.

As re Augustine, show me the Latin and how it can be legitimately translated as indicating the Real Presence. As I said, I'm interested in truth. I think his pithy Crede et manducasti is very straightforward. Perhaps he has statements both ways, such that he’s ambiguous? In any case, I repeat: his pithy phrase is straightforward.

I only used 'cannibalism' because if we take Jesus' words overly literal--as it seems the RCC does--then that is what is implied. His pre-Resurrection body is flesh (sarx), but one must question if his POST-Resurrection body is flesh (sarx) in the same manner as the pre-. That is, sarx is subject to decay, but a post-resurrection body is not. Yet, sarx is the term John uses. To be clear lest I be accused of heresy, there’s a continuation of bodily life (Jesus was certainly raised bodily), the raised body is changed because, as Paul states, “the natural (psychikos becomes the spiritual (pneumatikos)…flesh (sarx) and blood (haima) cannot inherit God’s Kingdom…the perishable put on imperishability, and the mortal put on immortality”.

You wrote: A Sacrament is defined as an "outward SIGN instituted by Christ to give grace." This sounds just fine to me. It is a SIGN and SYMBOL, not an imperatival command in some literal sense to provide grace in and of itself. It is HIS CRUCIFIXION that atones, and His subsequent Resurrection that provides the firstfruit for own future resurrection. At the Last Supper Jesus called for a commemoration, a practice to remember his then-forthcoming sacrifice which would atone for our sins. Thus the final phrase “to give grace” was a Grace already given BY Christ upon the Cross. Thus, we simply accept this Grace through belief. Though we certainly remember this Supreme Sacrifice at our commemoration of the Lord’s Supper, we are never instructed to reenact it.

Anonymous said...

To RayB @ 8:53 AM

1) All I heard were 'crickets' (nada) from you... after I posted all of those links, which provided scriptural support for our Catholic beliefs on various 'issues' you were having with our Catholic beliefs. The reason why I decided to supply links was because EACH subject was much TOO LENGTHY to post on Constance's blog. Anyway, I feel that it was disrespectful of you not to grant me the courtesy of replying to all of your 'concerns' (especially since you are constantly DEMANDING answers from us). Maybe you weren't expecting to receive all of those answers, and just chose to ignore / dismiss them all, rather than address them? But, I could be wrong . . .

2) Also, it is not only immature, but a huge over-reaction, to ASSUME (as in 'making an ass out of you and me') that you would believe that we Catholics think that you would have to agree with us in order for us to respect you? Absolutely not true . . .

For example: We Catholics ALL have the utmost respect for Constance Cumbey. Whenever, she has a concern and posts it, she often asks my dear friend Susanna for her feedback / input. THAT IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS MUTUAL RESPECT. (You, Craig and Paul should try it some time.)

3) When I used the term 'Christ-like' in a recent post ... it was in REPLY to Craig, who accused ME of not being 'very Christ-like.'

4) Re: "The Christ of the Scriptures was CONSTANTLY at odds with the 'religious' opposition of his day."

Uhhh, YES... and those would be the Jewish people, who did not (and still do not) ACCEPT Jesus as their Savior!!!

Then, in the year 33 AD, just before Jesus was crucified and died for the sins of ALL mankind... He created His OWN Catholic Church (for everyone). "And I say to you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Unfortunately, over the centuries, a few mere mortal men like Martin Luther, King Henry VIII, etc. had other plans... and decided to form their OWN man-made churches (in effect shooting Jesus the proverbial 'middle finger'). A real TRAGEDY all the way around!!!

For those seeking the 'truth'... this is our TRUTH.

Anonymous said...

To Craig:

Here is more...

St. Augustine’s Theology of the Eucharist

https://stpaulcenter.com/st-augustines-theology-of-the-eucharist/

________________________________________________________________


A debate between a Catholic and a Protestant on the Eucharist...

St. Augustine on the Eucharist.

http://biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num30.htm


Craig said...

As an addendum to my 12:19 AM post, in order to further illustrate how the RCC’s “Eucharist” has altered the meaning of the term, let me show how the term is used today.

I occasionally go to a particular local Greek restaurant. The owner would say something that obviously was equivalent to the English “thanks” or “thank you”, but I couldn’t figure out what he was saying. I was aware of eucharistō from Scripture, yet he kept saying something like ef-ka-ris-tow. Thus, I assumed the beginning was an epsilon-phi (e + ph = eph) combination. However, it finally dawned on me (duh!): the upsilon (u, the second letter in eucharistō) is pronounced as a “v”. This is found in the current pronunciation evangelical for the NT Greek euaggelion.

You can see the verb and noun here on Google translate, along with its phonetic pronunciation.

My point is that “Eucharist” means “thanksgiving”. This is what Jesus did before the breaking of bread. And that is the example we should follow: We should give thanks prior to receiving the Lord’s Supper—the commemoration of Jesus’s Supreme Sacrifice which provided a once-for-all-time atonement for our sins. Hallelujah!

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 9:22 AM

Thank you for the clarification of your previous words: "I'm not intending to be unkind..."
(which I have verified came from a much earlier post at 11:10 PM).

I accept your explanation... and the fact that I may have misunderstood your words.

I apologize.

Ultimately, while you and I may not be 'on the same page' (regarding interpretation of our Catholic doctrine)... we can agree to disagree.

Anonymous said...

Craig, one thing is for sure...

Jesus will be explaining the Holy Eucharist to ALL of us on Judgement Day!!!

Craig said...

Anon 1:12 PM,

Thanks for acknowledging that I didn’t intend to be unkind. I appreciate and accept your apology. I’m sorry I was not initially clear, that I was ambiguous.

Yes! We can agree to disagree.

----

I checked the Latin (Jerome), which matches the results of my earlier 12:19 AM post. That is, there is a distinction between Matthew/Mark (“blessing”) and Luke/1Cor (“thanks”) and all are verbs in subordinate clauses:

Matthew 26:26 et benedixit
Mark 14:22 et benedicens
Luke 22:17 gratias
Luke 22:19 gratias
1Cor 11:24 gratias

-----

I checked the links to the Augustine material. The first one didn’t really provide enough context in order to provide much help. The second one was better, but was a bit overwhelming. I see that the author was doing a rebuttal of a polemic, but this made it a bit hard to follow at times. I came away with an understanding that Augustine seemed to affirm the Real Presence in some fashion at times, but seemed to affirm a symbolic meaning at others. I’m glad the author conceded that Augustine didn’t affirm transubstantiation, implicitly admitting that this couldn’t be so since the doctrine wasn’t formed until 1215.

I suppose the only way I’ll be able to make a determination is if I were to find the original Latin and tackle it myself. However, I don’t think I’ll have (read: make) the time to do that—too many other things to do. Frustratingly, too, I’m aware that the Fathers’ work has not been subjected to rigorous textual criticism. That seems pretty important as a prerequisite. But I digress.

Interestingly, the author says Schaff has an anti-Catholic bias, but I’ve read some who think he’s too pro-Catholic! po-TAY-tow vs. po-TAH-tow

Anonymous said...



Deadly Beirut blast ‘gift’ from God, ex-Israel MK says

Former Israeli Member of the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) Moshe Feiglin hailed Tuesday’s massive explosion in Lebanon’s capital city, Beirut as a “gift” from God.

“Today is Tu B’Av, a day of joy, and a true and huge thank you to G-d and all the geniuses and heroes really (!) who organized for us this wonderful celebration in honor of the day of love,” Feiglin posted on Facebook, claiming that the blast was just in time for the Jewish festival.

https://www.dailysabah.com/world/mid-east/deadly-beirut-blast-gift-from-god-ex-israel-mk-says

RayB said...


Anonymous stated (in part) @ 3:34 PM:

"According to your very last paragraph, RayB... you are actually calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver'... because our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture."

NOTE: Anonymous made the claim that I am "actually calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver," because it is Christ's "WORDS" that establish "CATHOLIC BELIEFS."

I provided a PARTIAL list of the peculiar beliefs of the Catholic Church to Anonymous (see my post @ 11:59 PM) and asked him to provide CHRIST's WORDS in which He "clearly and distinctly" stated them in Scripture. Ignoring that request, he posted links, not Christ's "WORDS" (his post @ 12:16 PM). Again, HE DID NOT PROVIDE the SCRIPTURES in which Christ HIMSELF taught these "Catholic beliefs." Why? Because they don't exist !

Think about this; he accuses me of "calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver,' and yet, he refuses to back up that incredibly serious charge with the proof that he claims he has to back up his "Catholic beliefs" from "Christ's" own "WORDS."

NOTE to 'Anonymous' ....

Just provide the "WORDS of Christ HIMSELF" from SCRIPTURE in which He declares the "perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, His "WORDS" that instructs us to PRAY TO MARY, where He refers to Mary as "the Queen of Heaven," where, in His "WORDS," He tells us that Venial sins will be cleansed in the fires of Purgatory, where, in His "WORDS" He teaches us that He will be "put to death AGAIN, over and over and over again, in the Sacrifice of the Mass." That's a very short list. Surely it won't take up much space to provide the SCRIPTURAL proof of "Christ's WORDS" that illustrate "clearly" your position.

Of course this is a very abbreviated list of "Catholic beliefs," making it incredibly easy to copy and paste, those "WORDS" of Christ from Scripture in which these "Catholic beliefs" are "clearly and distinctly stated."

Don't hold your breath folks, because they aren't found in Scripture. Perhaps they are found in the Fiction section of the Vatican Library?

Anonymous said...

RayB at 3:31 PM,

Yeah, just a partial list of exhausting things that we don't have to wade up to our necks through...because the Gospel is so clean, pure, and to the point..it is God's finished work.

My 3rd grader knows all she needs to know to be saved is admit she is a sinner, believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior who has fully paid her sin debt, repent and confess He is Lord because He rose in power over sin and the grave, because the Bible says whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved just as Romans 10:13 says.
She recently did that. She is so happy to know that Jesus is her Savior, her Lord who has forgiven her, she knows His Spirit is living in her heart giving her a new life in Him to live and grow in, and she knows she has a home in heaven someday to live forever with Jesus whom she loves like no one else.


Religion is tiring with constant trying, trying, trying, and very trying on a heart and mind.
But faith in Jesus is renewal and trusting in Him gives us peace, rest for the mind and heart.

So, trying or trusting?
I have chosen trusting. So has she.

Jesus paid it all.....the Lord is worthy of our trust.



Anonymous said...

RayB @ 3:31 PM:

Yes, and I will repeat it again...
You are in fact calling Jesus a 'deceiver' when you accuse Catholics of being "these types that Christ warned us about." (YOUR own words are coming back to bite you.)

WHY WOULD JESUS WANT CATHOLICS TO ABANDON THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC FAITH THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED IN THE YEAR 33 AD??? And especially when HE was the one who made the promise to us (nearly 2,000 years ago): "and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it."

You are absolutely WRONG in your thinking on this... and I am calling you out right here and now on this blog!!!


Anonymous said...

One more thing, RayB . . .

If the links that I posted on this blog (which provide plenty of scriptural support for our Catholic beliefs and doctrine) isn't good enough for you... then there is no need for any further discussion.

You are a fraud and a phony... pretending that you are genuinely interested in having a discussion with Catholics on this blog.

However, it is all a total LIE...

Go back to your world of hubris and false pride.

Anonymous said...

To RayB's Anonymous 'sidekick' @ 4:44 PM

Glad to hear that you and your 3rd grader are 'on the same page' (which explains a lot).

Yes, Jesus died on the Cross for the sins of ALL mankind.

Yet, no one should ever make the mistake of believing that he or she has an 'AUTOMATIC insurance policy into Heaven'. Since each and everyone of us are flawed human beings (with temptations along the way)... we ALL have to work at living up to our highest potential... with the ultimate GOAL of spending eternity in Heaven with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Oh, yes... the Catholics are so exhausting. They tirelessly defend themselves against the haters on this blog. Why can't they just sit down, shut up, and let us turn Constance's blog into a Protestant blog... where we can be free to spread our anti-Catholic propaganda??? LOL

Anonymous said...


"Yet, no one should ever make the mistake of believing that he or she has an 'AUTOMATIC insurance policy into Heaven'. Since each and everyone of us are flawed human beings (with temptations along the way)... we ALL have to work at living up to our highest potential... with the ultimate GOAL of spending eternity in Heaven with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Your mistake, 5:16 PM...
...........is that you think my child's faith (and mine) is mistaken to trust the Lord as she has trusted him to be her Lord and Savior and His promise of eternal life is hers (and mine) because He keeps His promises, He has gifted the promise of salvation to us, He does not make us sinners earn that promise, because all of us fall short of the glory of God, all we like sheep have gone astray, we can't ever measure up to God's standard and His standard is Christ Jesus!!! So, He left glorious heaven to come down here and die as a sinner, though He never sinned, to freely give it to us. Imagine the love of Jesus to come down here to do that..for the vileness of our sin...the sin of the entire world.
I just quoted from Romans 3, and from Isaiah 53, for you if you care to read that for yourself.

That is your religion making such a mistake.
Our faith is in God, not ourselves, to save us, and keep us on the path of eternal life all the way to our eternal home with Him.

You know what we sinners earn? We earn the wages of sin and death.
That is what we earn.
But the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ.

A wage and a gift are two very different things!

One is about works, the other is about a relationship, a relationship with a Blood tie.
Romans 3:23 tells us, for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And there you have it.


Here is your Douay-Rheims version of Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you realize what Grace is?

It is unmerited favor, you don't earn it (but go back and review what sinners do earn!).

G-God's
R-Riches
A-At
C-Christ's
E-Expense

So humble, so clean, so pure, and simple enough my 3rd grader gets it.
Jesus said forbid not the children to come unto ME. Matt 19:14

Matthew 18:3 and Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you change and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Plus, Jesus goes on to severely warn about stumbling little children from the faith, 5:16 PM.
Would you stumble my 3rd grader with the heavy yoke of your self-relying self-righteous religious take on Jesus' precious promises?

You don't want to go there, who ever you are.

She didn't have to jump through hoops to get to Jesus...she just bowed her head and confessed her sin, and asked, simply invited HIM to come in to her life, because she wanted to be clean before God, she trusts Jesus Christ...because He is the Lord!
Good enough for a child, good enough for me.

But...keep on earning and working, tirelessly working, trying, trying, trying, to exhaustion then 5:16 PM. if you so choose...



Anonymous said...

Hey, 6:15 PM

As usual, you completely OVER-react and MISINTERPRET every comment from one of us Catholics (which then becomes YOUR mistake).

No one has said ANYTHING against your 3rd grade child... but, keep right on distorting my comments. (It's what you do best.)

Actually, I was quietly smiling to myself and thinking that YOUR behavior was often on the 'level' of a 3rd grader... whenever you childishly attack Catholics on this blog.

(You are very welcome... for the clarification.)

The rest of your long post is just more re-hashing of the same (ad nauseum)... and just makes me feel very sleepy and in need of a nap.

RayB said...

Anonymous Catholic Friend:

So I take it you are NOT going to provide us with the "WORDS" of CHRIST from SCRIPTURE that backs up your claim?

What a shame. I was so looking forward to you proving that "our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture."

Anonymous said...

You know what, RayB?

I don't need to PROVE anything to you, or Craig, or Paul.

I am at peace in the knowledge that I belong to the one true Catholic faith that Jesus created in 33 AD.

See you on Judgement Day... when Jesus Himself will be telling you the very same thing!!!

And I will bring the popcorn... and watch for the moment when you ARGUE back with HIM... that HE needs to show YOU proof. LOL

(How's that HUBRIS working for you?)

Good night . . .

Craig said...

Four minute video:

Craig Keener: Jesus and the Temple

Anonymous said...

Check out this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfWjzh8Cx1E&list=PLx2boQxBtl_oWshq1Dkv4KAz_M-sJepM8

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Covenant with many - Historic PEACE Accord with Israel 8-13-20?

(Title: "Abraham Accords")

Is this possibly 'the covenant with many' from Daniel 9:27?
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fall: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

(Abraham was also called 'the father of many' in the bible.)

Why isn't the mainstream news media covering this?

Stay tuned...

Anonymous said...

"I am at peace in the knowledge that I belong to the one true Catholic faith that Jesus created in 33 AD."

So you are denying your roman catholicism? That's a start. I pray God grants you repentance and you pursue this true Catholic church (based upon a personal relationship that leads you to scripture, by His Spirit and to be found in His words). When you are ready...there are many that love you here and will help you along His path.

I know it's hard. It's all you've known and to do so you think it means giving up on your parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles...but there is so much more to be found in Him. You do not have to be afraid.


Anonymous said...

10:02 PM

Perhaps you need to go back to Reading Class #101.

WHERE are you getting the FALSE information that I am 'denying my Roman Catholicism'?

I was baptized a Roman Catholic.

Also, I am retired on a pension and Social Security... so my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles are all deceased... but, they will all be waiting to welcome me 'on the other side.'

Nice try though . . .

Anonymous said...

6:51 PM

You are mistaken to think that salvation is worked for.
Jesus did the work. All of it, all alone on the cross, and His work must have satisfied the Father, because He rose from the dead.
My child is not taught that His forgiveness, His salvation is earned. You were, but that is not Scriptural.


I know, I know, you don't read that in the Bible, but I have shown you that in the Bible you have said you read from, it backs up what I said, so it appears you don't believe the Bible, just your Catholic doctrine on it.

My child sees what you are blind to.
She does know where she will spend eternity.
But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. John 20:31
(from the Douay-Rheims version you supposedly trust). Jesus words are written so we can know, can believe, and in that believing, have life..life eternal. (so you don't believe this verse either?)
God's word is her assurance..and mine, but make light of that, and keep your heavy yoke of Catholicism all you want.
Your "admonition" not to count on that "automatic insurance policy" point won't be taken.
A 3rd grader understands what you are stumbling over.

Anonymous said...

To 1:14 AM

No, YOU are wrong if you believe that just because you made the decision to "accept Jesus Christ as you personal savior"... that you don't have to do ANYTHING ELSE to enter Heaven.

As a matter of fact, I am going to double down on my statement to say this: There is no 'AUTOMATIC INSURANCE POLICY' into Heaven for ANY of us (Protestants or Catholics). Of course, we have to EARN it by obeying the Ten Commandments... and refraining from SIN!!!

For instance, a man can't consider himself 'saved' and then decide to live recklessly... (e.g. marry several times, gamble away his paycheck, steal from his neighbor, etc.) and expect to go to Heaven just because he once uttered the words, "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior"... all while taking the ATTITUDE that Jesus has already PAID the price for any and ALL of his FUTURE sins.

If it were that EASY... we Catholics would be saying, "Hey, where do we sign up?" LOL

_____________________________________________________________________________________


And just to clarify ONE more time...

In my post yesterday at 5:16 PM, my statement was this:
"Glad to hear that you and your 3rd grader are 'on the same page' (which explains a lot)."

I was simply referring to YOUR often childish (as in 3rd grade) behavior toward Catholics on this blog... period!!!

If you want to go off the deep end... and have a hissy fit meltdown, that's YOUR problem!!

(Anyway, I would imagine that your 3rd grade child is probably the more MATURE one between the two of you. She has my sympathy.)

Anonymous said...

PLEASE share this video with ALL parents of school age children . . .

FYI ~ A 'mysterious illness' has previously been reported and well documented in schools from Stockton, CA; to Arlington, TX; to Bartlesville, OK; to Fort Lauderdale, FL ... of students suddenly complaining of 'feeling ill.' Symptoms include: trouble breathing, nose bleeds, ear pain, passing out, to trouble walking and talking... and even seizures.

The explanation is the 60 GHz technology they are being exposed to... that is now being installed in school buildings all over the United States (just within these past 5 months during the lockdown).

Must see video . . .

https://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2020/08/the-coming-5g-attack-in-schools-mysterious-school-illnesses-already-the-war-on-kids-via-the-fullerton-informer-2513301.html

________________________________________________________________________________________


For more information on this critically important subject . . .

https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2020/02/5g-60-ghz-oxygen-absorption-you-and-coronavirus/


Anonymous said...

Why Kamala is not qualified to be Vice President...

Put simply, Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States because she is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II (and, by reference, the 12th Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/36704-kamala-harris-is-not-qualified-to-be-vice-president

Anonymous said...

Dear 5:01 AM

When a person becomes saved in the Blood of Jesus they become a new creation in Christ. They still war the old sinful nature (because we are still on the earth and we are, so to speak, looking at the ravels underneath, while God above sees the pattern beautifully done already)we trust God to implement His grace as we appropriate by faith, but all are given, at the moment of conversion, the push back they need to overcome sin.........they have the "dynamis" (greek) power of the Holy Spirit to overcome sin and temptation. The Spirit of the Living God comes to live and dwell inside the heart, sits at the seat--the core--of the life to empower it so walking by faith and growing in it is how we advance from the old way of thinking and doing to the new--that new life in the Lord Jesus...no longer slaves of sin. Romans chapters 6 and 7 break this down so beautifully for us. If you dare to read it with an open heart, it will speak to you.
1 John 1:9 is a precious promise for us as we learn to follow Jesus. You will appreciate that that verse is in the Bible too..
His Grace that saved us will lead us back to repentance (often as needed) and show us the way of obedience to Christ, love for His chastening and admonitions as needed that we may walk pleasing to God. Don't we do this for our children? (one hopes so at least) How much more the Father then?
Doesn't a baby crawl before it walks? The baby is born, but once born, then baby has to learn to walk, to grow. That is a process. Salvation is our justification (born again with new nature), and learning to put off the old man (old me) to put on the new man (the new me has God's Spirit in me) is called sanctification and that part does not happen overnight--it takes your lifetime to continue in it.
If a person can continue in their sin, to grieve the Lord by walking after the gods of this world, staying in a fleshly mindset and behaviors, no genuine heart change and life change, leaving God standing back on the side of the road while they march on in the own pride away from Him, then that is a heart that has not really received the Lord's salvation, does not have the Spirit of the Living God abiding within them, not really born again, not part of the kingdom of God, because Jesus calls us from darkness to light, He is with us and in us to complete the journey..all the way to our heavenly home. That is a promise and you cannot tell my daughter and myself that Jesus Christ has lied to us. We know..HE..is the truth and His promises are kept. Saved by His Blood and kept on the path of righteousness by His Power--the power of His Spirit.

So think me immature, or even worse, I don't care one bit.

But do think on Christ, His Word, His Power, to save the vilest of the vile...and somewhere in each of our lives we are just that..vile, capable of horrific grievous sin, don't care who we think we are, or what religious education we have Catholic or non-Catholic too, God is not partial, God sees everything, everything! and He knows the heart of man inside and out, but His answer to that, His change for that, is Himself--Christ in us, the hope of Glory. Is there better or stronger than Jesus Christ Himself? We know He is God, don't we?

I stand in wonder and awe at the Love of the Lord Jesus who is strong to save, and loves us with an everlasting love, working, encouraging, comforting, leading and guiding, pruning, and giving us the discipline that children need from their Father the Lord. It is hard at times, but HE is there for us, nonetheless. This is simply profound, and for us finites must be profoundly simple, because pride keeps us from seeing and believing God.

If that is childish or whatever you judge me to be, then so be it.

And one more thing.
God bless you as you seek to know the Lord too.

Craig said...

Anon 10:38 AM,

AMEN! But the one who stands firm to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13):

Passing the Examination

Anonymous said...

10:38 AM

Re: "If a person can continue in their sin, to grieve the Lord by walking after the gods of this world, staying in a fleshly mindset and behaviors, no genuine heart change and life change, leaving God standing back on the side of the road while they march on in the own pride away from Him, then that is a heart that has not really received the Lord's salvation..."

___________________________________________________________________________________________


So, in a very round about way, you do acknowledge (agree) that we ALL do have to EARN our salvation by obeying God's commandments... and live the way Jesus would want us to live.

In other words, no one can CLAIM that he or she is 'saved'... and then continue (or, at a later date, return to) a life of reckless behavior.

Ultimately, only God KNOWS who is 'doing the right thing'... since only God can 'read' our hearts, souls and minds. (Our fellow man can't do that ~ not our own family or close friends.)

Anonymous said...

A classic example of how only GOD can read our hearts, souls and minds...

How many times have we watched a "Dateline NBC" episode (real life murder mystery)?

e.g. One that comes to mind was the story of married couple, who were well liked, highly respected church going Christians and pillars of their community. One day they committed a horrible crime against another couple in their community... that involved theft, murder, greed, envy, and lies to cover their tracks. Many years later, it all caught up with them (after evidence was discovered that put them both in prison for life). However, up until the time of their arrest, they had continued to 'pose' as good Christians and pillars of their community.

Ultimately, at the end of the day... each one of us has to look in the mirror and see what God sees.

Craig said...

Is anyone here experiencing delays in USPS deliveries--not those attributable to delays in originating sellers? I cannot say I've seen any delays--and, historically the USPS has performed outstandingly in my own experience--but all of a sudden this is deemed not just a problem but a "crisis":

What’s wrong with the mail

Craig said...

Biden: Mask-wearing—depending on the type*—will “expiDENtially” decrease the risk of the spread of CV19:

Biden calls for nationwide mask mandate

And the media hammers Trump for every incorrectly worded tweet, saying, etc.; but, Biden gets a free pass.

*Biden doesn’t tell us which masks are the ‘right’ ones.

RayB said...

Anon @ 10:38 AM ...

Excellent post with a LOT of spiritual insight. I was particularly struck by this comment:

"The Spirit of the Living God comes to live and dwell inside the heart, sits at the seat--the core--of the life to empower it so walking by faith and growing in it is how we advance from the old way of thinking and doing to the new--that new life in the Lord Jesus...no longer slaves of sin."

RayB said...

Demonstration on how well masks work by Dr. Ted Noel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpS_jajub0

NOTE: Dr. Ted talks rather slow, at least for me. If you thinks so too, turn up the playback speed to 1.5

Anonymous said...

Detecting destructive cults: The key questions to ask:

If you've encountered an organization that has raised your suspicion, there are some key questions you can ask to determine if the organization may be a cult.

A. What's the background of the leader of the organization? Does the leader have a criminal record?

Cardinals, bishops and popes are all selected from a broad network of latent homosexual pedophiles that have, for a couple thousand years, been selected for their ability to enjoy AND cover up/hide/moderate such behavior. They are the type A personalities that keep the really wretched pedophiles in check; while letting them get away with enough to earn their support and trust. Not unlike the mafia boss, the Pope may never even touch drugs or guns or young boys - but he is still a "criminal", nonetheless

B. What's the power structure of the organization?

Cults often have a pyramid structure, with one leader at the top demanding complete subservience from subordinates. Destructive commercial cults are often characterized by a similar pyramid structure with those at the top profiting from the work of those below. The Forbes list of wealthiest Cults would put Roman Catholics on top.

C. Does the organization use deception to recruit new members?

Many cults use respectable sounding organizations as fronts. For example, what do the Freedom Leadership Foundation, the International Cultural Foundation, and Narcanon have in common? They are all fronts for cults. The Freedom Leadership Foundation and the International Cultural Foundation are owned by the Unification Church, while Narcanon is run by the Church of Scientology. Even the Church of Scientology recently acquisition of the "Cult Awareness Network", which had been a clearinghouse for crucial information about destructive cults.

Roman Catholics use the deception of magical "masses" and false narrative to claim historical, biblical and mystical legitimacy to trick the religion and new agers alike. They use schools with inflated grades, underpaid teachers and recruited sports teams that can excel over their public school counterparts to entice the unchurched to join their cult.

Not to mention --- institutional murder of non-cultists for centuries.

D. Are you trying to recruit me?

It's a soft-sell for now. Someday it'll require the drinking of the blood of their anti-christ and bending a knee to their false idols prepositioned around the world like the Black Madonna in Poland that the Pope visited recently to pray for her to heal the world of covid.

E. Into enemy territory:

If your pastor or denomination is engaging in ecumenical meetings and "friendly" discourse with local priests and clergy, letting alone taking trips to the vatican - it's time to leave that church. They are actually great at partnering and attracting prideful wolves tickled to have the seeming credibility of Rome calling upon them and holding them up as [ill]-legitamate leaders.

The clergy and roman catholic cult are not your friend and their acknowledgement of you or someone you follow for supposed Christian guidance reveals a lack of discernment you need to disassociate from. However...individual, soon to be ex-roman catholics, remain savable and are often wonderful people and make some of the absolute best Christians once they are de-programed, repent and saved by Jesus.

99% of Roman Catholics are completely oblivious to being in a cult. The 1% are the dangerous ones-- so I apologize for the broad brush.

Craig said...

RayB,

Yep. In the video you posted, Dr. Noel references the very CDC study (from May of this year) I referenced on another thread here on this blog spot. Theoretically masks should work, practically they don’t. And I use the same mask he uses (it was given to me by a friend)—not the surgical mask, but the facsimile. And by that I mean I use the same mask, not others like it. And I’m sure I’m not the only one ‘recycling’ masks in this manner.

I need to get the most see-through-ish mask to better facilitate breathing when I HAVE TO wear the thing. But I don’t like wasting money.

If someone really wants protection, they need to get a gas mask—like the one I was given in the military (that I didn’t [get to?] keep).

Anonymous said...

Craig:

Re: "My point is that “Eucharist” means “thanksgiving”. This is what Jesus did before the breaking of bread."
_______________________________________________________

You are correct in saying that Eucharist means "thanksgiving."

"Thanksgiving" is one facet of Eucharist. But Jesus didn't say it was the ONLY facet.

According to the Catholic Dictionary, Eucharist is:
The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or "thanksgiving," because at its institution at the Last Supper Christ "gave thanks" and, by this fact, it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion. As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in his abiding existence on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in his abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces he merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life. (Etym. Latin eucharistia, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from Greek eucharistia, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor.)

In any case, your beliefs are your beliefs. No one is trying to "convert" you. Besides, the only Being who can do any "converting" is the Holy Spirit. We Catholics are merely challenging the disgraceful and ignorant accusation that we practice - or appear to practice - "cannibalism." And Protestants should know better. Most do. Any Protestant who has ever been to a Catholic Mass or taken the trouble to watch one can see that Catholics do not receive the Eucharist/Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of fallen dead human flesh. They receive the risen glorified Body of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. In the Sacrament (outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace) of the Holy Eucharist the Sign is not distinct from what it signifies. The Sign (Christ) and what it signifies (Christ) are one. The Church teaches that the manner in which the miraculous change (transubstantiation) occurs is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ." But we Catholics are not required to fully understand the mystery. We are required to believe it. And the reason why we believe that this miracle occurs is because Jesus said so....in the Bible!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 1:20 PM

To make such an OUTRAGEOUS statement, charging Catholics of belonging to a 'cult' ... you are also accusing Jesus of being a cult LEADER... since we are devout members of HIS original, traditional Catholic Church (faith) that He HIMSELF created in 33 AD.

See you on Judgement Day.

Anonymous said...

"To make such an OUTRAGEOUS statement, charging Catholics of belonging to a 'cult' ... you are also accusing Jesus of being a cult LEADER... since we are devout members of HIS original, traditional Catholic Church (faith) that He HIMSELF created in 33 AD.

See you on Judgement Day."

He Himself made no institution of the kind. The 'rock' He spoke of was Himself.
And there is not one record anywhere of Peter, Shimon Kefas, becoming some leader that was appointed in Rome and having successors in Rome.

You know that if a neo-pagan or sun worshiper went into your average Catholic church, he'd feel right at home. There is a reason for this.

Anonymous said...

3:42 PM

Keep right on wallowing in your current delusional state. There might be medication you take for that.

Sorry you're so sick... I will pray that you get well soon.

Craig said...

Anon 3:17 PM,

With respect, you've merely—and with circularity as a Catholic—quoted what the RCC says. Though the claim is the RCC follows what Jesus commanded, this is not what Jesus actually did or said. As I stated, one cannot read some literalist interpretation of John 6 through the Synoptics without entailing inherent-contradiction.

Moreover, I took pains to point out that "Eucharist" is a noun, though Jesus used it as a participle of the verb eucharisteō in a subordinate clause according to Luke, while using the participle for eulogeō according to Matthew and Mark. The main verb was either “break” or “said” in these verses. So, Jesus gave-thanks or gave-blessing, then “broke” or “said”. And this was done prior to his crucifixion, and telling his disciples this was (and would be) to commemorate his forthcoming one-time sacrifice for our sins.

You cited:

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion. As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in his abiding existence on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in his abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces he merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life. (Etym. Latin eucharistia, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from Greek eucharistia, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor.)

Besides the issue of the noun and understanding the “Real Presence” as in the elements through transubstantiation, I don’t disagree. As I said, I’ve no problem envisioning a quasi-mystical presence.

Frankly, the main problem with Westerners in general is that we fail to see that many times Middle Easterners and Easterners speak in word pictures and metaphors, not literalities. Thus, we can literalize intended metaphors. That is clearly what John 6 is. The word picture is Jesus fulfilling—or providing the higher spiritual meaning of—the Paschal Lamb sacrifice. This is why John is the only Gospel recording the Baptizer as saying, “the Lamb of God who takes up/carries away the sins of the world.” The Gospel writer even shifts Jesus’ death to the Day of Preparation INSTEAD of the first day of Passover as the Synoptics do. This is a further reason to see that John does not intend his account to be read into the Synoptic Last Supper accounts. John has different emphases. As the title of a recent blog post: John arranges things differently. Unlike the Synoptics, which attempt a sort-of chronology in more or less historical accuracy, John reorders events to suit his theological—mainly Christological—purposes. We err when we miss this.

As another example, how many Temple cleansing scenes are there? Do we really think there were two different ones, with John describing a different one than the Synoptics, and the Synoptics failing to describe John’s at all? In the Synoptics, it is the Temple cleansing that provided the last straw for Jesus’ crucifixion. In John it is the raising of Lazarus. This doesn’t mean they contradict. It means they differed a bit on how they got across the truths of Jesus’ Person, God, the Gospel, etc. On the latter, they all agree.

For further info on this, see Ancient Biography & Modern Precision

Anonymous said...

There is nothing Christ-like about ANYONE who would dare to so viciously ATTACK Catholic Christians on this blog.

You are PROVING that your heart and your intentions are absolutely DEMONIC!!!

Repent of your SIN now... before it's too late.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 1:20 PM

Just to be clear: My comments @ 4:14 PM and 4:21 PM were both directed at YOU!!!

Anonymous said...

It has to do with the motivation 11:37 AM.
When I was saved I no longer had a sin debt because Jesus paid it all.
But what I have now since I was young, and after I had received my unearned salvation, is a love debt, because Jesus paid it all..all to Him I owe..sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow.

I am saved by His Good Work...and surrendered in my life (it is daily that I choose to lay my life and my will down, for good works in His name and for His glory, not by my good works.
If I had to earn it I would fall short, way short, because my sin would keep wiping away anything good I even attempt, but my salvation is a free gift..so...I freely love, worship, and give myself, that is my surrendered heart, mind, and spirit, everything, to Him, because I did not earn it, but simply because I have that "want to" now. His Spirit prompts this in me.

There is a huge difference between "have to" and want to" 11:37 AM.
It is a freewill choice I made, no turning back.

Anonymous said...

My 4:31 PM is meant for 11:06 AM :)

Anonymous said...

And you Protestant Evangelicals are QUOTING from what your MANY various revised VERSIONS of the bible TELL YOU!!! LOL

I will take our Church begun by my JESUS... over the ONES started by 'MAN' (e.g. Martin Luther, King Henry VIII) any day!!!

Let's see: My PERFECT JESUS vs. FLAWED Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc. = NO CONTEST!!!

Also, your desperate attempts and absolute OBSESSION with trying to convert Catholics makes YOU sound more like cult members!!! LOL


Craig said...

Anon 4:40 PM,

Since I've been lumped in with other commenters--though I'm only speaking for myself unless otherwise stated--and, thus, I'm not sure if you are including me (I'm not an "Evangelical" and I don't identify as "Protestant"), I'm making this comment. Above, I was sure to quote the Douay-Rheims AND to cite the Vulgate. These agree with each other in the verses I sourced. And they also agree with the Greek text and the English versions that I'd read here are faithful translations, except for making the participles into finite verbs for the sake of readability in English.

Anonymous said...

4:31 PM

Re: "When I was saved I no longer had a sin debt because Jesus paid it all."
___________________________________________________________________________________________

So, you mean to tell me that you are under the DELUSION that you could go out and rob a bank tomorrow... and you would tell the police that "Jesus has forgiven me (no matter what); why can't you guys do the same, and just not arrest me?"

Your arrogant ATTITUDE is like the ENTITLED teenager who steals money out of his father's wallet; takes the keys to his dad's BMW (without permission), picks up his girlfriend; and drives 100 mph and wrecks the car. Somehow, although severely injured, he lives... but his girlfriend is killed instantly. When arrested, he arrogantly and flippantly tells the police that his father is rich... so, he's not worried ~ as there will plenty more cars, money and girlfriends where all of that came from.

However, although he thought his father was going to 'protect' him (no matter what)... he soon discovered that he was in for a very RUDE awakening (something about 'consequences' for his actions)... and he is now serving a very long prison sentence for vehicular manslaughter (and a lesser charge of stealing his father's car and money out of his wallet)

Bottom line: ALL humans are flawed... and subject to life's temptations in the many years between getting 'saved' and dying. So, EXPECTING an 'AUTOMATIC insurance policy' into Heaven (not matter what!!!) is very FOOLISH indeed.

Anonymous said...

Thanks RayB @ 1:06 PM.

The Lord's Spirit never neglects to grow and shape a life in the image of Jesus, when we in submission and humility, remember that He is the Vine, and we are a branch, vitally connected to Him.

It hurts, it costs us, to be cut and pruned...but what He cuts away is the dead stuff (things not worthy of Jesus) that the branch will be strong and bear much fruit.
He even cuts good stuff to make way for more growth, so there are no wayward branches to compete with His goal. His ways are not ours.
We did this very thing with our grapevine last year...looked kind of haggard and definitely stripped.
But it has come back more robust than ever, bigger plumper grapes this season!
The lesson is not lost on our family having some overcoming to do...

Anonymous said...

Craig ~

While I respect your right to be 'called' whatever you want... we Catholics consider anyone who is not Catholic, Jewish or Muslim... under the Protestant 'umbrella' (as bible believing Christians).

After all, it is you, RayB and Paul who have managed to turn this blog into an 'US vs THEM' scenario... and have declared 'war' on us... because, we will not allow you to convert us.

I will tell you this... you seem to be the kindest, most gentle, and most reasonable of the three of you... and I do have a lot of respect for you.

God bless you.

Anonymous said...

5:12 PM
How mistaken you are in this thinking..
Because Jesus has paid it all, I am free not to sin.

Romans 6:1-4 says:
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Did you get that?
Free not to! Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, and he rose from the grave! That resurrection power is in my life!
If I was still under my own power rather than His Spirit's power living within me, I could very well go rob a bank etc. But there is a Restrainer in my life that I obey..He has taken up residency in my heart, I do not want to hurt my Lord because He is Jesus, my King. I want to obey Him because of the love in my heart I have for Him.
A life without the new birth (spiritually born again) could succumb to what you describe because our enemy is the world, the flesh, and the devil..a lot to push back against...but alive in His power and motivated by my love and gratefulness to Him, I have a way of escape to avoid the sin that would otherwise captivate me! 1 Corinthians 10:13 says no temptation has overtaken you, but what is common to man, but GOD is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with temptation make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. My escape is the Lord working in my circumstances, in all things working things out, working things together for good so I can know He is making the way for me to live in HIM. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life right? (upper room discourse John 14)

That is the "dynamis" power of the Holy Spirit that I wrote about before. He is that push back and restraint I need in me to keep from sinning and I must willingly allow Him access to my heart and mind to root out the weak spots. I have to capture my thoughts and let him put His searchlight on them to get the darkness out so the light in me will prevail. I pray a lot. I keep God's Word hidden in my heart, I surround myself with others who are using
godly discernment, and faithful salt and light to help me (and I help them too-we hold each other accountable in love). And God is faithful just like the verse says.
My life is so different since I became a Christian. There is light for the darkness.
And where hope can rest in my heart and mind.
I am not yet what I will be when I see Jesus, but.....I am not who I once was.

Anonymous said...

6:20 PM

Re: "Because Jesus has paid it all, I am free not to sin."

_________________________________________________________________________________________


You are also free TO sin... as you and every other human being alive are... well, 'human' and thus FLAWED!!! (You still have a free will, as long as you are breathing.)

How mistaken you are in YOUR thinking!!!

Anonymous said...

6:20 PM

Re: "I am not who I once was."

________________________________________________________________________


Well, you are still a 'jerk' when it comes to obsessively attacking Catholics.

But, it's nice to know there may have been a time when you were NOT a jerk. LOL

Anonymous said...

You did not read to understand what I spoke of about how I could, and even still do at times. You read what you want with your spin on it so you can behave ungraciously.
Whatever.
You said something that was being misunderstood (about myself and what I have lived) because I can stand up for what I know and believe too.
Hate blinds so the eyes of your heart just might have a problem?
But I hope someday you will know what you thought was hate was not motivated by that at all.
Good day.

Anonymous said...

You Protestant Evangelicals have absolutely no sense of humor. You take yourselves so very seriously.

We Catholics LOVE to laugh... and you often supply plenty of 'ammunition'... so thank you for that anyway.

Good day to you, too.

Anonymous said...

Craig 4:21 PM

With equal respect you have merely - and with circularity - done the same thing you are claiming I have done. Repeating what other Protestants (for want of a better term) have said. Your saying that "one cannot read some literalist interpretation of John 6 through the Synoptics without entailing inherent-contradiction" could only come from one who insists that the Bible interprets itself.

You are right. I did quote what the RCC teaches because I not only happen to BELIEVE what the RCC teaches, but I also believe that the RCC has the authority to teach it. And that same RCC teaches that the Bible does not and cannot interpret itself. It is impossible for each person to accurately interpret what the divine Author intended.

While you may have many of your own opinions about what the RCC teaches on the Eucharist, you clearly do not understand the actual Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, which has been the Catholic teaching for more than 2000 years. As a cradle Catholic I have spent a great deal of time studying it and, while I do not claim to fully comprehend the mystery, I certainly do know exactly what the term "transubstantiation" means. The word "transubstantiation" may not be in the Bible, but it is nevertheless shorthand for the words "This is my Body - This is my Blood" spoken over the bread and wine during the consecration at Mass. It was Martin Luther who decided to reject the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

You are also mistaken about St. Augustine who most certainly DID believe in the Real Presence as did St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you had quoted Ignatius to the Smyrneans 6, everyone would have seen that it read:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 6.

Ignatius of Antioch by the way was a disciple of John the Evangelist who was the inspired author of the Fourth Gospel. So I am sure Ignatius knew what Our Lord meant hearing it as he did from one who had heard it from Our Lord's own lips. You are going to have to do some mighty philological gymnastics in order to persuade anyone to believe that St. Ignatius did not say what he said.

Since as I have already stated, it is not my intention to try to "convert" you or anyone else here, that is all I have to say. You may have the last word.

RayB said...


"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God." John 3:3

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"
Philippians 1:6

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Romans 4:8

"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." Jeremiah 17:7

Craig said...

Anon 5:24 PM,

Thanks for the kind words—though mixed with the others. I’m not really intending an ‘US vs. THEM’ thing at all. No ‘war’. I’m merely questioning some things I see as questionable in some fashion. In fact, at present only two specific things. I certainly understand we won’t likely agree. So, it’s not a matter of changing minds as much as it’s challenging ideas.

How about “non-Catholic Christian” as an identifier?

Craig said...

Anon 10:09 PM,

You wrote: Your saying that "one cannot read some literalist interpretation of John 6 through the Synoptics without entailing inherent-contradiction" could only come from one who insists that the Bible interprets itself.

Not exactly. I’m saying—agreeing in theory with the RCC on this point—that Scripture is not inherently self-contradictory. Having clarified that, as I’ve mentioned earlier, the Synoptics depict pre-Crucifixion words and action by Jesus, which, accordingly, must entail a symbolic interpretation for ‘This is my body…this is my blood’ when Jesus ate with his disciples. This cannot be denied. At the Last Supper the disciples couldn’t have literally eaten his pre-Crucifixion body and drank his blood without being cannibalistic. And Jesus directed them to do this ‘in remembrance’ of him. Again, symbolically. Thus, a literal reading of John 6 cannot be imposed onto the Synoptic accounts without entailing contradiction.

Now, I understand you will adhere to Catholic “Tradition” on this. I’m just pointing out what I see as logical incongruity.

Re Ignatius, you apparently missed my lengthy two-part comment @ 2:17/2:17 PM from much earlier. You can easily find it using a ctrl + f search with keyword “Smyrnaeans”. I quoted from chapters 2, 5, and 6. It’s a polemic against Docetism for sure; but, Ignatius’ point is to proclaim the REAL BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus’ pre-Resurrection Person, not ‘Real Presence’. One must read the RCC doctrine into Ignatius to conclude he was referring to the ‘Real Presence’, even more so for transubstantiation.

Now, ‘Real Presence’ can be inferred, but one would only do so if one were preconditioned to seeing it that way. It can more easily be understood as not at all implying Real Presence. As with any text, one must be cautious about over-interpreting another’s words. Without correlating evidence to suggest a particular idea (as with here), it’s best to err on the side of not inferring.

To go further than I did in my previous post, Docetists believed in such a high Christology that they refused to accept that ‘Christ’ could unite with a human body, since, as Gnostics, they viewed all matter to be inherently evil. In other words, they had a separationist Christology, dividing ‘Jesus’ from ‘Christ’. Thus, ‘Jesus’ didn’t really die on the Cross (see ch. 2)—it was someone else who died on that Cross. To them, ‘Jesus’ was phantom-like, not a real body; this ‘body’ was like mere illusion, with ‘Christ’ somehow inside, disguised. Or something like that.

And thus, they could not even accept that Jesus would utter the words “This is my body, this is my blood” as recorded at the Last Supper. Therefore, they refused to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Why would they celebrate something that, in their view, never happened and was never commanded?

All the various gnostic sects played pick-and-choose re which Scripture they would even accept in their ‘canon’.

As re Augustine, earlier I pointed to two separate texts that affirm a symbolic understanding. Since there are other texts that seem to affirm a Real Presence, I conclude that his words are apparently contradictory, and thus I’m not sure what his position is.

Anonymous said...

12:39 PM

Re: "How about “non-Catholic Christian” as an identifier?"

____________________________________________________________


Or, 'NCC' for short?

Or, better yet... how about just 'Craig'? ;)


Craig said...

Millie Weaver arrested on the very day she was set to release her documentary re: Russiagate. Tony Heller posted a snippet, then appending her video of her own arrest:

Millie Weaver Arrested

But here it is in full, as released by another channel: ShadowGate (Full) - Millie Weaver Was Arrested The Day She Was Scheduled To Release This Video!

I'm listening to it right now.

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 9:29 AM

Re: Millie Weaver

Yes, I also listened to this must see video last night.

She is an American hero and a patriot.

(I am praying that God protects her and her family from any further harm.)

Craig said...

Anon 9:43 AM,

Millie Weaver is sharp!

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media started a GoFundMe for her. It's under the description of the video I linked to. I was delighted to see that the $20,000 goal has already been exceeded!

Anonymous said...

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:7 KJV

When the roman catholics demonstrate herein (or as the Pope does meeting with charlatans, false teacher and praying to idols) foolishness, a lack of wisdom and adverse (snowflake) reactions to instruction, it is apparent they lack knowledge. Thence -- they do not fear the LORD. So what and who is it they fear?

We know they KNOW the Lord.

James 2:19, KJV: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19 KJV

But roman catholics do not fear the Lord. The Lord is merely a sacrificial lamb they "consume" weekly, not a living God. They bend their knee to his mother and made up saints, a heretical pope and a dead crucified Jesus on a cross -- but, never the living God. Fear purgatory, fear dying outside a state of "church" provided grace, fear reading your bible and thinking for yourself, fear your priest and the judgment of your fellow parishioners, but do not fear the Lord (cause the roman catholic traditions have got your back -- we'll "cover" your sins [instead of Jesus].

Fear the Lord and knowledge will befall you. Read your bible and I pray that Jesus will grant you repentance and salvation. I find the angrier roman catholics get the more disillusioned they actually are and, just maybe, even in the hope of defending "her" they open a bible and find salvation therein.

Anonymous said...

11:04 AM
Yes, lots of anger.

Settling for anything less than Jesus as your one and only Savior (minus all the props) and call Him Lord but don't live like it because your pope/priest/pastor/church has Jesus replaced for you) will do that to a person.
Doing your religious gig in His name only type stuff.
Lots of people not fearing the Lord out there....

And I see despair, too.
Will get worse as the times get worse, unless people find their knees in repentance and surrender and call upon the name of the Lord in truth.

Craig said...

Arresting Millie over the weekend, means she'll prolly have to remain there until Monday. Yeah, I'm sure that's a coincidence...

Here's Millie's GoFundMe page:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/emergency-legal-defense-fund-for-millie-weaver

Ezra posted a few updates.

Anonymous said...

11:25 AM

Re: "lots of anger" / "and I see despair, too" / "settling for anything less than Jesus"???

___________________________________________________________________________________________


Suggestion: Please make a doctor's appointment for yourself. He might suggest treatment, or a prescription medication that you can take, for your DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR... not to mention your very UNHEALTHY OBSESSION with Catholics.

Your unprovoked RANTS are beginning to make it sound like maybe YOU are the one who is a member of a CULT... and have disobeyed your 'masters' who may be disappointed in you that you are not doing everything you possibly can to convince Catholics to 'convert' over to your way of thinking.

It's all so very, very sad indeed.

However, I will continue to pray that you heal and get better. I really hate to see anyone suffer as much as you clearly appear to be suffering.

Hey, it's the weekend... go out and get some fresh air and sunshine... make yourself feel better!!!

Anonymous said...

More on Millie Weaver arrested at her home on Friday August 14th...

There is a lot of speculation surrounding her arrest due to the timing. Millie Weaver was getting ready to publish a documentary called ‘Shadow Gate’. The film showcases two whistleblowers who allege there is a secretive network of government contractors which consists of government and military insiders (both current and former) who have ‘back door’ access to intelligence agencies and all of the information that they collect on everyone including politicians and how this information is used to blackmail powerful people to control them.

The film also alleges that military psychological warfare programs are being used against the people primarily through the mainstream corporate media and social media to control the population. One of the whistleblowers in the film Tore, who was recently suspended by twitter, believes Millie Weaver was arrested because of this film. Tore has posted the documentary in full to her YouTube channel. Spiro contacted the Portage county sheriffs office and they confirmed Millie Weaver is in their custody. The sheriffs office also confirmed that she was served a secret indictment. The charges Ms Weaver faces are tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and domestic violence. The sheriffs office also confirmed she is being held without bond and will remain in custody over the weekend until she appears before a judge on Monday morning.

Anonymous said...

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/08/15/gingrich-kamala-harris-is-an-openly-anti-catholic-bigot/

Craig said...

Anon 5:04 PM,

Do you have source(s) for that?

Anonymous said...

Dear Hair Trigger @ 3:57 PM

That post took a broad swath approach meaning throughout the entire Church, meaning multi-denominational. Nothing was said or implied about a cult of any kind.
Go back, take a deep breath, and read again.


Seriously, does absolutely every thing have to be about you?
Pay better attention will ya?


You are the one needing some fresh air so you can cool your jets..

Craig said...

Here's the same documentary on the channel of Tore, one of its contributors. Right now it has well over 3/4 million views:

What They Don't Want You To See

Craig said...

Some black lives matter:

Community members react to abrupt resignation of Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best

In another video you could just her feelings of defeat--at the hands of City Council. Dang shame.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 5:15 PM...

Scroll back up to a recent comment from 'Anonymous at 1:20 PM'... and you will see that my reaction to you was hardly a 'hair-trigger' one... when you consider that particular comment from one of your other Protestant Evangelical 'side kicks' made the OUTRAGEOUS INSINUATION that we Catholics belong to a CULT.

Therefore my 'right back atcha' response to you is that perhaps it's you PE's who belong to a 'cult'... because you PE's (on this blog) are so OBSESSIVE in your refusal to take 'no' for an answer... as to why we won't 'convert' to your way of thinking... after you constantly DEMAND scriptural support for our beliefs (which we have freely given). Instead, you choose to ignore, dismiss and mock the actual words spoken by Jesus in Matthew 16:18!!! Then, you launch into another ATTACK on our Catholic DOCTRINE, which was in fact created by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD. And you still wonder why we don't 'buy into' your MAN-MADE supported beliefs (brought to you by DISGRUNTLED former Catholics like Martin Luther and King Henry VIII, etc.)... as you continue to quote words from one of your on many, many VERSIONS of the bible.

Of course, IF it's true that you PE's really are members of a 'cult'... this would definitely explain WHY you are UNABLE to freely debate in a RATIONAL manner... and engage with us, using your God-given gifts of logic and common sense in the process.

So now, it's my turn to say your words right back atcha: "Come out"... and please restore you ability to think for yourselves... and return to using your God-given gift of a FREE WILL... along with the ability to THINK for yourselves.

In summary, thank you for giving me the biggest LAUGH I've had all day... when you called my reaction 'hair-trigger'... after we Catholics have ENDURED 15 years of continual ABUSE and disrespect from you Protestant Evangelicals!!! LOL

Good night...

RayB said...

There is something VERY fishy about the "arrest" of Millie Weaver ....

She was "arrested" due to a "Secret Grand Jury Indictment" (EXTREMELY RARE) and is being held WITHOUT BOND (also EXTREMELY RARE). Supposedly, her and her boyfriend were arrested for FELONY Domestic Violence, Tampering with Evidence, and Burglary charges.

All of this, is of course just a "coincidence," after Weaver's recent release of her documentary * "ShadowGate," a MUST SEE, that exposes the Deep State conspiratorial corruption of the CIA, FBI, NSA which used outside contractors to gather IT information on American citizens in order to make algorithms, which were then used, via social media, to influence selective groups such as ANTIFA, BLM, Communists, fellow anarchists, and like minded individuals and groups, etc. to carry out organized riots, create chaos and havoc.

This whole thing reminds me of what the elitists did to Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Originally , they arrested him on the charge of "rape," which was proven to be completely bogus. That did not stop his persecution, that continues until this very day. Assange remains in a British prison, in solitary confinement, where his health is deteriorating on a daily basis ... all because he revealed, as any good journalist would do, information from well placed WHISTLEBLOWERS, that were revealing the dirty secrets of how Governments operate ! Sounds to me that Millie Weaver is going to suffer the same fate.

Evil loves darkness and lies. It ALWAYS hates the Light and Truth.

* Craig posted the link, make sure you watch it before it is taken down:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HFxVvrXjCg

Anonymous said...

Dear Craig:

Here is much more on hero and patriot: Millie Weaver . . .

https://www.bitchute.com/hashtag/millieweaver/

Anonymous said...

Craig:

Here is the source for my 5:04 PM post on Millie Weaver...

https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/infowars-reporter-millie-weaver-arrested-on-secret-indictment/272595

Anonymous said...

Millie Weaver = fake arrest = publicity stunt for her crazy fake news documentary.

Anonymous said...

The "documentary" Millie is putting out there is, itself, what it claims to be exposing.

Y'all being played.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Craig, you say you refuted Ignatius supporting the real presence? you don't even understand the words Greek or English!

you scramble to explain it ascribing motive and action belied by the words, the docetists "abstain, because the not to-confess the thanksgiving flesh to-be of-the Savior of-us Jesus Christ…
They abstain from thanksgiving [eucharistia] and prayer, because they fail to confess the thanksgiving [eucharistia] to be flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…"

"Ignatius’ point is to proclaim the REAL BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus’ pre-Resurrection Person, not ‘Real Presence’." and you talk about being preconditioned to see it as real presence so one reads it like that you are pre onditioned to NOT see it that way!

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, RAISED FROM THE DEAD.” not pre resurrection is that? but curent.

tere is no way to see this as other than real presence you are disonest, you lie rather thn admit error. Just because RC is right on this doesn't mean it is right about everythiung.

MARTIN LUTHER DID NOT REJECT REAL PRESENCE, THAT WAS CALVIN AND ZWINGLI'S CONTRIBUTION.

to argue this isn't about the real presence in tying your forked tongue in a knot. If his "polemics" were mere baseless blather, then he too would be guilty of what he denounced them for, denying that the bread and wine is Jesus' flesh and blood.

That sarx vs. soma thing is irrelevant. just another way of saying the same thing.

"commemoration" or "in rememberance" that's in rememberance of CHRIST, not of some other claimnt to godhood, to invoke Jesus Christ not someone else into the bread and wine. It is the ACTION not the bread and wine that are referred to as "rememberance."

symbol in Greek means embodiment of something. the Creed is called "the symbol of the faith" and of course you or someone ducked the issue of miraculous multiplying of fish and bread and teleportation through a locked door, as precedent for multiplying and placing His flesh and blood on altars.

RayB your intransigence is probably because of your pride. Something is seriously wrong with a man (you) who sees someone's retraction of earlier error and writing a book that refutes a book he previously wrote, as an example of instability instead of INTEGRITY!

Jesus is not resacrified on the altar the ONE TIME sacrifice is presented to us, as for His post resurrection flesh, multiplication of it and teleportation of it solve the problem. you people are MTERIALISTS. Some RC even one EO I heard even an occasional priest has this wrong idea, but it isn't what happens. He doesn't die and rise again each year either. We plug into the even in history.

John 6:63 is not a refutation of literalness on the contrary, The words He speaks to them are spirit and life, and incl. the eating the His flesh and Blood. Those who were offended He did not attempt to explain anything to. And you to some extent eat Him when you incorporate His words into your life and being, but there is also "eating the God" a concept not unknown elsewhere, but regarding the wrong god. The eucharist is done in rememberance of Jesus thus invoking Him not in rememberance of anyone else.

Anonymous said...

To Christine and others on this blog:

We Catholics believe that the Holy Eucharist was instituted by Jesus in 33 AD... at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, the night before He was crucified and died for the sins of all mankind... when Jesus spoke these words to His apostles (who were all present with Him as witnesses): "Do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)

What’s the biblical support? Notice in the Last Supper narratives Jesus speaks of His own body being given up (see Luke 22:19) and His own blood being poured out (see Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20). What’s interesting is that he doesn’t speak of his body and blood as that which will be given up and poured out. In all of the institution narratives Jesus speaks of giving his body and blood in the PRESENT TENSE... “THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN TO YOU” (Luke 22:19); “THE CUP WHICH IS POURED OUT FOR YOU” (Luke 22:20; Mark 14:24; Matt. 26:28). This suggests that the bloody sacrifice Jesus was to offer on the cross the next day was mysteriously made present in an unbloody manner.

Eucharist (Gr. eucharistia, thanksgiving), the name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar under its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of the Mass, and in which, whether as sacrament or sacrifice, Jesus Christ is TRULY PRESENT under the appearances of bread and wine. Other titles are used, such as the “Lord’s Supper” (Coena Domini), “Table of the Lord” (Mensa Domini), the “Lord’s Body” (Corpus Domini), and the “Holy of Holies.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Whether you, Christine (or ANY of the Protestant Evangelicals on this blog) CHOOSE to believe and accept this doctrine of the Catholic Church or not... certainly does not NEGATE our beliefs in the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.

Of course you are free to CHOOSE to believe as you wish (since we all have a God-given free will)... but, please STOP making outrageous declarations and FALSE statements AGAINST what we know to be the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself... or, be prepared to answer to Jesus Himself for these FALSE statements on Judgement Day.

Thank you...

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 1:04 AM and 1:15 AM

It is UNTRUE that we are 'being played.' Research your facts before posting disinformation.

Millie Weaver HAS in fact been arrested. Here is more...

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f385e5bdf77c4044ee2fcd4

RayB said...

Our Anonymous Catholic Friend said (in part) @ 7:12 AM:

"... please STOP making outrageous declarations and FALSE statements AGAINST what we know to be the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself... or, be prepared to answer to Jesus Himself for these FALSE statements on Judgement Day."

Dear Anonymous:

I'm still waiting for your proof that Jesus HIMSELF, in HIS WORDS, as recorded in "Scripture," declared your Catholic "beliefs," as you claimed in the following:

Anonymous stated (in part) @ 3:34 PM:

"According to your very last paragraph, RayB... you are actually calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver'... because our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture."

Again, as in my THIRD REQUEST, please provide us with your answer. The following represents a verbatim request from a previous post. I'm open to being taught by you ...

Just provide the "WORDS of Christ HIMSELF" from SCRIPTURE in which He declares the "perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, His "WORDS" that instructs us to PRAY TO MARY, where He refers to Mary as "the Queen of Heaven," where, in His "WORDS," He tells us that Venial sins will be cleansed in the fires of Purgatory, where, in His "WORDS" He teaches us that He will be "put to death AGAIN, over and over and over again, in the Sacrifice of the Mass." That's a very short list. Surely it won't take up much space to provide the SCRIPTURAL proof of "Christ's WORDS" that illustrate "clearly" your position.

Of course this is a very abbreviated list of "Catholic beliefs," making it incredibly easy to copy and paste, those "WORDS" of Christ from Scripture in which these "Catholic beliefs" are "clearly and distinctly stated."


RayB said...


If anyone can offer an interpretation of this gem from Christine, aka Justina, aka Sandra, aka Anonymous, please help me out.
I have absolutely no idea what in the world she is talking about ....

"RayB your intransigence is probably because of your pride. Something is seriously wrong with a man (you) who sees someone's retraction of earlier error and writing a book that refutes a book he previously wrote, as an example of instability instead of INTEGRITY!"

Craig said...

Christine,

This right here is the sort of thing that has caused you to be limited to one post per week; you wrote: … you are disonest, you lie rather thn admit error.

When I think you’ve misinterpreted something do I accuse you of lying? No. I may think you are being obtuse. I may think you are merely parroting the views of your faith-belief. But I don’t impute a negative motive.

Like all things, this is a question of context. Speaking of context, you wrote:

That sarx vs. soma thing is irrelevant. just another way of saying the same thing.

Au contraire. One must look at each individual Gospel writer’s usage of individual words. Since I’d already written about this very issue, I have it handy: In John’s Gospel sōma only refers to Jesus’ dead body (2:21; 19:31; 19:38; 19:40; 20:12). These are the only five instances of this term in John. Though, the Synoptics sometimes use sōma for a living body, John doesn’t. Thus, this distinction does have relevance to the discussion/analysis.

You continued: "commemoration" or "in rememberance" that's in rememberance of CHRIST, not of some other claimnt to godhood, to invoke Jesus Christ not someone else into the bread and wine. It is the ACTION not the bread and wine that are referred to as "rememberance."

Now, here is an example in which you over-interpret a passage in order to parrot the views of your faith-belief. Of course the ‘commemoration’ refers to Jesus—but the context does not juxtapose Jesus with any other claimant. And, yes, the term refers to an action—the action of “eating” Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood symbolically via bread and wine.

You wrote: symbol in Greek means embodiment of something. the Creed is called "the symbol of the faith"…

With this you conflate things and actually help make my point. To which specific Greek word do you refer? In Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom he consistently translates the Latin Symbolum as “Creed of …”, except Chalcedon, which he calls “Symbol of Chalcedon”. The literature I’d read prefers “Definition of Chalcedon”, while calling the others (e.g. Nicaea) “Creed”. Why the distinction?

In Nicaea/Constantinople (and the others), the Creed begins with “we believe” (pisteuō) and ends with “we confess” (omologeō). Comparatively, Chalcedon begins with “we confess” (omologeō), and at the end it self-references as a symbol (symbolos). In any case, none are literal embodiments; they’re not something physical—they’re words to confess. Similarly, Ignatius states that the Smyrnaeans fail to confess (omologeō) “the thanksgiving [eucharistia] to be flesh (sarx) of our Savior Jesus Christ”. Thus, the Smyrnaeans refuse to confess the eucharistia because they refuse to believe Jesus is a literal body in the first place.

What does the Apostle John state (1 John 4:3)?: And every spirit that does not confess (omologeō) that Jesus Christ has/is come in the flesh (sarx) is not of God; this spirit is of the antichrist.

Anonymous said...

https://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2020/08/the-fake-arrest-of-millenial-millie-weaver-exposed-2649057.html

I also believe it's faked.

I also believe if it's real, it's justified. She is a liar and an agent of satan. Her legitimate arrest would not surprise me.

Craig said...

Rayb @ 9:55 AM,

I think she is referring to your comments relating to Ralph Woodrow's reversal in initially believing Hislop's work then subsequently writing a new book questioning Hislop:

https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Connection-Ralph-Woodrow/dp/0916938174

That's my guess.

Craig said...

Anon 10:37 AM (and etc.).

Perhaps you could say something like, “Given the mystery surrounding the entire situation, I have my suspicions about the whole thing”. Or something like that.

In any case, you have to account for Rebel Media, Inc.’s Ezra Levant’s role in this, since he’s running her gofundme. Is Levant complicit? Is he duped? Is Tore running cover? Wouldn’t such a conspiracy eventually be uncovered and everyone deemed either a fraud or naïve? Wouldn’t this cast a very negative light on the documentary—which obviously took much time and effort—to the extent the entire thing would be seen by many as completely fabricated?

paul said...

Ray B @ 9:51,
Like you, I'm anxiously awaiting the very words in the Holy Scriptures which support those RC docrines. I've been searching for explanations for those very many traditions of that cult.., er, denomination? for a long time and I still haven't found any support for those doctrines you mention or any of the other dozens more which are intrenched in that religion, which seem to fly in the face of Gods written Word.
I'm sure the answers to your simple question are on the way. After all, the doctrines that you pointed out are all the direct work of the Roman Papacy itself, in its infallible wisdom.

RayB said...

Craig,

I guess that makes sense, except for one thing; I haven't commented on Ralph Woodrow's flip flop on Hislop for probably 2+ years. Why she would suddenly bring that up after all this time is a complete "Babylonian Mystery."

Anonymous said...

Christine @ 6:09 AM

Re: "RayB your intransigence is probably because of your pride. Something is seriously wrong with a man (you) who sees someone's retraction of earlier error and writing a book that refutes a book he previously wrote, as an example of instability instead of INTEGRITY!"

________________________________________________________________________________________


THANK YOU, Christine for calling out RayB. You see him the way we Catholics see him... full of false pride.

Pride is akin to atheism... since that person is glorifying HIMSELF, rather than God.

Pride is the sin that caused Lucifer to fall.

This, in itself, should be a wake up call... to adopt a more HUMBLE attitude toward his fellow Christians... and stop viewing himself above others, having a superior attitude.

Jesus, the model of perfect humility, said these words: "Whoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:12

RayB said...

Paul,

Just a few thoughts ...

You and I both know that RC has virtually no basis in the Scriptures. Precisely why the RCC deemphasize the AUTHORITY of the Scriptures, thereby making God's Word subservient to their "traditions," as they are declared and defined by the Magisterium, which is Rome's mirror image of the Pharisaical Sanhedrin. The same Sanhedrin that opposed Christ during His time on earth.

I find it very interesting that the supposed RCC's 1st. "pope" never even hints at any of the peculiar RC doctrines and dogmas in his two and only epistles. Not only that, he never even mentions the name of Mary, let alone does he instruct us to venerate Mary, pray to Mary, refer to the "Sacred Heart" of Mary, build statues of Mary, nor does he tell us to honor her as the "Queen of Heaven," etc., etc.

Just this one point to illustrate the OPPOSITE of what RC declares vs what Peter states. Rome declares that being "born again" occurs as a result of their Sacrament of Baptism. The vast majority (probably 99%+) of RC Baptisms are of infants. But what does God the Holy Spirit say on the matter of being "born again" through the writer Peter? Does the "first pope" declare regeneration through the Baptismal font? Of course not !

"BEING BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:23-25
(Block letter used for emphasis)

God the Holy Spirit uses the Word which He WROTE as a means to bring us from the bondage of sinful darkness into the light of His Word. Coupled with His grace and mercy, when His Word is planted within us, it grows and yields fruit (see Mark 4:1-20). Without God's Word, we have no real foundation, and will not come to true faith. It is through the Word, and not through the mechanics of Baptism that we are "born again."

Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 ... "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD." Believing God (trusting in His Word) and not just believing IN God is what brings us to true faith.

Like all false religions, the Catholic hierarchy deemphasizes the authority of the Word of God in order to keep their followers enslaved in their "religious works system" of spiritual darkness.

At the end of their life, what does a Catholic have to look forward to? An indeterminate time spent in the Christ denying, Catholic fictional FIRES of Purgatory in order to have their Venial sins cleansed.

What a gift it is to know that Christ paid it all, and by doing so, broke the power of habitual, soul destroying sin in the process.

Anonymous said...

Hey RayB @ 9:51 AM

I can't help but think that, even if Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself were to post a response to you on this blog, you would STILL come back and ARGUE with HIM!!! LOL

But, please... enjoy the rest of your Sunday arguing with yourself. (It is very entertaining, and we all need that in these very 'dark times' we are currently living in.)

As you KNOW full well, I have provided plenty of ANSWERS (scriptural support for our Catholic beliefs)... on those many links that I have previously sent you... because each one was much too LENGTHY to post here on this blog.

IT IS YOU, RAYB WHO CHOOSE NOT TO READ THEM!!!

Anonymous said...

And here comes the blog team of RayB & Paul... watch as they double down and continue with more HATE, HATE, HATE... and LIES, LIES, LIES... along with their false PRIDE, PRIDE, PRIDE!!!

(Meanwhile, I am praying for you both . . .)

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many copy and paste words and phrases RayB has in 'draft form'... just ready to hit the 'send' button at a moment's notice???

Very interesting...

Anonymous said...

Ray @ 1:29 PM

Re: "What a gift it is to know that Christ paid it all, and by doing so, broke the power of habitual, soul destroying sin in the process."

___________________________________________________________________________________________


But, what about your CURRENT sin of false pride, RayB? Don't you believe that you need to confess that one?

Or, are you under the delusion that... 'Nah, I'm good... Jesus has already covered that one back in 33 AD."



Anonymous said...

To Paul & RayB


Speaking of 'cults'... the two of you need to take a long look in the mirror... as you both BEHAVE like cult members... in your OBSESSION with going after Catholics to try to get them to 'convert' over to your way of thinking. (And Paul, you've been doing this for 15 years now!!!)

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck... by God, IT IS A DUCK!!!

LOL


Anonymous said...

Craig:

Many of us Millie Weaver supporters can't help but wonder...

Since she is a reporter (contracted with Infowars), is it possible that her arrest may have more to do with using her in an attempt to 'take down' Alex Jones?

I hope not, but we all need to keep up with this story.

Anonymous said...

Wokeness -- Old Religion In A New Bottle

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/14/wokeness-old-religion-in-new-bottle/



Craig said...

RayB and paul,

To be fair, many of the questions posed are extra-biblical, rather than anti-biblical. Like you, I question their validity, but then I don’t adhere to the Catholic Tradition. And Catholic Tradition is where these beliefs come from.

My concern is with those that, arguably, contradict Scripture—or contradict the RCC’s own Tradition + Scripture (the two cannot contradict).

Anon 7:12 AM,

I read your post sympathetically, until I reached this:

…certainly does not NEGATE our beliefs in the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.

Let me append an all-important prepositional phrase: as we interpret them. Had you included that, I would have been fine with the entire thing. Having stated the foregoing, I must question the exegesis/interpretation as you’ve laid out in the earlier part of your comment.

Yes, there are present tense verbs, but one must also look at them in the overall context. Since I’m working on something else, I can provide a ready comparison:

John 20:1 Mary Magdalene…sees the stone having been taken away from the tomb

Here “sees” is a present tense-form (finite), while the other bold text represents a perfect tense-form (participle). Mary sees in the then-present; she doesn’t continue to ‘see’ in perpetuity. She witnessed the stone “having been taken away”. We render the latter with the English present perfect tense since it is in a subordinate clause—subordinate to the finite present tense “sees”. The stone will remain having been taken away from the tomb’s entrance unless and until it is moved somewhere else. Since there’s no further explanation in reference to the stone, it is possible to assume in perpetuity—unless a further event indicates otherwise.

In the past, when I have misplaced my keys, the keys remain missing only until I found them. But I still cannot find a 45rpm single I’d been looking for. Apparently I have misplaced it. At present it remains that way, and should I not find it, it will remain so in perpetuity.

[cont]

Craig said...

[cont]

Taking just Luke 22:19—20 and translating all verbs as literally as possible and identifying them with parentheses:

Having taken (aorist ptc) the bread, giving-thanks (present ptc), He-gave (aorist finite) to-them, saying (present ptc), “This is (present finite) my body I am-giving (present ptc) to you; do (present finite imperative/command) this for my commemoration.

And, likewise, the cup, after the-to-have-dined (aorist infinitive), saying (present ptc), “This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood {the} pouring-out (present ptc) for you

>Having taken the bread, giving-thanks, He gave [it] to them while saying, “This (bread) is my body I am-giving to you; do this [i.e., eat the bread to represent my body] for my commemoration.” And, after they dined, likewise [He-gave] the cup, saying, “This cup [is] the new covenant [to represent] in my blood {the} pouring out for you.”<

The control verb is “He-gave”, which is an aorist finite verb. This is the narrator telling us what happened at the Last Supper. “He-gave to them” is omitted in 22:20, as with “is”. This is not unusual in Scripture (or in our everyday speech). Jesus’ command “do” is in the present tense, because, like the case with Mary Magdalene in John 20:1, the narrator is bringing us back ‘live on the scene’ to the then-present. Jesus told them to “do this” to commemorate his atoning sacrifice.

To be sure, the Crucifixion was then-future, and Jesus was clearly saying this knowing his time was nigh. But in the contexts here the eating of the bread (representing his body) occurred at the Last Supper. It was then-present. The command to continue do this in perpetuity is not found in the present tense verb, but is found in Jesus’ instructions to commemorate, which thus implies it. They ate the bread and drank the wine at the Last Supper understanding that these symbolically represented his body and blood. They understood—and we understand—his command to mean we should habitually commemorate his sacrifice.

With Luke’s phraseology, the reader is taken to the scene, seeing them eating the bread and drinking the wine. But those present tense verbs in and of themselves do not connote perpetuity. It’s the word “commemorate” that does. Thus, we commemorate the Last Supper symbolically, just as the disciples did. At the Last Supper, they ate the bread and wine in symbolic representation of Jesus’ body and blood in anticipation of the then-future event. Thereafter, they continued to commemorate it. And we continue to do so.

Anonymous said...

Millie Weaver released - battered, bruised with her mouth wired shut.

Portage County sheriff's office says she slipped and fell on some standing water.

Sure she did.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ybW48rKBME

Anonymous said...

To Craig @ 3:05 PM

Re: "Thus, we commemorate the Last Supper symbolically, just as the disciples did. At the Last Supper, they ate the bread and wine in symbolic representation of Jesus’ body and blood in anticipation of the then-future event. Thereafter, they continued to commemorate it. And we continue to do so."

___________________________________________________________________________________________


No, Craig ~ it is NOT 'symbolic'... it is very REAL.

Here is scriptural support for the Catholic Church's doctrine and teaching of the REAL presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist:

The very words of Jesus Himself speaks of giving His body and blood in the PRESENT TENSE: “THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN TO YOU” (Luke 22:19); “THE CUP WHICH IS POURED OUT FOR YOU” (Luke 22:20; Mark 14:24; Matt. 26:28).

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Unfortunately, this ongoing 'debate' will never be settled here on this blog. It will only be settled when Jesus explains everything on Judgement Day.

Craig said...

Anon 3:42 PM,

Did you read my explanation--what I wrote prior to the concluding paragraph?

You are certainly free to believe what you want. But I'm not going to accept your exegesis and reasoning when it isn't supported by grammar and syntax or the flow of the context.

Is Jesus' blood always being poured out, into perpetuity?

Craig said...

Anon 10:37 AM,

The beforeitsnews link claims Weaver live in Bexar County, which is in Texas. Fake news.

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 4:45 PM:

We Catholics freely ACCEPT the teachings of Jesus that, each and every time we receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at Mass... we are receiving the SACRED body and blood of the RISEN Christ (that's 'risen'... and not his 'human' body and blood).

I am not trying to convert YOU... but you, RayB and Paul insist on trying to convert me... and that is just NEVER going to happen!!!

Otherwise, I wouldn't even waste my time replying to any of your posts. However, when someone speaks 'in ERROR'... I feel a responsibility to reply in defense of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His teachings in 33 AD.

Have a nice day...


Anonymous said...

I know where Bexar County is... because San Antonio, TX is located in Bexar County... and I happen to live in Texas.

I have read many links associated with Millie Weaver within the past couple of days, and all I know is that she was arrested in Portage County, OHIO.

The reporting may be sloppy... but, I don't believe that the story itself is 'fake news.'

Craig said...

Michael Voris at Church Militant has a good expose on Kamala Harris:

The Vortex — Kamala Family, Slave Owners

Years ago, Boy George wrote a song about her: Kama, Kama, Kama, Kama, Kama-Chameleon.

----

Anon 5:20 PM,

I'm not trying to 'convert you'. I said earlier, "You are certainly free to believe what you want." But when you tell me that your interpretation is THE interpretation, then I will show how it isn't necessarily.

Anonymous said...

The latest on Millie Weaver...

These charges against her may be "overblown FAKE CHARGES"!!!

https://www.infowars.com/sunday-live-banned-video-links-now-under-censorship-assault-by-big-tech-ahead-of-election/

Anonymous said...

Craig @ 5:29:

If you, RayB and Paul would just say...

WE believe that this is all just 'symbolic'(period)... then, we can certainly respect that.

However, when you go a step further... and attempt to tell us Catholics that what WE believe isn't true... well, that's where you all have clearly CROSSED THE LINE.

There can't be mutual respect on this blog... when some of you arrogantly insist on telling us that OUR beliefs are wrong!!!


Anonymous said...

10:54 PM

I am an entirely separate poster from to one who posted at 1:20.
Don't care what that poster posted and they can answer for themselves.
I took the words about anger and posted my own thoughts about what I
see other there in Christendom, Catholic and Non-Catholic.
Your reaction to my comment doesn't fit because no one was singled out.
You need to respond to posts based on their own views, not knee jerk to lump everyone together.
That hair trigger of yours and that persistent knee jerk has to to be a bear to contend with..
In need of some rest aren't you?

RayB said...

Anonymous said (in part) @ 6:35 PM:

"However, when you go a step further... and attempt to tell us Catholics that what WE believe isn't true... well, that's where you all have clearly CROSSED THE LINE."

"There can't be mutual respect on this blog... when some of you arrogantly insist on telling us that OUR beliefs are wrong!!!"

You also stated the following:

Anonymous stated (in part) @ 3:34 PM:

"According to your very last paragraph, RayB... you are actually calling Jesus Himself a 'deceiver'... because our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture."

Anonymous:

When you make false accusations, and then base them upon equally false assertions, don't be surprised when you are challenged.

You are the one that is making false statements about what Jesus actually taught ... "our Catholic beliefs are based on HIS WORDS, as He clearly and distinctly stated them in Scripture." I gave you a brief list of doctrines and dogmas that are peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church, and asked you to provide proof in order to validate your statement. You have steadfastly refused to do so, which is not surprising in the slightest because such "proof" does not exist.

Your method of debate really is quite childish. You make outrageous assertions, and then claim that you are being "persecuted" because your "beliefs" are being challenged by utilizing the Scriptures. You really come across as a petulant little child that cries and rants because we are not willing to play YOUR game by YOUR rules. Instead of proving what we say is false, you often resort to passing spurious judgment, making false accusations, while claiming that we are full of "hate" and tell "lies."

Also, I have said this before and will repeat it again. I am NOT out to "convert" you or anyone else on this blog. My intent is solely to stand for the truth and to "defend the faith that was once delivered unto the saints." God, and God alone, is in the business of converting. "Salvation is of the Lord."

Craig said...

Anon 6:35 PM,

Here's what you fail to comprehend here. You continue to tell me (and others) what the 'correct' interpretation is, which then obviates a symbolic understanding. That is, both cannot be true, yet you assert yours is true, which necessarily implies mine isn't. If you make the claim, then you must be able to defend it. I challenged it. You may, of course, challenge mine.

Looking back, it was Christine who brought it up initially. I challenged her. This led to an Anon Catholic challenging me. And here we are.

Frankly, continuing to reassert that the RCC is the true “Church” is much the same thing, but worse, for it obviates EVERY other non-Catholic belief. Here’s one example:

Then, in the year 33 AD, just before Jesus was crucified and died for the sins of ALL mankind... He created His OWN Catholic Church (for everyone). "And I say to you, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus instituted a catholic (small “c”) ekklēsia (“church” is a bad, anachronistic translation), i.e., congregation. In the NT ekklēsia DOES NOT EVER mean a church building, let alone some hierarchical institution. The best, most ecumenical translation in all cases but three would be congregation. The three exceptions are Acts 19:32, 39, 40. See Douay-Rheims here.

I think “assembly” is fine for the Acts verses, which is why I think “congregation” is the better one elsewhere—it would alleviate possible confusion. As regards the D-R’s rendering of “assembly” in Hebrews 10:25, this is OK, but the Greek word is different. In James 2:2, the word is synagōgē, which may, in fact, refer to a building—even if the congregants there are Christian, rather than adherents to Judaism. Notice how James opens the letter, “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad”.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 834   Newer› Newest»