Vatican exposures: Catholic ATS members? What say you?

Originally posted by EricD
...
From: www.scripturecatholic.com...

There's a lot more detail there.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
...
Eric

Eric,

Just for the record, you should know that Orthodox don't agree that the Catholic Church is the only one with apostolic succession.

In my brief time trying to learn about Catholicism on a Catholic forum, I discovered a remarkable ignorance about Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholics seem to believe that Eastern Orthodox were originally obedient to the Pope and then rebelled at the time of the Great Schism. Regardless of whether the Pope was supposed be the leader of the Christian world, he was weak and irrelevant throughout most of history. The Eastern and Western Christians grew apart long before the Great Schism, because the Western Roman Empire fell apart almost immediately after Emperor Constantine died. The Eastern Roman Empire carried on for another thousand years and the bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria and Antioch didn't particularly care what a bishop in the ruins of Rome thought. The Great Schism happened in the final days of the Eastern Roman Empire, but the East and West had been virtually independent of each other for hundreds of years even while pretending to be one Church.

Also the Orthodox think important decisions require a councils of bishops from the entire Christian world. Orthodox believe all bishops are equivalent whether they are bishops of small regions or bishops of capital cities. The Pope in their view is simply the bishop of Rome and "the first among equals".

The Catholics seem to think that if Orthodox will acknowledge the Pope as the leader of Christianity then Eastern Orthodox will be Catholics. But the Orthodox think they can't reunite unless Catholics change many fundamental things about Catholicism.

It seems to me that Orthodox have a strict attitude about practices but they have a liberal attitude about beliefs. They think Christianity is about mystically experiencing God through Christian practices. So some Orthodox believe just like Catholics, some believe like Evangelicals, some believe like Buddhists, some even believe more like Gnostics. What you believe isn't important in Orthodoxy and they deliberately leave some things as a mystery. An example is communion. Orthodox believe it is a mystery what happens to the bread and wine. They believe it is truly Jesus body and blood, but they consider it a mystery what that means.

(I am probably oversimplifying or misstating some of the Orthodox views. I just want to highlight that they are more different than most Catholics seem to realize.)

Here is a good Orthodox website if you feel curious:
Orthodox Wiki

reply to post by EricD

I'm telling you what the Catholic Church believes. If you disagree, that's your prerogative.

Being a private organization, it is their prerogative to make up whatever rules they want for their club.
Being a free person, it is my prerogative not to join that club and subject myself to those rules.
If you believe you can enforce them at the gates of heaven and hell, go for it.

"The Church is a whore, but she's my mother." - St. Augustine

So I wanted to apologize if I've offended with the tone of my arguments. Not sure if that happened, but just in case.

reply to post by cloudyday

So I wanted to apologize if I've offended with the tone of my arguments. Not sure if that happened, but just in case.

No offensive on this front! Thanks for your contributions.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Jesus said that, and clearly it was bread which he had broken for the Apostles, not literal hunks of himself that he had ripped away. Therefore, he must have meant something other than that the bread was literal flesh.

John 6:53 So 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 have no life in you".

People walked away at hearing this because it was hard to hear.
Jesus didn't turn around and say .. hey I'm just using examples and word imagry.
He said ... AMEN AMEN .... (meaning .. he was serious about it)

Funny how fundamentalists say that you have to take the bible literally... until taking it literally goes against what they have been taught. Talk about cherry picking ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


Context is everything. One can take a single verse out of context and twist nearly any meaning he likes. Here's that verse in the surrounding context:

.
37 All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which has sent me, that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he said, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, comes to me.
46 Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he has seen the Father.
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, He that believes on me has everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever.

Unless you are willing to admit that Jesus was literally made of bread, which fell from heaven, as it specifically says here, then you must also admit that he was not speaking of literally eating his physical flesh.

"Amen" means "true", or as rendered here. "truly". Even in modern Arabic, "ameen" means "true". It does not mean "listen close, because what I'm about to tell you is literal, even though I'm speaking everything else here in metaphors".

Cherry picking indeed.

reply to post by FlyersFan

People walked away at hearing this because it was hard to hear.
Jesus didn't turn around and say .. hey I'm just using examples and word imagry.
He said ... AMEN AMEN .... (meaning .. he was serious about it)

Funny how fundamentalists say that you have to take the bible literally... until taking it literally goes against what they have been taught.

Talk about cherry picking ...

What, no rolley eyes? No puz-head?
This set of statements is absurd...and you were a 3rd degree Carmelite? Seriously?
What an absolute load of crap.

I'm neither a fundamentalist, nor a Bible scholar, I was raised in the Protestant Episcopal church, and subsequently went out on my own to seek further...and I do know that Jesus began speaking in parables because he was tired of people mocking and dissing him.

(Much like Confucius did, and the Buddha, "young grasshopper.")

neno is absolutely right....of course it's a metaphor!!, and the passage neno quoted above PROVES it; Jesus even gives the analogy DIRECTLY.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Very simple.

"Look, pretend I'm bread, right? Your fathers ate manna and are dead.
Pretend I am bread, too, but I'm the kind that came from heaven, and if you consume the words I am telling you, you'll not go the way they did. I'm bread, right? You 'eat' what I offer, and you will have peace and rest with the Divine. So, when you eat bread together-- you see? -- think of me, and know that I am telling you the truth...if you want to get past the mortality of ignorance, and understand what is reality, listen to me and believe it. Likewise, this wine...pretend it's me, my blood (seeing as how it's liquid, like blood...ya know, and the bread is solid...like flesh) too. It is sustenance for your body, and the memory of me is nourishment of the soul

wow.

I see your manners haven't improved in your absence here; nor has your knowledge. But then, you fell for the whole kit and caboodle, and they -- the masters of manipulation -- had your entire lifetime to nurture your brain into actually buying into, believing, and then spreading this tosh!
I'd humor you with a puz-head, series of LOLz, and half a dozen rolley eyes....but my reaction is really more like :facepalm: and shake my head.
Good Lord.

But then again, the Jews who were scratching their heads saying "huh? what is he talking about?" couldn't have been all that bright;
that some people can't even figure out now that he made up the analogy so those simpletons would "get it" is simply amazing to me.

A four-year-old could understand it, for crying out loud!
Do you not want to be aware?

I think the real question on communion is not whether we literally believe it is Jesus body and blood, because even Catholics have varying degrees of faith in transubstantiation. The real question is whether communion is restricted to the Catholic Church. And the next question is what are the benefits of communion in Catholic Church, and what are the consequences of communion in non-Catholic Churches (i.e. neutral or harmful)?

(Actually let me rephrase that: those are the real questions for me. Probably everybody has different questions about communion.)

Originally posted by cloudyday
I think the real question on communion is not whether we literally believe it is Jesus body and blood, because even Catholics have varying degrees of faith in transubstantiation.

Part of the question is whether a literal belief in transubstantiation may cause one to miss the spiritual while placing all his faith in the physical. Only each person can answer that for themselves, and the answer may be the difference between "life" and "death" in the end.

The real question is whether communion is restricted to the Catholic Church.

I don't believe so, and the Catholics do believe so. Never the twain shall meet - it has to be one way or the other, there isn't any compromise available, It's my understanding that the Catholic position involves transubstantiation and Apostolic Succession as pivotal proofs in support of their contention, without which the argument falls apart, which may explain why they defend those thing so strenuously. Without them, their "club" is no longer exclusive, and ANY Christian can make it to heaven.

And the next question is what are the benefits of communion in Catholic Church, and what are the consequences of communion in non-Catholic Churches (i.e. neutral or harmful)?

I can't answer that, since I am not Catholic. I have no idea what they believe the benefits are over other churches. One can surmise from posts within this thread that Catholics believe communion in other churches to be "neutral", of no consequence or importance at best, and "negative", misleading people away from Christ at worst.

That's just my guess, from what I've read here, and may be way off the mark. Protestants, of course, have a vastly different viewpoint, and believe that the importance of Communion is where your heart is, not whether you are eating literal flesh.

Originally posted by nenothtu
...
Part of the question is whether a literal belief in transubstantiation may cause one to miss the spiritual while placing all his faith in the physical. Only each person can answer that for themselves, and the answer may be the difference between "life" and "death" in the end.
...

Also placing qualifications on who can participate in communion inevitably makes the participants feel "qualified" and nobody is "qualified".

reply to post by cloudyday

Also placing qualifications on who can participate in communion inevitably makes the participants feel "qualified" and nobody is "qualified"

Yeah. That.
Nobody is 'qualified'....
we are all, to a human being, guessing.

I think if the communicant at the rail is thinking of Christ (however they imagine him), and remembering his words....he is 'taking communion.' It makes no difference who the guy is 'within the rail'...... just some shmoe who went to theological or divinity or seminary school.........

It's an exquisitely private thing.....
no 'church' or 'priest' or 'rendering of the cross with Jesus hanging there', can dictate the private and solid interpretation of the person in whom the spark is there

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

What is "the great warning", and what is the authority behind it's existence? Where does it say that a "Great Warning" is coming?

edit on 2012/3/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The Catholics have left, you all don't listen any way. It's like the election,
people are set in their belief, prayer is the answer.

John Leary's latest messages were posted today. I remember the
question was asked, what is the Great Warning? Protestants believe their heresy of "Bible Alone." The Great Warning is the last verses in Revelation Chapter 6, 12-17. I have shared at ATS, Prophecy states
we will not feel the pain of truly contrite... "CONFESSED" sins in our
life review. Confession and prayer for the life of your soul.

www.johnleary.com...


Saturday, March 24, 2012:

Jesus said: “My people, you are familiar with your shadow in the sunlight, but I am showing this to you in order to represent your soul body which is superimposed in your physical body. You know that you are made up of a body and soul, but your soul is the most important because it will live on forever. You only have two destinations of either being with My love in heaven, or with the hate of the devil in the flames of hell. By following My Commandments of love and My Gospels, you can imitate My life of prayer and service to God and your neighbors. This is your path to heaven for your soul. I will send everyone a Warning experience before the Antichrist is allowed to declare his reign. In the Warning your soul body will leave your physical body, and you will come before My Light where you will experience your life review. I will show you your whole life with an emphasis on your unforgiven sins. Then you will receive a mini-judgment to heaven, purgatory, or hell. You will then have your soul body return inside your physical body. You will have an opportunity to improve your spiritual life, and if you do not improve, your soul body’s destination will be that of your mini-judgment. Keep focused on Me at all times in your prayers, and in all of your actions that you do for My greater glory. At the end of the tribulation I will separate the evil souls who reject Me or ignore Me, and they will be sent to hell. Those, who love Me and seek My forgiveness of their sins, will be taken into My Era of Peace and later into heaven. At your death in the body, your soul body will be separated for its final destination. If you die before My return, you will see Me in judgment, and some may have to be purified in purgatory. Pray to evangelize souls in this life so you can keep them from going to hell....

reply to post by cloudyday


Eric, how good, he's still trying to help. Roman Catholicism is the true faith.

The Orthodox left the Church over the authority of the Holy Father.

Our Lord is going to go after the lost sheep, the Orthodox and the Protestants to bring Christianity together and non-Christians into the fold, those who will accept the gift of the Great Warning. I recall one prophetic message, I think it was to m. tague, Our Lord said He will personally go after the Protestant sheep.

The Orthodox have valid sacraments. Pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters.

God gives hints, in the KJV Bible, John 6:66 speaks of the disciples who
disbelieved Jesus' words "This is My body."

In the Douay-Rheims Bible, the translation of the first Bible, St. Jerome's
Latin Vulgate, John 6:66 is different. Why the one verse? Catholics believe Our Lord's words.

www.drbo.org...

666 is a famous number.

King James Version (KJV)

John 6:64-66
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

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

Douay-Rheims

John 6:66-67
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him

reply to post by colbe


I started to ask "who in the world is John Leary?" but then read some of the stuff on that page and realized it doesn't matter, because I don't care. From what is written there, he's just another snake oil salesman, peddling "prophecy" that he's making up as he goes along.

If you want to believe that sort of thing, colbe, have at it, and you are welcome to. Don't expect me to fall for it, though - there are just too many holes in his "prophecy" for it to be coming from God.

It looks to me like he's telling you what you want to hear, not anything that's going to promote God or help YOU. That's the sort of thing some people like, so enjoy.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by colbe

 

I started to ask "who in the world is John Leary?" but then read some of the stuff on that page and realized it doesn't matter, because I don't care. From what is written there, he's just another snake oil salesman, peddling "prophecy" that he's making up as he goes along.

If you want to believe that sort of thing, colbe, have at it, and you are welcome to. Don't expect me to fall for it, though - there are just too many holes in his "prophecy" for it to be coming from God.

It looks to me like he's telling you what you want to hear, not anything that's going to promote God or help YOU. That's the sort of thing some people like, so enjoy.

neno,

You're here to mock Catholicism and prophecy. You've not said one
positive thing about the faith or the messages except for the Protestant prophecy I posted...hmmmm...and I went to the effort to share Our Lord's words describing the Great Warning.

I am sorry you don't believe.

reply to post by colbe


John 6:66 does not say "this is my body", nor does it refer to that concept. John 6:63, however, DOES refer to that concept. It says : "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. " even in the Douay-Rheims version.

The Latin Vulgate is no more "the first Bible" than is the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, or any number of other translations. The Vulgate is itself a translation, and the Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate, making the D-R a translation of a translation.

The first use of numbered verses was in the Protestant Geneva Bible. Verse numbers were retroactively added to the older versions to facilitate reference after that, and verse numbering discrepancies crept in. The Douay-Rheims version I use is the Challoner Revision, which has verse numberings conforming to the other Bibles. It says, in the passages you quote:

65 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 66 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? (Douay-Rheims Bible, Challoner Revision)

The Geneva Bible says:

65 And hee saide, Therefore saide I vnto you, that no man can come vnto mee, except it be giuen vnto him of my Father. 66 From that time, many of his disciples went backe, and walked no more with him. 67 Then sayde Iesus to the twelue, Will yee also goe away? (Geneva Bible (1599))

The first Protestant Bible was the Wycliffe translation, which Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate in 1395. It follows the old Vulgate verse numbering, and says:

66 And he seide, Therfor Y seide to you, that no man may come to me, but it were youun to hym of my fadir. 67 Fro this tyme many of hise disciplis wenten abak, and wenten not now with hym. 68 Therfor Jhesus seide to the twelue, Whether ye wolen also go awei? (John Wycliffe Bible (1395))

Tyndale's translation says:

65 And he sayde: Therfore sayde I vnto you: that no man can come vnto me except it were geven vnto him of my father. 66 From that tyme many of his disciples wet backe and walked no moore with him. 67 Then sayde Iesus to the twelve: will ye alsoo goo awaye? (William Tyndale Bible (1525/1530))

The American King James Bible says:

65 And he said, Therefore said I to you, that no man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away? (American King James Version)

So you see, there is no difference in anything other than the verse numbering - they all say the same thing.

reply to post by colbe


Nor have I said anything negative about "the faith". I do not consider Catholicism to be "THE faith" - it is "A faith". Do you see the difference there?

There was nothing positive in the Protestant "prophecy" you quoted, either. I apologize for not making myself clear if you think that I somehow thought positively of it.

Genuine prophecy had a practical purpose, and that purpose was not one of necromancy and reading the tea leaves to predict a shiny future for people who were fearful because they are not certain of their souls in the present. The purpose of prophecy is the edification of God, not reading pig knuckle bones to predict the future.

God is not a fortune teller, and the only reason to worry about the future is fearing that one doesn't know what would become of his soul today. Fix that problem, and preoccupations with "prophecy" clear right up.

The only thing you've shared that could be remotely construed as Jesus' words concerning a "Great Warning" was a reference to Rev. 6:12-17, so am I to take it you consider destruction of that magnitude as a "warning"?

I DO believe - I just don't believe the way you seem to want me to. What God wants takes precedence over what people want.

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by cloudyday

 

Eric, how good, he's still trying to help. Roman Catholicism is the true faith.

The Orthodox left the Church over the authority of the Holy Father.

Our Lord is going to go after the lost sheep, the Orthodox and the Protestants to bring Christianity together and non-Christians into the fold, those who will accept the gift of the Great Warning. I recall one prophetic message, I think it was to m. tague, Our Lord said He will personally go after the Protestant sheep.

The Orthodox have valid sacraments. Pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Protestants have valid sacraments too. Jesus makes the sacrament valid - not the Church. If you believe otherwise then you are making Jesus, who is mystically present in communion, subject to the Church. You are underestimating the love of the Good Shepherd who gives His life for His sheep every week in communion in every denomination. (At least that is what I think.)