When you're confused

tjohnson382

weird...an actual intellectual conversation about the bible.

Posted 2 months ago

fenraar

I always found it funny how in the mass the line just before the eucharist was handed out was "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed". My Eucharist is a spiritual not a physical one.

Posted 6 months ago

SaintPatrick333

That's great that you "feel" good about Christ but how can you claim to live the life He promoted when you are not doing as He asks? He calls all His children to receive Him in the Eucharist. He who does not eat of my flesh has no life in him (and atheists that isn't talking about cannibalism so spare me your self imposed intellectualism and badly formed rhetoric).

Posted 6 months ago

fenraar

Catholicism has changed so much over the years so there's no point saying it's a perfect 2000 year old tradition. But I wouldn't say it's a 2000 year old failure. I don't think I'm always right, but I don't think the Church is either. Any mistakes I make will be mine.
I don't feel that I need Catholicism to feel close to Jesus . In fact, it was only by drifting away from the Church that I started to feel near to him again. I still continue to pray and try to live the kind of life he promoted.

Posted 6 months ago

SaintPatrick333

You are only hurting yourself by keeping away from Christ in His Sacraments. All it takes is going to confession once and getting all that weight off your chest. Then you're back home. I don't mean this in an antagonistic sort of way but I'll pray for you.

Posted 6 months ago

SaintPatrick333

You might wanna read up on what Papal Infallibility means. I don't think you have the right idea. And as for everything else regarding your leaving of the faith. Do you really think you know more than 2000 plus unbroken years of Tradition and Apostolic Succession? Do you really think any of your objections haven't been mentioned and answered thousands of times before? You might wanna speak to a Priest about your understanding, or as I presume, your misunderstanding about Catholicism.

Posted 6 months ago

fenraar

I'm good thanks. I used to be a Catholic but the religion seems to have diverted so far from the true teachings of Jesus that I don't really affiliate myself with it any more. I'm perfectly happy for Catholics to follow their religion, just not to laud it over other religions as being superior (even with the Christian community re: your original post) or to use it as an excuse to judge others and tell them how they should live their lives.

Posted 7 months ago

fenraar

I never said sacred tradition referred to Jewish law. I said it was analogous i.e. comparably similar in terms of how it originated and what it represented. The holy spirit hasn't protected all popes from error though. There were some popes that would swear blind that evolution never happened and that that the world was flat based on scriptural analysis and because as pope, they couldn't be wrong.

Posted 7 months ago

SaintPatrick333

I'd post a better response but these comments are limited and I'd need several pages to fit everything relevant. It's not much of an argument but if you are genuinely interested in why Catholics believe what they do head over to ScriptureCatholic.com Everything we believe and do is Scriptural

Posted 7 months ago

SaintPatrick333

No "person" is infallible, you're absolutely right. The Catholic Church never taught that. Papal Infallibility means the Pope can not teach error in matters of faith and morality. The Holy Spirit is protecting His Holiness from error (just as those who wrote Scriptures were protected from writing error). It is the "office" of the Pope, the "authority" that is infallible, not the mortal man who fills the role. Sacred Tradition in the Church does not refer to the Jewish law.

Posted 7 months ago

fenraar

Nobody is infallible when it comes to scriptures, that includes the pope, the laymen and the clergy.
It is funny how you mention sacred tradition though. You probably know that "Sacred Tradition" or it's contemporary analogue, Jewish law, was what led to the rules about cleanliness etc. that were present in the Jewish faith during Jesus' time. Jesus condemned very few people in the bible; the Pharisees that criticised him for not abiding Jewish law were among the few that he criticised the most

Posted 7 months ago

SaintPatrick333

Catholics complied Scriptures my friend. Sacred Tradition is the "only" valid interpretation of Scriptures. The Bible came through the Catholic Church, not the other way around. It certainly didn't fall from Heaven already pieced together. Apostolic Succession ladies and gents. Christ made His twelve Apostles the first twelve Bishops with Peter being the Bishop of Rome. Rome was the center of the world at that time and that is where Christ wanted to establish His Church.

Posted 7 months ago

fenraar

It's not just protestants taking the scriptures out of context.

Posted 7 months ago

beyeswdragon

Not in the old testament, where even genocide was cool...

Posted 7 months ago

MrEvlD

Pretty sure lusting after anything is a sin, regardless of context.

Posted 7 months ago

SaintPatrick333

Or you could read the "whole" passage and then apply the historical and societal context of the time and look at it with the lens with which it was written and not a modern twist. That is why protestants have this blow up in their face all the time. They take Scriptures out of context. *sigh*

Posted 7 months ago

pigpen

you should see the drawings the put with it in the children's bible.

Posted 7 months ago

bananadluffy

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23%3A19-20&version=NIV />
I... can't even believe it.