re: Anti-Catholic books being sent Unsolicited in the Bible Belt

quote:

---

I have great respect for Roman Catholics who take their faith seriously. I can’t say the same for the fundamentalists, who I hesitate to call “Protestants”. They’re not.

---

What is it about fundamentalists who take their faith seriously that you can't respect?

If they pay for printing and postage, why should I bitch about having more "fire starter" material.
The local News Paper gets thinner each year. Yet, the mail box is full each day with some kind of crap that I never read.

quote:

---

I mean, if you ever think to yourself: "the pope is wrong on this one" then you're probably not a Catholic, technically?

---

How do people still get this wrong in the age of the internet?


Well, I guess in the age of the internet, if a lie is repeated enough it is the truth.

Just bc you disagree with the pope on things doesn’t make you non catholic.

Thats like saying you’re anti American if you don’t agree with everything the govt does.

quote:

---

What is it about fundamentalists who take their faith seriously that you can't respect?

---

A fundamentalist version of faith isn’t faith. It’s closer to belief in one’s certainties.

quote:

---

I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school, and my family is predominantly RC. I know exactly what they believe because I was in it, and it is not scripture. It is Catholic teaching, much of which stands in complete opposition to scripture itself. You are taught to put your faith in the church, not the scriptures, and that’s the problem in a nutshell. It’s also the problem in certain Protestant churches that attempt to wrap their doctrines into scripture rather than letting scripture speak for itself in context. That’s where you get all of the unscriptural doctrines like repent of your sins for salvation, sinner prayers, inviting Jesus into your heart, give your life to Jesus, make Jesus Lord, maintaining your salvation, asking Jesus for additional forgiveness to that which He already gave you at the cross when you first believed, etc… when people add things or take things away from the word of God there is mass confusion, but when we take the word of God and take Him at His word in context there is peace, and assurance because God said it. Man didn’t. We are called believers because we believe upon Jesus. He is the savior, I’m not, and neither is a denomination or anything else man’s relying upon in addition to Jesus. That’s what is scriptural, and as a believer I am called to make a stand for the Gospel, and there’s only one Good News. That’s not found in me or what I think but in what Jesus said.

---

Which denominations allow scripture to speak for itself, in your opinion?

Jesus was a practicing Jew his whole life. He didn’t come to get rid of religion. He came to fulfill the promises that were made in the old covenant, he rose from the dead and commissioned his apostles to build His church and baptize all people, not through faith alone, but through a sacrament. A sacrament that has a special form and matter given directly by Jesus. 

Religion doesn’t call on you to stay on the treadmill, it calls on you to do what Jesus said, pick up your cross and follow me. A cross implies a burden that doesn’t end until death, instead of you calling it a treadmill, it’s actually an invitation to participate in salvation history.

[embed]Jesus did NOT found the Roman church… [/embed]

This was debated through the early few century but through the scriptures, councils, writings of early Fathers (including ones that protestants also accept), and early church traditions, apostolic tradition was accepted.

You clearly don’t understand the Catholic Church. We have always believed that Jesus is the head of our church. Jesus is the groom and the church is the bridegroom. Jesus is alive so therefore Jesus reins. Jesus is forever the High Priest. Priests act in the person of Christ, working through Him and with Him. However, he clearly called his apostles to spread the faith guided by the Holy Spirit and to convert all nations baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 

While Jesus can do whatever he wants, as God of the universe, he calls on human participation in salvation history. 

quote:

---

Yes, and in John 3:6 He shows that being born of flesh is what he meant by being born of water…

---

The church agrees, there is such thing as Baptism of desire, knowing that God alone confers grace and he alone is the final judge, however, there is only one explicit way that we know will be efficacious, and that is using flowing water and using the words Jesus taught us. Anything else is subjective.  Hoping that Jesus wasn’t being literal is an interesting hill to stand on. God is inherently objective because He is Truth. I’ll just trust Jesus’ words on this one. He didn't send them out to baptize people if it wasn’t the only way to the Father.

quote:

---

That’s John 6:53-58, and it is not literal.  We don’t sacrifice Jesus over and over again and literally eat His body and drink His blood … 

---

Don’t know where I said Jesus is sacrificed repeatedly. Don’t know what Catholic teaching says this either… now before we can even get to the theology, let’s look at what Jesus has say and how the people he was speaking to react to this teaching. Also a bold move interpreting Jesus to be figurative not literal.

So Jesus is teaching in the synagogue and he has already said two times prior that you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood, for my flesh is true food and my blood true drink… and at this point the people listening were arguing with each other over the teaching. Now this would have been an ideal time for Jesus to be like, guys I’m just talking figuratively, this is easy to understand when you don’t take me literally. No need to fight…. But no, 

Jesus say the following in John 6:

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me…. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? … 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?”

Wow, so Jesus triples down and watches His disciples argue, and ultimately leave Him. Never once saying it’s only figurative. In fact He is explicitly saying the opposite. 

At the last supper he again says this IS my body. Not this is LIKE my body. Or this is my Spiritual Body. 

But sure, tell me Jesus wasn’t being literal. I’ll trust Jesus on this one.

Now back to your first comment on re-crucifying during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Catholics do not believe Jesus is being crucified again at Mass. we believe the one, once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary is made present to us sacramentally.

Not repeated. Not added to. Not re-done.

Catholic theology is explicit: “Christ offered himself once for all.” (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10)

If Mass were a new sacrifice, it would directly contradict Scripture. So how can Mass be called a “sacrifice” at all?

Catholic theology goes on to say the historical event of the Crucifixion happened once, in time, while Christ’s priesthood and self-offering exist eternally, outside time. Jesus is not stuck in AD 33. As the risen Lord, He presents His sacrifice eternally before the Father. Hebrews 7:25: “He always lives to make intercession for them.”

The Mass doesn’t repeat Calvary it participates in the eternal reality of Calvary. When we say Mass “re-presents” the sacrifice, we mean makes present again, not does again

A useful analogy: a book is fully written, but we only experience is one page at a time, but that doesn’t mean the the previous and future pages cease to exist- they all exist in the same time and the same place for eternity, and while humans can only see one page at a time in order, God who is the author can jump around knowing that each word and scene is all happening at the same time. Time is eternal not linear

So it’s the same sacrifice, different mode - Calvary: bloody, historical, physical - Mass: unbloody, sacramental, mystical but: same priest (Christ), same victim (Christ), and same sacrifice (His self-offering)

The priest at Mass is not offering Jesus again, Christ is offering Himself, through the priest.

Catholics are not re-crucifying Jesus. God allows us to stand at the foot of the Cross, across time, every time Mass is offered. Like my book analogy. 

This isn’t a “Catholic” (scary quote) invention. It’s THE basic Christian understanding back to antiquity. Look at the early church fathers: 

 
Didache- “On the Lord’s Day… break bread and OFFER the Eucharist.” 
Ignatius- “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins.”

Justin Martyr- “This food is called the Eucharist… the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

There is no early Christian community on record that believed the Eucharist was only symbolic or that the Mass was not sacrificial at all.

Well define what is a Catholic. If you are baptized using running water and with the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, then you are a baptized Catholic.

Now I’m not saying anything as I’m not God so I don’t get to make rules or break rules how I see fit. But the only way explicitly stated by Christ to get to heaven is through God, and the only way to the father is through Jesus.

He can do why ever he wants, but Jesus is pretty clear on who gets in. So take your chances on your own I guess?

quote:

---

Thats evangelicalism, not relational as a means of retaining salvation that’s already paid for in full at the cross by Jesus when He said “it is finished” The confusion comes when it’s not in context and it counters other verses that are very clear regarding salvation.

---

Finished doesn’t equal irrelevant. Redemption is accomplished once but the application of that redemption happens over time. Even Protestants believe we are saved by a past event and that event is applied to us later through faith.

Catholics affirm the Eucharist is how Christ applies His sacrifice sacramentally, not how He repeats it.

Ultimately, it is unavoidable, yes.
But Catholics legitimately believe in a continuing participation with the church through the sacraments in order to maintain a state of grace.

Justification and sanctification are one.

They have and will continue to die on that hill.