The Holy eucharist (Jesus, ritual, rejecting, Creator, Earth)

[writer]

for being Wonderful

[athanasius]

Dear IN Christ Mr writer

The Lord be with you. I have politley ask you not to be inflammatory to me or my faith. I have been repsectful to you since I have repented a while ago. Saying things that are mean in spirit is not what Jesus wanted. I am going to stop debating you becuase it has become clear to me that you seem very angry and insulting to my faith and my opinions.

I would have dialoged with you futher about Our Lords presense in the eucharist if you would not have made staments about my church and faith being "gibbersih" and how you say "thank Christ your not a Catholic" etc. This is just rude, intolerable, and undeserving of you since you are a member of the Body of Christ.

Please know that I am praying for you and still consider you a brother in Christ even though you appear to be anticatholic to the core.
Speaking the truth in love about Jesus Catholic church,
Athanasius

[writer]

12 you seem very angry and insulting to my faith and my opinions.
To the contrary: i agree and am happy extremely w/ your faith in Christ. I disagree w/ several of your opinions.
And i'm still saddened, especially when we both quote Bible verses to each other, and purport to respect it, that you're "inflamed and insulted" (post 6) by my asking how you read it (4). Tho i realize that any debate or contradiction in religion, of one another's opinions, by definition can be "inflammatory."

staments about my church and faith being "gibbersih"
To the contrary: i've yet to call Catholicism "gibberish" here.
In post 8 i made the conclusory statement: Transubstantiation's "foolish gibberish." Which i humbly apologize 2 u and request your forgiveness 4. Even though your creation of, and introduction to, your thread (your post 1) explicitly read:
"I Created this forum to get a understanding ABOUT WHAT MR WRITER BELIEVES..."
(Emphasis added.)
I'd never call faith gibberish, and I'm aware u believe Jesus is God, God's Son. I thot that u'd've said that Transubstantiation, just like nonTransubstantiation, isn't determinative of whether u 'n i're regenerated or not---Izn't element of the common faith. No matter how much one of us might believe it or the other reject it. But if it's "your faith," then pleze accept my sincere apology.
In post 4 i responded to your:
3 So Christ instituted these real Sacraments...
By writing: "No offence dear Athanasius (i really mean that), but this sounds to me like gibberish."
Meaning, if u can hear me out: according to the way Latin Bibles use the Latin word "sacrament(um)": there'ss no such thing as what u appear to mean in the NT. Much less "Christ instituted."
As i tried to get into in post 8. Mebbe i shoulda jus written in response to your 3: "i dunno what you're talkin about"

and how you say "thank Christ your not a Catholic" etc. This is just rude, intolerable, and undeserving of you since you are a member of the Body of Christ.
I disagree w/ u. U, in 6, made the statement that u weren't sure how i, a noncatholic, got a noncatholic idea. I'd o' thot u realized i'm noncatholic, and that may be where i got sum noncatholic ideas. I do thank Christ i'm not a Catholic. That's neither rude, "intolerable," nor "underserving of me" in the least. Just like if u thank Him u're Catholic------isn't rude 2 me

Please know that I am praying for you and still consider you a brother in Christ even though you appear to be anticatholic to the core.
Thank you, Athanasius.
What is "anticatholic"?
What's "the core"?

[Baerly]

What about sacraments?

http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...the_sacraments

in love Baerly

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Baerly

What about sacraments?

What a poorly researched article. Truly awful stuff.

To truly understand the sacramental nature of Catholicism, you simply need to grasp that a sacramental perspective "sees" the divine in the human. The infinite in the finite, the spiritual in the material, etc...... For Catholicism, therefore, all reality is sacred.

From the article:

Baptism is not an “outward” sign” of “an inward grace” received already. It is an outward act of obedience leading to pardon, and the obtaining of a clear conscience before God (1 Pet. 3:21).

Correct.
Catechism of the Catholic Church #1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

....blah, blah, blah..... sheesh. You've got a Roman Catholic right here... you could at least ask me to explain things to you instead of linking to some bogus anti-Catholic website.

Come on... be different .... actually try to have an adult, Christian conversation with me... it would be a nice change.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!
Scott

[!Fluffy!]

What a poorly researched article. Truly awful stuff.

Perhaps you would do us the favor of citing and repudiating the facts contained therein for our enlightenment, rather than characterizing the entire article this way.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Moon Woman

Perhaps you would do us the favor of citing and repudiating the facts contained therein for our enlightenment, rather than characterizing the entire article this way.

I began to.... just a sample with showing the gross errors in the baptism portion... anything particular you had a question about?

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

[sojourner]

I agree with Scott. That article grossly misrepresents the sacraments of the Church and puts them in a uniquely "Restorationist" perspective, not consistent with Holy Tradition.

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by sojourner

I agree with Scott. That article grossly misrepresents the sacraments of the Church and puts them in a uniquely "Restorationist" perspective, not consistent with Holy Tradition.

One thing yall must undersand is when the so called holy traditon contradicts the plain new testament will of God we (the church of CHRIST) will side with the New Testament every time instead of your holy traditons. The reason is because your holy traditions are contrary to the New Testament teachings of God (1Tim.1:3) (Gal.1:6-9).

The reason you do not agree with what the article teaches is because it is totally base upon the word of God (the bible) and not any traditions at all outside of the bible.

The bible says (it) is going to be what judges us on judgment day (John 12:48). I will stick with the word of God (the bible). in love Baerly

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by Scott1

What a poorly researched article. Truly awful stuff.

To truly understand the sacramental nature of Catholicism, you simply need to grasp that a sacramental perspective "sees" the divine in the human. The infinite in the finite, the spiritual in the material, etc...... For Catholicism, therefore, all reality is sacred.

From the article:

Correct.
Catechism of the Catholic Church #1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

....blah, blah, blah..... sheesh. You've got a Roman Catholic right here... you could at least ask me to explain things to you instead of linking to some bogus anti-Catholic website.

Come on... be different .... actually try to have an adult, Christian conversation with me... it would be a nice change.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!
Scott

My friend,if I wanted to spread Catholic Church holy tradition I would have asked you or someone else on this site to speak to us on the matter. But my intent was to show where the Catholich Church holy traditions go totally against the bible (the word of God).I am sure you were not going to show us the differences,nor tell us WHY someone changed the doctrine,something the bible says NOT TO DO according to (1Tim.1:3 (Gal.1:6-9) (1Peter 4:11).

I really did like the idea the lady brought up about refuting the article point by point rather than characterizing it the way you did. in love Baerly