Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Well, IF you agree with the doctrine of "transsubstanciation" (or however you spell it) and believe that Christ is alive in the Eucharist "wafer" then, well...

Like I said, different Christ...

It's just sad that someone can be so deceived that he believes a cracker is literally Jesus Christ. Just sad...

Well, playing the "catholic advocate side", John said that we must eat of His flesh and drink of his blood to have eternal life, so if the Eucharist doesn't become the literal body and blood of Christ, then no one has eternal life and if it DOES become His flesh and blood then He IS there.

Or,

It was figurative, not literal. But since you're not catholic, you already know that.

From the Catechism:

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

Here is an excellent refutation of the Catholic teachings and beliefs about Jesus and the Mass, from both a logical and Scriptural understanding: http://www.thejohnankerbergshow.net/wik ... _Mendacity

I would think anyone seriously considering the words in the above link would rethink the Catholic dogma concerning the meaning and supposed necessity of the Mass.

Philip wrote:Here is an excellent refutation of the Catholic teachings and beliefs about Jesus and the Mass, from both a logical and Scriptural understanding: http://www.thejohnankerbergshow.net/wik ... _Mendacity

I would think anyone seriously considering the words in the above link would rethink the Catholic dogma concerning the meaning and supposed necessity of the Mass.

Here is where we get "misunderstandings":
From the article:

This doctrine teaches that when the priest and only a priest says the words of consecration, that the bread and wine are literally changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

WHich seems to imply that ONLY the priest makes the Eucharist "holy".

Yet in the actual Catholic Catechism:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's.

That said, I agree that the Church and clergy have made it far more than what it was.

Paul, the Catholic Church has set up their priests as representing Christ. They also set their own church as the only one who can interpret scripture. Those are signs of a religious cult.

RickD wrote:Paul, the Catholic Church has set up their priests as representing Christ. They also set their own church as the only one who can interpret scripture. Those are signs of a religious cult.

Every organized religion is a cult.
The RCC just happens to be the biggest.

By the way, Catholic and RC are not synonymous as much as the RCC wants people to think that.
The catholic church is the universal church and ALL Christians are part of it.
Just to be clear on that.
I am not a huge fan of the RCC/Vatican and some of their doctrines ( as an example I disagree with calling priests "father") BUT I do recognize that they do much good and that without them, we wouldn't have many of the things we have know, in particular the bible.
No man-made / man-run organization is perfect or even very good, at best they can serve a purpose in God's grand plan.

PaulS wrote:
I am not a huge fan of the RCC/Vatican and some of their doctrines ( as an example I disagree with calling priests "father") BUT I do recognize that they do much good and that without them, we wouldn't have many of the things we have know, in particular the bible.

You're saying we wouldn't have the bible if it weren't for the RCC?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
I am not a huge fan of the RCC/Vatican and some of their doctrines ( as an example I disagree with calling priests "father") BUT I do recognize that they do much good and that without them, we wouldn't have many of the things we have know, in particular the bible.

You're saying we wouldn't have the bible if it weren't for the RCC?

Nope, I am saying what we do have was because of the RCC.
I am sure if there wasn't a RCC that God would have found another way of course.
As it is, it was the RCC ( and what was the church before it was the RCC)that safe guarded the written word of God for many centuries.

Here's an extremely controversial question I'd like truth on...

Is the pope the son of satan?

As the pharisees and Sadducee were the sons of satan, are the members of the hierarchical catholic church the same? (At least the tops who govern with authority)

With what is known, I have a hard time seeing otherwise...

One other question, when did the catholic church self identify as catholics, in what era?

And why catholics? Why would they name themselves anything other than Christians?

Why hide what you are in your own title?

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
I am not a huge fan of the RCC/Vatican and some of their doctrines ( as an example I disagree with calling priests "father") BUT I do recognize that they do much good and that without them, we wouldn't have many of the things we have know, in particular the bible.

You're saying we wouldn't have the bible if it weren't for the RCC?

Nope, I am saying what we do have was because of the RCC.
I am sure if there wasn't a RCC that God would have found another way of course.
As it is, it was the RCC ( and what was the church before it was the RCC)that safe guarded the written word of God for many centuries.

Paul, the church is what it has always been. The body of people who trust Christ for salvation. The RCC is not the church. If there are those in the RCC that have trusted Christ for salvation, then those are part of the church. Not all Roman Catholics are part of the church. Nor are all Protestants part of the church. All those who have trusted Christ for salvation, whatever denomination they do or do not belong to, are the church, or the body of believers.

I have a question. Why in my country members or RCC are taught catechism and do not have bible study?

PS: Matthew 23:8
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Its puplicized that the pope performs exorcisms. So he couldn't be a son of Satan, correct?

The rituals of exorcism in the RCC are merely one more perpetuation of the false belief that Christians are dependent upon the RCC and a priest to exorcise demons. All of that elaborate mumbo jumbo and theatrics, chanting, etc - it makes for an interesting movie but it is NOT Scriptural. The Bible models those casting out demons simply commanded them to come out "in the name of Jesus." This was accomplished through a simple, direct command, and instantaneously effective based upon the power in Whose name (Jesus!) the command was given, having absolutely nothing to do with the Believer who uttered the command, or upon any supposed rituals. And thus ALL Christians are fully capable of calling upon Jesus' name to successfully cast out a demon.

And think about this: Would not the demonic, wanting people to buy into the falsity and supposed power behind rituals employed by priests and the RCC, not simply put on a good show while inhabiting or tormenting a person and then scream and rage and then simply go silent after a portion of employed rituals - making those employing the rituals and those watching believe that they were effective? What a win-win for the demons - they aren't truly cast out or prevented from future torment - of either the victim or new/additional victims - and, subsequently, those witnessing the exorcism will buy into the power of ritual as opposed to the power of Jesus' name to cast of demons. No, none of this elaborate RCC exorcism ritual can be found in Scripture. Wonder why?

Good point, it hadn't crossed my mind that it was all for show to further deepen misplaced faith. Very effective of the demons...