I Just Had An Interesting Conversation

[phatcatholic]

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell. You Guys bost of something you don't have. I feel sorry for you that you don't know any better. I wish that you could understand the truth. That was my only reason for coming to this site. To share with you the Truth. You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle. You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics. No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc. You use only history to  as proof you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church. If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching. If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again. God knew the end before the beging of the world. You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

LOVE PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING, IS MY PRAYER FOR YOU ALL.

EXIT PEACE OUT.

why do you do this? instead of replying to the five or six other threads that are waiting on you to respond, u plop down in another one...........and again, only state your opinion. what happened to providing proof to back up ur claims? every time we provide proof for ours, u disappear and never respond again. is it b/c u don't know how to answer, b/c u can't accept the fact that we might actually be right about something.

i shall again, respond to this mass collection of opinions, and hopefully get a response from you in return.

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell.

where in this ENTIRE THREAD do we question ANYONE'S salvation or say that ANYONE is going to hell?!?! find that for me please, i'm begging you. just b/c we claim that anglicans have invalid sacraments, that DOES NOT MEAN that we think they are going to hell.

You Guys bost of something you don't have. I feel sorry for you that you don't know any better. I wish that you could understand the truth. That was my only reason for coming to this site. To share with you the Truth.

is that really why you are here? your behavior here tells me otherwise. first off, u hardly every back up ur opinion w/ proof. secondly, everytime we provide our proof, u disappear. if u were interesting in sharing Truth w/ us, then u would engage in continual dialogue, instead of poking ur head into a thread, stating ur opinion, and then leaving. also, if u were interested in Truth, then u would be open to reading and learning about what we have to say as well. but ur posts show that u rarely thoroughly read what we post, and that especially pertains to any articles that we may provide.

You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle.

PROOF PLEASE

You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics.

PROOF PLEASE. also, u seem to be implying here that we believe that christ died on the cross ONLY for catholics. can u please provide PROOF that we believe in this? i for one, can assure u that we do not.

No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc. You use only history to  as proof

PROOF PLEASE. we don't use scripture to defend what we believe? are you serious? i provided proof from scripture that the sacrificial lamb had to be eaten, and u never responded. i provided proof from scripture that the sabbath must be celebrated on sunday, and u never responded. if u've still never seen a catholic provide scripture to defend his belief, well then allow me to be the first:

--The Church

--Primacy of Peter

--Apostolic Succession

--Oral Tradition

--Scripture Alone

--The Eucharist

--Blessed Virgin Mary

--Saints

--Confession

--Purgatory

--Justification

--Salvation

--Baptism

--Confirmation

--Anointing of the Sick

--The Priesthood

--Divorce and Remarriage

--Contraception

--Deuterocanon

--Septuagint

--Sacramentals

--Sunday Worship

--Revelation and the Mass

--Vain and Repititious Prayer

--Homosexuality

--Suffering

--Fasting

--Drinking

--Hell

--Original Sin

--Second Coming

--Christ's Divinity

--Holy Spirit

--Messianic Prophesies

if you are interested in Truth at all, and if u still believe that catholics can not provide scripture to defend their faith, then i would dare you to go to one of those links.

you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church.

see links above. it looks to me like that catholic church is all over the place.

If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS! we believe that the voice of the authoritative church is equal to the word of God, b/c it too is the word of God. see the first four links above.

If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again.

what do u mean by "man controlled the bible"? God wrote the Bible, we believe this. we also believe that God worked thru His Catholic Church in assembling these inspired works into one collection. of course, if u plan on denying this, PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF.

God knew the end before the beging of the world.

NO JOKE

You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

PROOF PLEASE

you have a long way to go to prove your claims, to refute my claims, and to be the least bit effective at sharing your "Truth" with us.

Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth,

phatcatholic

Edited February 4, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Jake Huether]

EXIT PEACE OUT.

I'm GLAD to know that you Catholics here have everone else going to hell.

I didn't see hell or condemnation in anyone's post.

You Guys bost of something you don't have.

Quite the opposite. We bost of what we have: Christ Jesus, Body Blood Soul and Divinity to boot!

You don't have any Apostles connection with Peter or any other Apostle.

Truth, we've shown you historically and Biblically the roots. I'm sorry you don't see it.

You don't have any truths but that Christ is the son of God and he when to the cross for us all, not Catholics.

You display your ignorance whenever you post. Catholics know that Christ died for EVERYONE. He died so that Hitler might have a chance. But one must also BELIEVE in Christ. Not merely believe that Christ existed, but believe in his words and in his grace. One must believe HIS CHURCH in order to reap the benefits of His Holy Death.

No one could be further from the Truth than your Cc.

Truth, you have been lied to by the father of lies. He would like you to exchange the Truth for a lie, and lie for Truth. The Catholic Church holds the Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

You use only history to  as proof you can't used the Bible because you only show up in Rev 17-19, the true Christian church is Christ Church.

Okay.. I don't really follow you.. But if you look in our reference section. Or if you've read any of the threads. All we do is quote scripture. But I suppose that if Christ were to come down right now and tell you which was His Most Precious Bride, you would still not believe.

If you beleive in your Church than the Word of God you have a false teaching.

I don't get this statement too much either. But I think I understand the jist of it. And, SURPRISE, we believe the Word of God. And the Word of God is this, "you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." We don't believe in our Church outside the Word of God. On the contrary, we believe in our Church BECAUSE of the Word of God.

If you beleive that man controlled the Bible you wrong again.

"Controlled the Bible"... Well, I'll tell you what we believe and you can comment on whether or not you think it is correct. We believe that God inspired certain individuals to write the letters and histories which are collected in the Bible. We further believe that a group of disciples of our Lord, some time after his death, came together under the inspiration of God, and picked out which texts and letters where inspired. These disciples belionged to what is known as the Catholic, or universal Church, apart from which there was no other "Christian" Church at the time.

God knew the end before the beging of the world. You can't be baptize now that you are old enough to learn the truth so you are stuck with the understanding of REASON and not of the HOLY SPIRIT.

Okay, your probably going to have to reword this for me. I'm not understanding. I agree so far with the first sentance.

LOVE PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING, IS MY PRAYER FOR YOU ALL.

Thank you! I will pray for you too.

God bless.

Edited February 4, 2004 by Jake Huether

[cmotherofpirl]

Truth we have been baptised, so we are already members of the Kingdom.

Our Church was founded by Jesus Christ the Son of God, who died and opened the gates of heaven.

WE do the things that Jesus asked of us, we preach and teach the Kingdom of God and are baptised into it. We are filled by thre Holy Spirit. We celebrate Communion as we were commanded so we have life within us. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

We have not merited this, but we are graced by it. We have the fullness of faith found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures left by Jesus the Christ who is God.

Sorry if that isn't good enough, but we answer to God, not to man.

[Theoketos]

Pham,

I wish that we could have a serious discussion on the Episcopal Church...

Did you know that his Holliness, John Paul II, gave a pectoral ring and cross to the Archbishop of Catenburry?

Yeah and the two of them get along really well.

[Ellenita]

An anglican raised in the 'high' anglican branch of the church would find much of liturgy of the catholic mass familiar. In a conversation recently, a priest described the vicar of the local anglican church to me as being "more 'Roman' than I am"!

In the mass at the anglican church where I was raised we chanted the creed and the Kyries and had incense at every Sunday morning mass. The church building was very old - originally built in the 13th century, and must therefore have been catholic until the 'reformation'. It was very beautiful, as was the form of the mass.

However, it is an inescapable fact that the line of apostolic succession was broken, beginning with the actions of Henry VIII, and once you know this, it's beyond my understanding that a 'high' anglican would remain within the anglican church. I would have to ask the question why?!

As an anglican, I don't ever remember being taught about Transubstantiation. I do remember being given an understanding that there was Presence in the Eucharist and that we celebrated it 'in memory' of Jesus and the Last Supper. The only time I ever remember being offered the opportunity to confess to a priest 'if I wanted to' was once just before being confirmed and as it really wasn't given any importance it didn't seem necessary - the general prayer of confession at the start of the mass is considered enough.

Given my understanding of all this, I would not take communion in an anglican church now - and that is not a decision reached lightly!

Of course, if you strolled into a 'low' anglican church you would find a number of differences between the form of service and the catholic mass. A methodist would be more 'at home' with the service, and you can't always tell whether a church is 'high' or 'low' from the outside!

There is certainly dialogue between the high anglican and the catholic church exploring the similarities, but I cannot see the anglican church joining the catholic church; there is too much history to 'undo' and in the UK would require a radical change in our constitution....but then again, I didn't believe there would be an end to apartheid or that the Berlin wall would come crumbling down in my life time...and my God is a God of miracles! :D

[phatcatholic]

Ellinita,

thank you so much for your input! you are definitely a resource for me, considering that you grew up in this background. actually, i have a question for you. can you explain to me how anglicans understand the real presence and how this differs w/ the catholic understanding? this anglican speaker who has a doctorate in theology was fumbling over his words in his attempt to explain it to me, so don't worry if u are unable to as well.

thanks again for ur input,

phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hope the Anglican church has a schism between the so called "liberals" and "conservatives" and that the more orthodox side becomes in union with Rome. The liberals can "ordain" gay, transvestite buddhists into their clergy for all I care (and don't be surprised if they do!). Modernist, heretical "christianity" is going to die someday. Everything dies. But Christ has promised that His Church will endure.

[Ellenita]

Phatcatholic, I think Bro Adam has very eloquently explained the difference in a thread somewhere in the debate forum on communion.

There is an understanding that the Presence of God is in the communion but not that the bread and wine turn into His body and blood. From a personal point of view, I always felt the presence of God in a more real way at a 'high' anglican service than in other protestant communion services which viewed communion as a 'symbolic act' in memory of Jesus and the Last Supper. That is not to diminish in any way the intentions of the good people within those protestant churches concerning their communion services! I certainly never experienced any protestant communuion services such as have been described at Phatmass using crackers and fizzy drinks etc. All the communion services I have ever attended in a number of different denominations have always been respectful and mindful of what it symbolises - though I accept of course that this may be a cultural thing....we are traditionally more reserved in the UK!

From my (rather old! ) book of devotion and duty for members of the anglican church:

'Holy Communion is the Sacrament in which according to Christ's command, we make continual remembrance of His sacrifice, death and resurrection until His coming again, and in which we thankfully receive the benefits He gives us. It is therefore, called the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and also the Lord's Supper, the meal of fellowship which unites us to Christ and to the whole church.

The Eucharist or Holy Communion is the way in which we commemorate before God Christ's redeeming, sacrificial death, and also the means whereby we partake of His divine nature for the strengthening and renewing of our spiritual powers. It is at once a memorial and effective offering which we make as we plead for forgiveness before the throne of grace, and a family meal whereby we express our fellowship (communion) with each other in Christ.'

[phatcatholic]

ellenita,

thanks for the reply

i am aware of bro adam's post. unfortunately, it doesn't help when attempting to categorize anglicans. its as if they believe in the real presence (as catholics do)..........but not quite. for some reason, this guy refused to use the word "transubstantiation" but he also rejected the idea that it was only a spiritual presence.

who knows.....it probably just requires more research on my part.

thanks for ur help,

phatcatholic

ps: what was it that helped u decide to leave anglicanism for catholicism? (if u don't mind me asking )

[Ellenita]

Phatcatholic, it is confusing!

I was always taught that there was Presence but not 'transubstantiation'.

I suspect the confusion is founded in the origins of the anglican church which is somewhat unique compared to other protestant denominations in that it didn't split from the catholic church through conviction that the catholic church was 'wrong' in her doctrine! I am not convinced that the high anglican branch has ever truely reconciled itself to this either, hence the reason why people within this branch of the anglican church often call themselves 'anglo catholic' and much of the mass is similar.

I think the persecution of catholics under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I must have been very great in England, though it's not recorded as such in our history. (Some of this would have undoubtedly been for political reasons - the expansion of the empire and catholic countries such as Spain and France being seen as very real threats to this for example). It's highly likely that churches/religious orders/families were forced to become anglican, and then this was reinforced during the civil war when churches and religious symbols were torn down - it is rare to see statues of saints in anglican churches for example.

My decision to leave the anglican church had nothing to do with the recent controversies over the ordination of women or the gay bishop, though I understand this is the reason why many people are leaving. In my case it began with concern that Charles, if he becomes King, who will be the head of the anglican church (though not in the same role as the Pope), wants to be known as 'defender of the faiths', not 'defender of the faith' at his coronation, and I did not want to be in a church where the head could not take a clear stand on Christianity - Charles is reportedly very interested in Islam and I suspect had he been free to do so may well have explored this religion on a more personal level. Of course, as an anglican I had been taught that defender of the faith meant Christianity and the anglican church, though I now know that actually no British monarch has the right to continue to use that title as it was originally conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope as a result of Henry's stand against Luther.....Henry decided to retain the title after he 'fell out' with the Pope and it remains at the coronation of all British monarchs to the present day.

Then I started to understand about apostolic succession......then who wrote the books of the bible.......

Transubstantiation is quite a jump in understanding for protestants who convert isn't it? I'm still wrestling with it alittle, though undoubtedly feel the Presence of God in a very real way at Mass and have an acute awareness of my own sin in a way that I have not experienced before.

[phatcatholic]

Ellenita,

ur testimony was very helpful. thank you! please pray for my ex-girlfriend, who is seriously considering becoming a member of the anglican church herself.

i pray every day that Our Lord will draw her to His Church, as He has done w/ you.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Ellenita]

Phatcatholic,

Karl Keating has written a good explanation:

'Consubstantiation is the belief, held by some protestants, particularly Lutherans and Anglicans, that in the Eucharist, after the consecration, the substances of both the body and the blood of Christ and of bread and wine remain. the body and blood are "with the substance" of the bread and wine, sitting right next to them so to speak.......Consubstantiation means the Eucharist consists of the body and blood of Christ, plus the bread and wine........While consubstantiation affirms a real presence of Jesus, only transubstantiation does justice to the biblical teaching regarding Christ's presence as well as the tradition and practice of the early Church regarding the Eucharist. This teaching comes from the Bible (Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20, Jn 6:32-71, I Cor 10:16-17, I Cor 11:23-29) and from early Christian writers. Cyril of Jerusalem, in writing his Catechetical Discourses around AD 350, said that communicants should be "fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so". He could not affirm this belief if any bread or wine remained after the consecration.'

I will of course pray for your ex girlfriend. You should ask her to check out the origins of the anglican church. There is no escaping the fact that it was founded on the basis of sin. Henry did not break with the catholic church because of religious conviction, it was because he wanted to legitimise his adultery, and Elizabeth I had to formalise the break otherwise technically her right to the throne could be declared null and void - illegitimate children are not allowed to succeed to the throne.

Although not having the same role as the Pope within the church hierarchy, Charles when he becomes king will be known as 'head of the church' and will influence the direction it takes through his appointment of the Archbishop of Canturbury. Charles of course has openly admitted adultery with a married woman while he was married to Diana. Although now both divorced, they are currently living together, not married. This clearly poses a dilemma for the anglican church which it has to resolve if it's not to unravel even further!

In it's desire to please everyone, the synod takes no firm stand on anything....

Why would your ex girlfriend want a poor reflection when she could have the rich beauty of the real thing?!

[cmotherofpirl]

Where did you find the quote from Karl Keating?

[Ellenita]

Oooops! Sorry. Should have put the reference!

It's from 'What Catholics Really Believe: 52 Answers to Common Misconceptions about the Catholic Faith'

It's quite a good little book - short snappy references to the most commonly asked questions and a lot lighter than 'Catholicism for Dummies' to carry around!

Of course I'm assuming he is orthodox and I don't really know since I've never read any of his stuff before, though I'm sure someone at PM will put me right if not! He certainly represents the difference between anglican and catholic understanding of the Eucharist well.

[phatcatholic]

but, the thing is, i straight up asked this anglican speaker if he believed in consubstantiation, and he said no.

so, who knows.

maybe they are just as confused as i am!