I have it on good authority one of the lesser known sayings is "I'm Toast."
Posted on 03/24/2006 6:06:40 AM PST by marshmallow
I have it on good authority one of the lesser known sayings is "I'm Toast."
Oh that's just genius!
Our Lord looked just like a man, yet...
Then why do Catholics tend to flock to these so-called eucharist miracles? Why do so many Catholics stand in awe when there is any report of the bread actually turning into human flesh or the wine actually turning into blood?
In this case people came from all over Texas to bow before and worship a chunk of vomit. There's something really sick about that.
You're going to toast in heck for that :>)
No one is asking you to believe Catholic teaching if you do not want to believe it. But at least understand it and portray it accurately.
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_112.htm
... HE WAS A MAN! Or don't you believe in the incarnation?
There was no "transubstantiation" of the Lord's body. He did not simply appear to be flesh, but The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He did not have the accidents and appearances of being a man. He was a man. Our salvation is dependent upon that fact. The gnostics believed that he only had the accidents and appearances of being a man. Are you a gnostic?
Which heretical beliefs? I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior. What other beliefs will cancel that?
Then why do Catholics tend to flock to these so-called eucharist miracles?
I come to these threads to attempt to educate the seemingly willfully ignorant.
If all y'all would just stop saying ignorant things like "well, this disproves transubstantiation" I wouldn't have to be here.
To sum up: I don't care if you reject Catholic teaching. You have a free will. I do care if you reject something you don't understand, because you think you do understand it.
SD
Why did people come from hundreds of miles away to worship a moldy piece of vomit? Educate me.
Duh. That's the point. All appearances were of Him being only a man. But faith leads us to believe He was a man and God.
Let's turn your earlier argument around. You can believe what appears to be a man is God Incarnate. You can believe what appears to be an ancient earth formed through eons of matter expanding from a singularity in space-time with fossils of animals which appear to be millions of years old are in fact the result of 6 literal days of creation.
But you can't believe what looks like bread is in fact flesh?
SD
Because there are some Catholics who are silly people who chase all reported apparitions and miracles. The appropriate Catholic response is to be suspect of all of these types of reports (after all the devil can mimic miracles, as well men just committing frauds for personal gain) until they have been thoroughly investigated, and even then no Catholic is bound under pain of sin to believe them.
Surely you must know a few silly Protestants?
The properly formed Catholic knows that a miracle occurs every time that the Holy Mass is offered. Deo Gratias!
i'm more interested in educating you about what the Church teaches about Transubstantiation. Once you've mastered that, we'll move on.
Now, do you understand that accidents and substance are two different things? And that senses and scientific tests can only test the accidents?
SD
I don't have the time to give a whole catechism class, but you can start here:
The Catechism of Trent or here The Baltimore Catechism if you are serious. Or go find a good tradition Roman Catholic priest, freepmail me if you need help finding one.
ping
(listening in)
Yes of course, but he was also God. That's the point: he looked merely like a man, yet he was both man and God.
I'm glad. =D
I understand it. It is a gnostic teaching. It is, in fact... voodoo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.