Dear Christians: Do Stop Believin’

I may be a Reformed Protestant, but I still care a great deal about the new pope. He is, after all, only the world’s most prominent advocate for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Christians everywhere should be grateful that the new pope is by all credible accounts a humble, devout man with a heart for the “least of these.” In fact, for millions of our more secular citizens, the Catholic Church is essentially a stand-in for all (orthodox) Christendom, and critiques of Catholics are often critiques of all Christianity.

I was reminded of this fact when I read Frances Kissling’s recent piece in The Nation – highlighted again today in response to the selection of the new pope. Kissling, some may recall, is the past president of a group called “Catholics for Choice.” Kissling contends that the new pope (no matter who he is) will change nothing, and nothing will ever change until, well, Catholics stop being Christian. Feast your eyes on this critique:

As long as Catholics are expected to accept rigid, sexist and blatantly illogical doctrine, there can be no real change in the church. From the Vatican down to the local parish priest, the early narratives—stories, really—that sought to explain who we are, why we are here, and the meaning of life are still taught, despite the fact that they are even less credible explanations of who we are than they ever were.

And which narratives does Kissling dislike?

The insistence that Jesus Christ was born of virgin is among the most destructive. It suggests that women—married or single—are forever tainted by sexual activity. It reflects the early Christian distaste for all sexuality. It clings to the notion that there would have been something unseemly about God coming into the world through a birth canal through which semen had passed. Holding to the virgin birth is not a benign teaching. It undermines the idea that pleasure is sacred, that sexual intercourse is normal and healthy. It certainly does nothing to undermine the idiots who think that the woman’s body will reject the sperm of a rapist.

Silly me. I thought one of the main points of the virgin birth was that Jesus was God’s son, not Joseph’s. But Kissling is just getting warmed up:

The virgin birth is only the start of it. Heaven and hell, the turning of bread and wine into the body of Christ (a core teaching that polls tell us most Catholics reject), the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven (how could her body have gone to heaven when we are now clear it is not a real physical place?), the infallibility of the pope telling these untruths and insisting that Catholics must believe them to be Catholic—this all leads directly to corrupt popes and priests who lack compassion. Lying or just fudging it demoralizes those who teach in the name of the church.

Now that is a comprehensive critique. To be clear, as a Presbyterian, I don’t believe that communion bread and wine turn into the literal body and blood of Christ, but I didn’t arrive at that belief through poll-testing (what a curious method for discerning theological truth). I am, however, very eager to hear how “we are now clear” that heaven is not a real physical place.

While not all progressive Christians scorn actual faith so openly, the column is a prime example as to why it’s so very difficult to take progressive spiritualists seriously. It’s as if the label “Catholic” or “Christian” or “Evangelical” is adopted by the progressive not as a statement of actual belief but instead as an identity marker granting standing to mock and destroy.

I know a few self-described progressive Christians who believe every word of the Bible was inspired by God, but far more common are the progressives who believe that the church would be a great force for good — if only it shed its actual religious faith. Funny how they rarely make similar arguments to Muslims.

Right on the money. Here is Boniface VIII... "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctum 1302AD

I'm assuming you are Catholic, and we can have a civil conversation. That comment/opinion is not in the Catechism. That quote is NOT official church doctrine. One of the many gifts of our faith is that we have church doctrine, along with universal consistent masses said every day, in almost every language, in almost every country around the world. That makes it difficult for humans to distort Jesus message of love. Real Catholics understand our faith, and will know that we don't pretend to play God and know who is saved or not (that is original sin.) It is certainly not up to the Pope, although he does have the authority to forgive. What is mentioned is that if people sin, and knowingly continue to go against church/bible teachings, they will not be saved even if they are within the church. Obviously they are unrepentant sinners.

"I'm assuming you are Catholic, and we can have a civil conversation."

No, mgist, I am absolutely not anything close to a "Catholic". If you have not been following these threads, I have been denouncing the errors found in the RCC for some time. But, yes, we certainly can have a civil conversation.

The quote I posted is from one of Rome's "popes". Whether something is in a catechism or it is something taught on a daily basis to the world, makes little difference. Boniface has become quite the contributor to RCC law. Popes tend to do that even from 1302AD.

When Rome denounces its own arrogant posturing and self-aggrandizing, the believing world stands ready to accept it back into fellowship. Until then, the indulgences, the sacerdotalism, the mariolatry, the sacraments, the purgatory, the celibacy, the candles, the genuflecting, and even the Prada-like shoes express a thousand errors that are screaming "LOOK AT US" way too loud.

It should be obvious that, even at the Last Supper, that Jesus was speaking symbolically as he held up the bread, broke it and handed it out as well as the shared cup of wine. The bread and wine did NOT change physically, but remained the same as they started.

Information on Eucharistic Miracles:

Exceptions don't prove the rule. Any number of explanations can be given for what supposedly happened in those few incidences, but it should always be happening if it were really true that, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, they truly change into the real human flesh and blood of Jesus. If one were being honest, she/he would admit that they don't change in any observable way and that it MUST mean a spiritual representation. Even when Jesus first initiated the observance, he spoke symbolically and he was understood that way.

It was only centuries later that those who thought some sort of miracle MUST be going on in order for the "sacrament" to be a measure of grace decided to develop the doctrine of transubstantiation. It wasn't until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, that the Catholic Church formally adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation as its official teaching. This was confirmed by the Council of Trent (1545), which also asserted that the Lord’s Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.

If you would like more information about the development of the doctrines and the writings of early church theologians concerning it, please see The Eucharist.

Very good, then you agree that all of Dutchboy88’s posts are accurate?

NO, they are completely inaccurate.

Last supper Jesus said "This IS my body."

Unless you are Bill Clinton we all know what the meaning of "is" is.

Any first year Greek student will tell you that Jesus is speaking in the First person singular nominative case. He is not using the word "is in the possessive sense such as: "This is my car." He is not talking about an object that is owned but about His actual self.

The better translation into English would have been "This is the body which is Me."

Feel free to have the last word since I have a job I need to get ready for. The reason I rarely waste time with these discussions is that when I was a protestant I was not willing to listen to the truth until the Holy Spirit moved me. I have learned that most Prots have the exact same mind set. That is not a personal attack it is a simple statement of fact.

Any number of explanations can be given for what supposedly happened in those few incidences, but it should always be happening if it were really true that, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, they truly change into the real human flesh and blood of Jesus.
If people remain ignorant to His miracles ("Who painted that?" said Hillary Clinton in regard to Juan Diego's tilma), what more can He possibly do? Today at Mass (at our "country" parish, located in an area where the deer and the antelope play, or at least the deer do) there were over 50 in attendance, from a child as young as three with her mother, to a home-schooled family that took up the pew, a UIllinois college student home on spring break, many middle-aged peeps, both male and female, and oldsters too (some with canes or crutches).

The crowd, while predominantly white, was Black, Latino, and Asian as well. And this similar scene happens daily worldwide in every parish that offers daily Mass (our in-town parish brings in a couple hundred daily).

Why do you think they would make this effort to attend "every day"? For a symbol only?

Any first year Greek student will tell you that...

LOL, I'm not interested in what a n00b student can tell me.

God gave the job of understanding scripture to the Holy Spirit and that's good enough for me.

The better translation into English would have been "This is the body which is Me."

Yea maybe when in your first year of Greek School. But the Bible is quite clear, and it would NOT be as you say.

"Feel free to have the last word...[I don't play the "last word" game"]
"The reason I rarely waste time with these discussions is that when I was a protestant I was not willing to listen to the truth... [That's called hard heartedness in the Bible. Maybe that is why you seem to believe that all Protestants are the same as you were. Not so much.] until the Holy Spirit moved me. [That's the ticket and the key to understanding Truth and the scriptures.] I have learned that most Prots have the exact same mind set. [Probably not most, but if you have to believe that to support your beliefs, that is fine with me.]That is not a personal attack it is a simple statement of fact. [Well not really, but if you must believe it that is fine with me]

Oh BTW, being as you answered my question, I will answer yours.

I believe you stated that I claim to be a Christian, and if I am not Catholic "exactly" what am I?

Well to understand that my claim to be a Christian means that I am born again (from above) and am saved by Jesus and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Everyone that is a part of His church here on earth must fit that criteria. Both Jesus and Peter agree on that, it's in the Bible.

Now back to communion, which is very simple.

Jesus took the bread and broke it and said this is my body, it is broken just for you. (or something like that)

This is My body, take and eat.

Now if it was literally His body, why would he use bread?

If they were ACTUALLY to eat His body, I would imagine he would hold out his arm for them to take a bite.

Heck, he was right there!

It's a spiritual thing, Jesus is the Bread of Life and to partake of that bread we are to be one with Him...He in us and us in Him.

Take up your cross daily and follow Him.

When we take communion, the person serving it says "this the body of Christ, take and eat. This is the blood of Christ, take and drink." And it is and we do.

And we do so in "remembrance" of Him. Exactly as He asked us to-- Luke 22:19

From your link:

March 14, 2013, Thursday — To Mary
Today Pope Francis, on the first day after his election, did four remarkable things, and did not do a fifth.
1. Mary. At about 8 a.m., he slipped out of the Vatican in a single, unmarked black car — a Volkswagen, not a Mercedes — without an escort, and drove across Rome to the Basilica of St. Mary Major (painting, below), the largest (and most beautiful) basilica in the world dedicated to Mary, the Mother of God.

There, he prayed in front of an ancient icon, called the Salus Populi Romani, or the Protectress of the Roman People, held by tradition to have been painted by St. Luke himself. He also brought flowers and laid them beneath the icon on honor of Mary (photo below).

So, the first act of his pontificate was to pray before the Virgin Mary.

That was the first of 5 things, this is the fifth:

=============
5. Curial posts not reconfirmed. The 5th thing Pope Francis did was something he did not do. He did not reconfirm all of the Curial posts that had been “zeroed out” by the renunciation by Benedict XVI of the papal throne. As Rocco Palmo writes in his “Whispersintheloggia” blog: “As the heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia all lost their posts at the sede vacante, the group of prefects and presidents must be reconfirmed by the new pontiff for the governance of the Church to be resumed. While past Popes have traditionally made the pro forma act within 24 hours of their election, this time it remains conspicuous by its absence. (The officials may subsequently be replaced at any time, as they serve at the pleasure of the pontiff.) Then again, considering the in-house storm that preceded the Conclave, perhaps there’s an explanation for the delay – namely, that Francis’ sudden turn-up at the check-in counter won’t be the biggest of his early surprises….”
Rocco also notes that, on the way back to the Vatican this morning, the Pope called for a detour to the Domus Paulus VI, the clergy lodging across the Tiber that was his pre-Conclave hotel, to collect his things, check out and pay the bill himself (see this incredible photo below):

Pope Francis wanted to “set an example” by personally running the errand and settling the tab with his own money, Vatican spokesmen said at today’s afternoon press briefing.

This is very encouraging.

He is doing things as a regular Joe, taking care of biz.

Hopefully he will truly be like St Francis and care for the poor of the world.

Eliminating some of the superfluous positions at the Vatican should save some money.

And I imagine if they took apart that shrine to Mary (Basilica of St. Mary Major, the largest and most beautiful basilica in the world dedicated to Mary,) they could melt down a lot of precious metals, glean some precious gems, and help the millions of poor Catholics. To start with. And then to others in need.

Go for it, Pope Francis!

[From The Moynihan Letters: Letter #47: To Mary]

LOL, I'm not interested in what a n00b student can tell me. God gave the job of understanding scripture to the Holy Spirit and that's good enough for me. The better translation into English would have been "This is the body which is Me." Yea maybe when in your first year of Greek School. But the Bible is quite clear, and it would NOT be as you say.

You are (or should be) that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Most of it was written in Koine or what is commonly called "attic" Greek.

To get the clearest understanding of what is intended you should whenever possible use primary languages. Second ANY translation no matter how faithful will colored by the biases of the translator, if we use the primary language we are not subject to those biases.

Jesus took the bread and broke it and said this is my body, it is broken just for you. (or something like that)

Thank you for a perfect example proving my point. Words mean things and the Word of God means very specific things not "something like that."

Believing that God said "something like that" Led Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. If God said it I want to know exactly what he said.

Now if it was literally His body, why would he use bread?

I am not claiming to know either the heart or mind of God, but the Bible is filled with examples of God using "material" for His purposes. Right from the start He created the entire universe from nothing, yet when he created man he used the mud from the earth. When He created woman He could have done it from nothing or He could have done it from the ground again, instead chose to use one of Adams ribs.

He had Samson use the jawbone of an ass to slay the Philistines.

In John 9 Jesus used mud to heal the man born blind from birth. He could have just snapped His fingers. He allowed the woman with the hemorrhage to be healed by touching His cloak. Jesus is not adverse to using parts of creation to connect us to Him.

As to why bread specifically. This goes back to Chapter 12 of Exodus, three things are consumed, the lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread.

Later in the desert (Chapter 16)they are given the manna for forty years. In 16:32 he commanded them to keep an omerful and that was placed in the Ark with Aaron's staff and the Tablets.

There something that you need to understand and I don't want you to take my word for this. There is a website called "Ask Moses" which is staffed 24/7 by Rabbi's Ask for one that is an expert on the meaning of the Passover. The Jewish understanding of the Passover is that today 2400 plus years later when they celebrate Passover they are actually participating in the original one. For them the term: "Do this in remembrance..." is not a simple recollection it is an actual participation in the event.

In light of that when Jesus tells the Apostles that "This is My Body" and Do this in remembrance of me" He is giving them very specific instructions. If you combine this with John 6 and His inistanace that He IS the bread from heaven and must be consumed to have eternal life that leads to only one conclusion. It really is His Body and Precious Blood.

I might also suggest that you take the time to read "The Fourth Cup" and "The Lambs Supper" by Scott Hahn. I also Strongly Recommend "Not by Bread Alone" by Robert Sungenis. Both of them do a much better job of explaining than I do and are able to go into much more depth and detail.

I apologize for the length of this post, but it is something i don't treat lightly.

Jesus took the bread and broke it and said this is my body, it is broken just for you. (or something like that)
Thank you for a perfect example proving my point. Words mean things and the Word of God means very specific things not "something like that."

Nit picking at it's finest verga.

Jesus did take the bread and broke it. He did say This is my body. He did say to eat it. It was broken just for us.

Because of the apparent OCD in your previous post, "something like that" was used because I did not post in the original Greek, but gave a quite accurate English translation verbatim style.

Do you not believe that Jesus said those things? I can show you the scriptures if you like.

Now that the picked nits have been put to rest, let's see what else you have to say...

You are (or should be) that the New Testament was originally written in Greek

That makes no sense. Can you repeat that in the original Geek..er..Greek?

Or maybe translate into an understandable English sentence structure thingie.

I am not claiming to know either the heart or mind of God...

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.--1 Corinthians 2:14-16

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God--Philippians 2:5,6

The Bible is full of little gems such as the above to help us, through the helpful ministry of the Holy Spirit, understand God and the scriptures.

You give some vague references to scriptures and then give your opinion of what they mean.

I find it easier to understand scripture by looking at them, but you did not post the ones your referenced, nor provided a link.

I don't have time to study how the Jews observe Passover, however they wish to do it is fine with me.

The rest of your post is what Penny calls jibber jabber.

I would also would like to mention the length of my post; I like to back up my conclusions with scripture, plus impart Biblical truths to people I discuss issues with to help them understand the mind of God.

An afterthought:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.--John 6, 32-35

His followers understood what he meant, and partook of the Bread of life by coming to Him...and he promised them they would never hunger or thirst. They were spiritually fulfilled.

The rest of John 6 is primarily Jesus dealing with the murmuring Jews and their disbelief.

And then on to the disciples who saw this as a "hard teaching." Nevertheless, they "got" it. I will leave you with verse 63 where Jesus said:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for NOTHING. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit [or are Spirit] and life (NIV)

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.