Where is your crucifix hung in your home? And other religious pieces?

[Anonymous]

I have one every room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: Transubstantiation--This is clearly Biblical and any view that the sacrifice is symbolic is not.

The words of Christ are plain: "This is my body." This is my blood." "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you." "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

Christ did not say: "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood."

I always have found it puzzling that Protestants like the PP who consistently prefer a literal reading of the Bible find do not do so for these particular words of Christ.

Christ didn't say, "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood," because it would have been apparent to the disciples at the Last Supper that he wasn't saying the bread and wine were literally his body and blood. They were celebrating Passover. He was telling his disciples that the bread and wine they had always partaken of when they celebrated Passover was a foreshadowing of his coming in the flesh and pouring out his blood on the cross. He was saying that this is why they had always celebrated Passover. It was a confirmation that He was the Messiah who had been foretold long before. Otherwise, he would have had to cut off chunks of his body and drain his blood into a cup for them to drink, which he clearly did not. If it was clearly symbolic then, why wouldn't it be now? And there's another massive problem with this teaching, and that is that Christ was crucified once for the sins of all mankind, and that He rose again BODILY and ascended to Heaven. He remains in Heaven until His Second Coming. He does not come back over and over and over and over again in the form of pieces of His body. He is a forever risen savior bodily and did not remain in the grave. If the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation were true, you would be crucifying Christ every time you partook of it. And that is something the Bible teaches against.

[Anonymous]

^uh....do you really think you are going to change what Catholics believe?

You interpret the bible differently. I don't see Catholics telling you that you are wrong just that they believe differently. Have some respect for other people's beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Transubstantiation--This is clearly Biblical and any view that the sacrifice is symbolic is not.

The words of Christ are plain: "This is my body." This is my blood." "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you." "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

Christ did not say: "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood."

I always have found it puzzling that Protestants like the PP who consistently prefer a literal reading of the Bible find do not do so for these particular words of Christ.

Christ didn't say, "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood," because it would have been apparent to the disciples at the Last Supper that he wasn't saying the bread and wine were literally his body and blood. They were celebrating Passover. He was telling his disciples that the bread and wine they had always partaken of when they celebrated Passover was a foreshadowing of his coming in the flesh and pouring out his blood on the cross. He was saying that this is why they had always celebrated Passover. It was a confirmation that He was the Messiah who had been foretold long before. Otherwise, he would have had to cut off chunks of his body and drain his blood into a cup for them to drink, which he clearly did not. If it was clearly symbolic then, why wouldn't it be now? And there's another massive problem with this teaching, and that is that Christ was crucified once for the sins of all mankind, and that He rose again BODILY and ascended to Heaven. He remains in Heaven until His Second Coming. He does not come back over and over and over and over again in the form of pieces of His body. He is a forever risen savior bodily and did not remain in the grave. If the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation were true, you would be crucifying Christ every time you partook of it. And that is something the Bible teaches against.

All of which is to say this is the one part of the Bible you do not read literally. This is okay with me, but forgive me if I then have a hard time with your insistence on literalness for other passages.

Every mass does an re-enactment so to speak of the Last Supper, not the crucifixion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^uh....do you really think you are going to change what Catholics believe?

You interpret the bible differently. I don't see Catholics telling you that you are wrong just that they believe differently. Have some respect for other people's beliefs.

Nothing will change what Catholics or what people of any other religion believe unless they want to change on their own, which happens a lot in our culture.

Many people of faith are not influenced by fact or logic - that's why it's called faith and that why it works best if people are taught such beliefs as a child -- and why beliefs change or end when people become adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Transubstantiation--This is clearly Biblical and any view that the sacrifice is symbolic is not.

The words of Christ are plain: "This is my body." This is my blood." "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you." "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink."

Christ did not say: "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood."

I always have found it puzzling that Protestants like the PP who consistently prefer a literal reading of the Bible find do not do so for these particular words of Christ.

Christ didn't say, "This symbolizes my body, this represents my blood," because it would have been apparent to the disciples at the Last Supper that he wasn't saying the bread and wine were literally his body and blood. They were celebrating Passover. He was telling his disciples that the bread and wine they had always partaken of when they celebrated Passover was a foreshadowing of his coming in the flesh and pouring out his blood on the cross. He was saying that this is why they had always celebrated Passover. It was a confirmation that He was the Messiah who had been foretold long before. Otherwise, he would have had to cut off chunks of his body and drain his blood into a cup for them to drink, which he clearly did not. If it was clearly symbolic then, why wouldn't it be now? And there's another massive problem with this teaching, and that is that Christ was crucified once for the sins of all mankind, and that He rose again BODILY and ascended to Heaven. He remains in Heaven until His Second Coming. He does not come back over and over and over and over again in the form of pieces of His body. He is a forever risen savior bodily and did not remain in the grave. If the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation were true, you would be crucifying Christ every time you partook of it. And that is something the Bible teaches against.

I don't understand how a discussion about whether statues are "graven images" became a discussion about transubstantiation. And I don't understand how suddenly your argument flipped- where the old testament passage about graven images must be taken literally, you wrote all of the above to argue the OPPOSITE about transubstantiation. Haven't you now defeated your own original point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18.29 - but please explain to me (I'm asking nicely, no snark) why 1) the necessity of the body of Christ on the cross and on necklaces; 2) the statues that do indeed adorn Catholic churches- I do see these as graven images; 3) the Saints - no mention in the bible; 4) the adoration or worship or whatever you want to call it of Mary - also not in the ible so I just don't get it - people says she's "revered not worshipped" - I don't undersand the difference; 5) and how do the saints and Mary intercede? That's not in the bible either. I guess I don't buy Transsubstantiation either so I'm probably a hopeless protestant but am curious.

Not sure what bible you've been reading but everything you say isn't in the bible absolutely is.

Please provide citations then. I know the Bible very well. Catholic theology is filled with things that cannot be substantiated Biblically.

There is an entire post about this a page back.

Only one misused scriptural passage in that.

How was it "misused?" And you didn't respond to the post that reminded you that the church is the one that assembled the bible to begin with.

No, I didn't. That would require a history lesson that I doubt anyone on here is willing to undertake. But much of Catholic doctrine that is taught today was formalized many centuries after the apostles spread the Gospel of Christ through the world. The early church knew nothing of, and wrote nothing of, transubstantiation, the veneration of "saints," the immaculate conception, papal infallibility and much else. In fact, the Catholic Bible in use today has about 12 books that are not in the Protestant Bible. If you read the Book of Acts, there is nothing at all recognizable as what the Roman Catholic church looks like today. The very idea of a canon of Scripture is so that you can recognize what is Biblical Christianity and what is not. If all you have to appeal to is church "tradition" and can't find it in Scripture, then I would ask why it wasn't written down in Scripture, to which Christians look as the authority on the life and teachings of Christ.

My understanding is that the development of the canonical bible was occurring somewhat in parallel with the seven ecumenical councils which made the decisions you appear to hold so in contempt and occurred before the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. I am not Catholic so I would not defend theological decisions made much later. But those are separate issues from the veneration of Mary, saints, and religious iconography. These were all decisions made by the very very early church.

TL; DR: Calling a crucifix or icon or stained glass window or statue or whatever else a "graven image" is just silly nonsense, lady.

"Lady?". Catholic male sexism maybe? How do you know a PP is a woman? Clearly you then must be a Catholic male - it's pretty obvious from above but why do you immediately assume "lady"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Lady?". Catholic male sexism maybe? How do you know a PP is a woman? Clearly you then must be a Catholic male - it's pretty obvious from above but why do you immediately assume "lady"?

I hope you don't gamble, I am neither male nor Catholic! If you had actually read my post other than the word "lady" you would have noticed that!

I address all posters on DCUM (DC Urban MOMS) in the feminine because gender neutral pronouns are annoying.

Do you care to discuss the subject at hand or go on another tangent?

[Anonymous]

There is nothing in the Scriptural canon written after about 90 A.D. So whatever extra-Biblical material the ecumenical councils came up with after that is irrelevant to what is in the books of the Bible. The New Testament was written entirely by men who either lived alongside Christ or who intimately knew those who did. None of those writers included the doctrines that are exclusively Catholic. It's been said on here that you can believe whatever you want, and that's true, but if you want to see what the Bible says about Christianity, you have primary source documents all written before the men who lived alongside Jesus and wrote those books died. I don't know why the Catholic church has added in many of those elements, but they weren't handed down by the church fathers: Paul, Peter, John, and others mentioned in Scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the Scriptural canon written after about 90 A.D. So whatever extra-Biblical material the ecumenical councils came up with after that is irrelevant to what is in the books of the Bible. The New Testament was written entirely by men who either lived alongside Christ or who intimately knew those who did. None of those writers included the doctrines that are exclusively Catholic. It's been said on here that you can believe whatever you want, and that's true, but if you want to see what the Bible says about Christianity, you have primary source documents all written before the men who lived alongside Jesus and wrote those books died. I don't know why the Catholic church has added in many of those elements, but they weren't handed down by the church fathers: Paul, Peter, John, and others mentioned in Scripture.

There has been a lot of discussion on this very forum over whether the bible was written by the men who lived alongside Christ, not sure that is a winning argument.

[Anonymous]

Oh I feel badly OP. My parents had one in our house. I've never had one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Lady?". Catholic male sexism maybe? How do you know a PP is a woman? Clearly you then must be a Catholic male - it's pretty obvious from above but why do you immediately assume "lady"?

I hope you don't gamble, I am neither male nor Catholic! If you had actually read my post other than the word "lady" you would have noticed that!

I address all posters on DCUM (DC Urban MOMS) in the feminine because gender neutral pronouns are annoying.

Do you care to discuss the subject at hand or go on another tangent?

No. to say "silly nonsense, Lady" is just patronizing and rude. Besides I wasn't even part of the conversation. You seem to think there is only one stupid "lady" you are talking to. There are many people here making different points. But I stop reading when the insults come out. And BTW I'm a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Lady?". Catholic male sexism maybe? How do you know a PP is a woman? Clearly you then must be a Catholic male - it's pretty obvious from above but why do you immediately assume "lady"?

I hope you don't gamble, I am neither male nor Catholic! If you had actually read my post other than the word "lady" you would have noticed that!

I address all posters on DCUM (DC Urban MOMS) in the feminine because gender neutral pronouns are annoying.

Do you care to discuss the subject at hand or go on another tangent?

No. to say "silly nonsense, Lady" is just patronizing and rude. Besides I wasn't even part of the conversation. You seem to think there is only one stupid "lady" you are talking to. There are many people here making different points. But I stop reading when the insults come out. And BTW I'm a man.

I did not call anyone stupid. I did not use any insults. Maybe because you are a man, you think "lady" is an insult, but I don't. That seems sort of sexist, don't you think? Calling catholic statues "graven images" IS silly nonsense, and believe me, I'm not trying to be patronizing when I say that. That poster is basically saying Catholics (and by extension any Christian who likes those little religious statues) are "worshipping" idols, Old Testament style. THAT is a very big insult, IMO. If you read the Old Testament with any sense of context, people in those times were worshipping gold cow statues. Statues in churches are not remotely the same as praying to a golden cow statue!! You're just pearl-clutching (and you're a man! yay for gender equality!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Lady?". Catholic male sexism maybe? How do you know a PP is a woman? Clearly you then must be a Catholic male - it's pretty obvious from above but why do you immediately assume "lady"?

I hope you don't gamble, I am neither male nor Catholic! If you had actually read my post other than the word "lady" you would have noticed that!

I address all posters on DCUM (DC Urban MOMS) in the feminine because gender neutral pronouns are annoying.

Do you care to discuss the subject at hand or go on another tangent?

No. to say "silly nonsense, Lady" is just patronizing and rude. Besides I wasn't even part of the conversation. You seem to think there is only one stupid "lady" you are talking to. There are many people here making different points. But I stop reading when the insults come out. And BTW I'm a man.

I did not call anyone stupid. I did not use any insults. Maybe because you are a man, you think "lady" is an insult, but I don't. That seems sort of sexist, don't you think? Calling catholic statues "graven images" IS silly nonsense, and believe me, I'm not trying to be patronizing when I say that. That poster is basically saying Catholics (and by extension any Christian who likes those little religious statues) are "worshipping" idols, Old Testament style. THAT is a very big insult, IMO. If you read the Old Testament with any sense of context, people in those times were worshipping gold cow statues. Statues in churches are not remotely the same as praying to a golden cow statue!! You're just pearl-clutching (and you're a man! yay for gender equality!).

Actually, statues in catholic churches were a big issue during the reformation. They were seen as graven images then, at odds with true christianity, and I've heard modern-day protestants refer to them that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, statues in catholic churches were a big issue during the reformation. They were seen as graven images then, at odds with true christianity, and I've heard modern-day protestants refer to them that way.

Just because "modern-day protestants" refer to something a certain way doesn't make it right. There are plenty of protestants that have a bizarre viewpoint. EVERYTHING was a big issue during the reformation. That was not exactly the golden age of tolerance for Christianity. If you are going to choose to take that one verse literally, be prepared to be challenged on why you are not taking the entire old testament literally.