"... which gave us the Bible"... which we dare not use when discussing religion with Catholics!

Your comparison is invalid as your definition of Protestant is so wide that a Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Eugene Swedenborg, l. Ron Hubbard, John Shelby Spong 747 can land in it.

A valid comparison would be btwn the basis for unity, that of Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired word of God with its immutable moral laws, which supremacy was the most foundational distinctive of the Reformation, versus the church being the supreme authoritative source as possessing perpetual assured veracity.

Under which one can Scriptural unity be obtained? And under which one do we see the strongest unity in core beliefs, in accordance with that basis for belief?

Once again tell me how souls could know both men and writings were of God before there was a magisterium that presumed assured infallibility. Then stop asking questions that betray arrogance and ignorance of Scripture.

Cute......you're playing one of the Classic Protestant "gotcha" games, which quite frankly makes no sense

Actually is makes perfect sense. RCs are simply presuming what not Scriptural, and which premise essentially nukes the NT church.

That there was no declared "magisterium" in the first three centuries and you are part of some secret Baptist sect That there was no declared "magisterium" in the first three centuries and you are part of some secret Baptist sect

No, your conclusion does not follow the premise. The church began in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture, but the one true church is that which is made of all and only believers, past and present, and even can include some simple RCs. But its visible manifestation has never been 100% true believers and 100% correct for long, and comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized.

Yet even the church of the Laodiceans was called a church, even if Rome refuses to call the most conservative Prot churches by that name.

Paul teaches that schismatics will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

That's Scripture.

Since the magisterium started at Pentecost, why is this a problem?

Because that magisterium began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And how can you exclude those people from your definition? They claimed the Bible as well as you, unless you have some kind of authority to rule them out.

Actually, none of them held Scripture to be the supreme authority as the wholly inspired word of God, but even those who used Scripture effective presented another source and or themselves as the supreme authority, and or denied it as the wholly inspired word of God. Thus evangelical Christianity has historically treated them as cults.

We can go thru them one by one if you want.

"none of them held Scripture to be the supreme authority as the wholly inspired word of God"

So what? You're not Pope, you don't get to declare that a required doctrine.

Neither were the Bereans who examined the apostles Truth claims in the light of Scripture being supreme, and whom the Holy Spirit called "noble." And who does not teach Rome has that supreme authority anywhere.

"proper interpretation is the sole responsibility of the Catholic Church" You are required to believe that, to call yourself a Catholic; I am not.

Christ preached unity, not division among tens of thousands of completely different Protestant interpretations of his word.
Show me in scripture where Christ refers to churches divided against each other, warring with each other instead of converting the nations. We can show you plenty of verses in which he preaches complete unity, not some crazy idea of unity with tens of thousands of Protestant sects warring with each other, but unity in ONE Church.

Indeed, he did not teach them a form of endo-cannibaalism, that consuming the flesh of a loved one would impart spiritual properties. Nowhere in Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally eating anything physical, and the figurative view of Jn. 6 is the only one that is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture. As can be shown.

Nor was the NT church one that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54).

In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.the

Or obviously your just one more. Protestant claiming infallible authority over scripture. Get in line..

Let me deal with this first, as you are just one more RC parroting the refuted polemic that
disagreeing with "infallible" Rome means that one is claiming
infallible authority over scripture himself, which is absurd.

My disagreeing with Rome or making any argument is not
claiming a personal charism of infallibility as per Rome, as unlike her
any claim to veracity by me is dependent upon the weight of evidence.

As this cannot be the case with Rome in infallibility - lest she actually have to prove her case, or even presume arguments supporting her infallible decrees were themselves assuredly infallible - instead the veracity of her claims, even in infallibly declaring that she is infallible, rests upon the premise of assured veracity.

Your posts are extremely disjointed and confusing, PbJ.

Without details then that is confusing

Explain to me how John 6 is "figurative."

First, while space is limited here, if Jn. 6:53 - which like other "verily verily" statements as Jn. 3:3, is an absolute imperative - is literal, then it would be absolutely necessary for any soul in need of salvation to physically consume the body of Christ, but which is nowhere taught.

Instead, as in John, believing the gospel of Christ, as the Son sent by the Father who died and rose for our salvation, is how souls obtained life. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

Second, the Lord taught that "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) And the way the Son lived by the Father was not by consuming His flesh, but by living "by every word" of His mouth,(Mt. 4:4) quoting Scripture to combat the devil, and thus doing the Father's will by His "meat. "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

Third, Jn. 6 is consistent with the other teachings in John in which the Lord refers to something physical but which corresponds to something spiritual, as John characteristically contrasts the two realms.

Thus the Jews imagined that He was referring to the stone temple being destroyed in Jn. 2, and which misunderstanding he left them in.

And in Jn. 3 Nicodemus presumed the Lord was referring to physical birth, and the explanation of "born of the Spirit" did not define what it meant."

Likewise in Jn. 4, water represents eternal life, and the women presumes it is physical, with only a loose connection being made btwn that and believing. As with other examples, it is only in the light of more Scripture that we really see this.

Jn. 6 is more extensive allegory which follows that same pattern. The contest is that of believing on Christ, (Jn. 6:29) but as the souls the Lord had fed now want more of the same, they bring up Moses who fed them with physical bread. The Lord thus refers to eating Him and those who want the physical presume that Lord is speaking physically, that somehow the Lord is going to give them His flesh to eat.

But after reinforcing the analogy, then the Lord both likens this consumption to how He lived by the Father, (v. 57) and then tells them He will not longer be with them, eliminating the idea they had of giving therm bread, and asserts that the flesh (which is John refers to the fleshly realm) profits nothing; the word I speak unto you are spirit and life. (v. 63)

And as with other such teachings, the meaning here is made manifest in the light of more Scripture, and in which spiritual life in only obtained by believing the gospel, and living by Christ is by living out His word. Yet the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in 1Cor. (except for "feat of charity" in Jude, while breaking bread is ambiguous). And in which as said, it is the body of Christ as the church that they were failing to recognize.

Furthermore, the figurative use of eating and drinking in John 6 is entirely consistent with the OT and John, and to be consistent RCs should allow for some of these examples to be understood as literal.

Such as when David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

And when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And or when John is commanded, “Take the scroll ...
Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

In addition is the abundant use of figurative language by John for Christ and spiritual things.

In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of
literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by
mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Finally, there simply are no NT pastors titled "priests" in the NT,. as they do not engage in a distinctive sacrificial function, or are ever even seen dispensing bread as part of their ordained function. Calling NT pastors (presbuteros) priests (hiereus) is not Scriptural, and the attempted justification of it required the use of an etymological fallacy

Scriptural

2,000 years of following a shared Apostolic Tradition (Catholic Christians as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians) while under numerous Persecutions & trials (both from forces inside & outside the Church bent on Her destruction) VERSUS a Modern American Protestant claiming to know everything while holding a laptop on one hand & a Big Mac Burger on the other hand. C'mon, let's choose the latter.
PBJ, please "enlighten" us with your Protestant logic why Catholics & Eastern Orthodox have had it wrong all along & you've got it all the answers. Catholics & Eastern Orthodox, do not despair: an anonymous modern American Internet commenter (named "Peace by Jesus") is here to save us from our ignorance.

I don't mean to offend, but arrogant Protestants got me tired.

You argument is that of the fundamental fallacy that tradition and position trumps all, which is contrary to how the church began, following itinerant preachers whom those who even sat in the magisterial seat of Moses rejected.

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)

And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. (Job 32:6-9)

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:27-28)

The Holy Church was founded by our Lord Christ Jesus (who was a Jew who religiously worshiped in the Temple, His Father's House, & who was also the promised & rejected Jewish Messiah) Himself, not itinerant Methodist/Pentecostal American country preachers (however lovely the picture would be). He called forth certain men as Apostles in order to fulfill the Resurrection work of the Holy Spirit started on this earth. These men (the Apostles) who were authorized by Christ built up the early Church by going around & exercising the Sacrament of Baptism. They went around performing Eucharistic services as well as preaching. Forgiving sins in the name of Jesus our Saviour. Healing people. Anointing people. Sealing people with the gift of the Holy Spirit. And YES, these first Apostles knew they were going to die eventually, so they passed on their Apostolic Divine tradition on to their Successors by laying of the hands. The Holy Sacraments (not just preaching) were everywhere on the scene. To Catholics, the Sacraments & preaching are in perfect union. For many Protestants (with their schizophrenic mind attitudes), the two are seen as exclusive & contradictory. But this has been the sacred Christ-commissioned work of the Catholic Church for over 2,000 years way before Protestantism came along to spread heresy. Mr. peace, I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this? Open your mind & heart, let go of your man-made stubborness.

And among other things, some CFs made marital relations an unclean thing, with Jerome even resorting to contriving Scripture to support this heresy.

And while you invoke them for this, sometimes such can disagree with Rome, even on the canon.

Why would a "spiritual" discussion on eating His flesh cause such an aversion to Christ that they'd abandon Him?

That is quite simply, they had come seeking physical food, and they were told that the Lord would "ascend up where he was before," which would eliminate that possibility, and that "it is the spirit that
quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

As they were obviously looking for the flesh to profit them, to feed them, thus they had no more use for Christ, and had no heart to comprehend that, as elsewhere in John, it was believing on Christ as the Messiah that one obtained life by the Spirit.

It remains the nowhere is spiritual life obtained anywhere in Scripture by literally consuming anything physical, let alone human flesh. In the light of that reality alone the literal interpretation is disallowed, absent of special pleading.

And does not Paul in 1 Corinthians tells us we are bringing judgement upon ourselves, by not discerning the Body of The Lord

Because as explained, "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death,
rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even
waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while
others were hungry. As shown and explained more here.

For Paul stated they were actually not eating the Lord's supper due to treating others are if they were not bought by the
sinless shed blood of Christ, by going ahead to eat independently of others as it were a restaurant, and even apparently filling their
face (drunken) while others were hungry.

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

Thus the solution to prevent their condemnation for acting
contrary to the sacrificial love Christ showed in His death, and
which they were supposed to be showing.

"Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry
one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

Or how about the Church Fathers, several of them actually taught by the apostles (Ignatius of Antioch, for example?) Are they wrong on the Eucharist, also? I'm guessing PBJ, you weren't taught about Christ directly from the apostles, were you??:

Catholic CFs can indeed be wrong, as Rome herself affirms when sometimes disagreeing with them, nor TMK were any of them Christ taught directly from the apostles, save for Polycrap according to Tradition, but who does not describe the Eucharist, though RCs attempt to read a likeness of it into his prayer for martyrdom.

I believed in the "Real Presence" as RC, even after i become manifestly born again with its profound changes in heart life while remaining a faithful Catholic in practice for about 6 years . But that did not change me of the others like coming to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trust Him to save you on His expense and credit, and so living for Him. Bless God.

One can believe quite few errors and still be a Christian, but according to the literal view of Jn. 6, it is impossible to be saved and deny the "Real Presence," though it is not.

Recorded just for you:

http://www.catholic.com/aud...

There are good videos on YouTube as well. (Search Scott Hahn and Consuming the Word).

Combined with The Lamb's Supper, Hahn admits his "discovery" about the truth of the Eucharist was merely his own uncovering of what the Church had always known and taught. Christianity cannot at the same time be what the Catholic Church claims it to be and what the PBJ Protestants assert it to be. Fundamentally, the two claims are so far removed that they cannot be reconciled -- they are principally different religions. Converts like Newman, Chesterton, Waugh and Hahn understood that there is no philosophical or theological middle ground to be found between the two. Ultimately it comes down to a person making the choice between the Catholic Creed and Godlessness. Bl. J.H. Newman said the following in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

"I came to the conclusion that there was no medium or true philosophy between atheism and Catholicism, and that a perfectly consistent mind, under those circumstances in which it finds itself here below, must embrace either one or the other."

It's the oldest story in the universe: once that blatant and prideful rejection of legitimate doctrinal and moral authority is made, the theological conclusion must be (for the "perfectly consistent mind" at least), the rejection of God entirely. We are told about it with the first fallen angel, again in Eden, all along the Via Dolorosa, and we see it again at the Reformation. Protestantism is quite a perilous choice for a perfectly consistent person to make -- it can only end in one of two ways.

http://www.patheos.com/blog...

Judas betrayed Christ in large part because he wanted to benefit from Christ's earthly power and was scandalized when Christ lost many followers because the followers were themselves scandalized because they believed Christ was teaching them to cannibalize him. They didn't realize that it wasn't like eating earthly flesh and blood, where the flesh and blood become a part of the one eating, but that, with God, the flesh and blood transform the human and bring the human into communion with God.

PBJ, What was done with the temple sacrifices? Some were eaten. What was done with the Passover sacrifice, the lamb? It was consumed by the people. Was there no spiritual significance to those meals?
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which name means ' 'house of bread' He is The Lamb of God, the new Passover sacrifice and was born in a manger, which is a feeding trough. There is so much more, but I am tired. Goodnight PBJ and may God bless you with The fullness of Truth!

Actually, it is Catholics who are in their company, as they left as they came seeking the physical food.

Mr. peace, quit blaspheming the Holy Eucharist by calling it mere earthly food. Look up "hypostatic union" (as well as its Greek root) and educate yourself. In the Eucharist, we don't find mere earthly food. By FAITH (which Protestants like you seem to lack) in the words of our Lord Christ Jesus (who is BOTH Fully Man AND Fully God), and through the work of the Holy Spirit, we Catholics are joined into both Christ's Divinity & His humanity when we partake of the Eucharist. Look up "Transubstantiation". Our worldly eyes see bread & wine, but at the Last Supper as well after the Resurrection (when disciples recognized Him in the "breaking of the bread"), those who see with the eyes of FAITH truly see our Lord's awesome Divinity & Fullness of Humanity (unlike our corrupted sinful humanity) in the Eucharist. They see a Savior who loves them so much that He makes Himself a gift for others to receive. We Catholics don't deserve this Blessed Sacrament, but by God's mysterious undeserved grace, we partake of the Eucharist.
I'll make it simple for you: You start off with Bread & wine. Our Heavenly Father who created us & LOVES us so much wants to reconcile us sinners to Himself but with our unworthy. In comes Christ Jesus our Saviour (who is One with the Father). The Incarnation ("eternal Word of God made FLESH", St. John's Gospel, you know? You probably oppose the Incarnation as well). By the work of the Holy Spirit (whom is sent forth from the Father), He turns the purely bread & wine into the awesomely mysterious Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of Christ Jesus (who is both fully God & fully Man, perfect in all his nature). We miserable, lowly mere humans partake of Him in the Eucharist & are forever joined with God through Christ Jesus ("who is the eternal Logos of GOD made FLESH", St. John's Gospel, remember that). Is that so hard for you? It's a Holy Mystery, but even a child can grasp it without all your fuss.

If you want responses, try forming an argument, and use paragraphs.

Sure, let's go ahead & ignore substance and truth in favor of paragraph preferences. Or maybe you don't have any arguments left against orthodox Catholic Christianity.
But seriously, Mr. peace, as a Platonic-like/Puritanical Protestant anti-Catholic, what do you make of St. John's Gospel where in the beginning it starts off with Christ Jesus being the "the eternal Word of God made FLESH"? If you're so opposed to the Eucharist, what do you make of the ancient mystery/doctrine of the Incarnation? What is it about Jesus being God made human FLESH that bothers you so much?
Plato (whom Catholics admire) had an excuse of sounding somewhat Anti-Creation since he lived as an admirable Greek philosopher centuries long before Christ's Incarnation & Resurrection & was also most likely ignorant of contemporary Hebrew/Jewish tradition & scripture (which had the rich Creational Monotheism). He did not have the Revelation of Christ (love), therefore, Plato only had reason to work with. He ended up despising the physical creation & only viewed the soul as real. Plato viewed souls as wanting to escape the prison of bodies (which is utterly against Jewish/Christian notions of Resurrection or God the good Creator in Genesis 1:31 "that is good" or Sacraments). He did not know LOVE (Jesus), so understandably, Plato did the best of understanding the universe with what he had. But you live in the time of Christian revelation, where you should know about Jesus/Love (God made Flesh), & yet you despise the Eucharist, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, & God's physical creation. What is your beef? Are you some angry "ex-Catholic" or something? The only thing you should despise is Sin.

Like Gnostic heretics & Prot. Puritans, you want to insist on worshipping your mental abstractions & attacking Christian Sacraments (like the Eucharist) rather than embracing Catholicism, where the fullness of Christian faith lays.

On the off chance that one focuses on the predominant press as well as utilizations web-based social networking, they may have caught wind of various big names who have shared their perspectives on the transient emergency. evanewz

http://www.ncregister.com/b...

Lastly, you might enjoy reading this recent article written by an Ex-Protestant (Mark Shea) to help Anti-Catholic Protestants see why their attacks on the Holy Sacraments (especially Baptism & the Eucharist) is not only wrong but severely ignorant of Christ.

Protestants, like Judas Iscariot, deny the Lord's commandment to TRULY eat of his Body and drink of his Blood.

Protestants did not exist until Luther. Additionally, strictly speaking, one can not be a protestant if you are not Lutheran.

I see you are a TradRC, who denies properly baptized Prots can be saved, but which is actually consistent with the literal view of Jn. 6:53, even if modern Rome is not.

Which is a very poor argument, as the same can be said for the Lord's statement that sounded like He referred to the physical temple of stone being destroyed, which was used against Him in His trial.

Nor was "living water" given any clear explanation other than inferring it was believing on the Lord, nor what born of the Spirit meant, other than inferring it was believing on the Lord, but which is also the case in Jn. 6.

And as with the other cases, it is in the light of more Scripture that this meaning is made clear, and in which, as said,nowhere is spiritual life obtained anywhere in Scripture by literally consuming anything physical, let alone human flesh.

Case dismissed.

You Roman rant has just nullified any credibility you may have hoped to convey with your screen name.

Sounds a little like the variety of varying churches in Rv. 2+3, none of which were reminded about Peter and submitting to him as supreme, nor in any church epistles.

Go find how souls discerned John the Baptist and others as being of God without the magisterium approving them, and being a remnant of believers among the multitudes.

If referring to the blurb that lacks paragraphs, as i recall it was hardly worth reading, and was mere argument by assertion, with with 14 other responses waiting for me, why bother with such as yours? Deal with what i have said and i will try to get back to you.