[JESOd]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

could rightly say that Doctrine is based on Sacred Tradition, since Scripture is part of that Tradition.

just making it clear to our protestant brothers.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Yeah, sure then why do we have extended debates about "This is my body, this is my blood" That seems pretty cut and dry as well.

.

Yes it is cut and dry, it is symbolic not actually the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus spoke these words while He was still alive, so obviously it wasn't really His body because it had yet to be broken, and obviously it wasn't really His blood, because it had yet to be spilled. The bread symbolized His body and the wine symbolized His blood. But that is for another thread.

Several points I have brought up, you first gave your own understanding of what I quoted and told me I was wrong. Then later, you came back after searching the RCCs answer to the question and said you were wrong, but although I was right, it didn't mean what I said for some obscure reason. YOUR own understanding was in opposition to your own church.

[P3chrmd]

Yes it is cut and dry, it is symbolic not actually the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus spoke these words while He was still alive, so obviously it wasn't really His body because it had yet to be broken, and obviously it wasn't really His blood, because it had yet to be spilled. The bread symbolized His body and the wine symbolized His blood. But that is for another thread.

Jesus said...This IS my Body, This IS my blood shed for you...drink and eat!

Yep...your right...pretty cut and dry...if Jesus said this is my blood..then by golly he ment it! He NEVER NEVER SAYS "This is sybolic for my blood" if he were to have said that...the apostles would not have acted out the way they do in the scriptures!!

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For a often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord."1 Corinthians 11:23-27

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.'"Matthew 26:26-28

"While they were eating, he [Jesus] took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them and said, 'Take it; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.'"Mark 14:22-24

"Then he [Jesus] took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.'"Luke 22:19-20

"'I [Jesus] am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.' The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.'"John 6:51-56

also:

Have you seen The Passion of the Christ yet? Well...during the crucifixion scene they allude back to the last supper to illustrate just how true Jesus is in the Holy Eucharist! Mel Gibson, being a strong Roman Catholic, was trying to point this out! I read one story where a group of protestants went up to their catholic friend after seeing The Passion and simply told them "I know now why you believe in the Real Presence!"

Its awsome! The Eucharist and Mass are everything...they get you through the week...reminding you of that awsome sacrifice Jesus gave for us all!

LET US DRINK THE BLOOD OF JESUS!

[P3chrmd]

Several points I have brought up, you first gave your own understanding of what I quoted and told me I was wrong

Yet, you do the same thing...you go into an argument claiming that your point of view is true! Protestants condemn catholic tradition and the way it interprets the bible..but you have your own too! Protestants interpret the scriptures witht THEIR OWN tradition and what folks have told them to believe!

[P3chrmd]

Back to Psalm 69...Some of my friends pointed this out to me...

I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother's children. (Ps 69:9

Ok lets interpret this passage. There are two senses of scripture the literal and the spiritual/allegorical. (CCC 115) The literal sense, when it talks about mother is David’s mother. Now if the spiritual meaning of this passage is in reference to Mary and if Mary truly had children (for arguments sake) then there is another problem. In the Bible some of Jesus’ “brethren” did follow Jesus. So can the mother be referring to some one or something else which fits the context better?

In a spiritual sense the mother is referring to the old Jerusalem, the Jews under the Old Testament law, that reject Christ. Paul makes the same allegorical connection between mother and Jerusalem in this passage.

Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother. (Gal 4:24-26)

This interpetation fits better because in a way they were the ones that called for Jesus' death.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by disciple_419

The councils that formed that church teaching were composed of men, and therefore were/are fallable. The pope is nothing but a man, and is/was therefore fallable.
...I'm sorry...that's just funny...you just proved my point about missing the point...

Whatever you just said... This is a completely different debate. Buy what the heck, it's not like we've gotten off on different tangents before. The pope is a fallible man just like the rest of us, EXCEPT for when he speaks ex cathedra.

Originally Posted by disciple_419

What you guys do is like me worshipping Moses instead of God.

One small problem with this... No true Catholic worships anyone or anything but God. Nice try.

Originally Posted by disciple_419

God used Moses, but that doesn't mean that Moses was sinless, "assumption"(whatever the heck that is...),

"assumption" Jesus took Mary's body and soul into heaven after she died. Just as he will all the elect once the end of the world comes.

Originally Posted by disciple_419

or that he "gave God graces"(again, whatever the heck that means...).

"graces" Things that all people get if they are righteous. Without grace no one can get to heaven. God's grace is our only way to heaven, sin repels this grace away from us. Mary recieved the most grace of all, enough so that she never sinned.

Originally Posted by disciple_419

God uses His creation to further His purpose. He picked Mary to be the incubator of Himself in the form of a human being, so He could live a sinless life, break down the rules, traditions, councils, and papacies of His day, and pay the penalty for our sins, so that all who may believe would be saved, not by works, lest any man can boast.

Of course, that is all Mary does, further God's purpose. "My soul magnifies the Lord".

Originally Posted by disciple_419

Seriously, I think if Jesus had His ministry today instead of 2000 years ago, the Roman Catholic "church" would have Him crucified because I'm pretty sure He would break down and destroy all it's traditions and extra-Biblical crap like He did the Pharisees' and all their extra crap.

Again, this does nothing to further your argument as it isn't happening. I could say the exact same thing about Protestantism.

Originally Posted by disciple_419

I feel like Martin Luther...*nailing thesis to the door of CGR*

Catholics, get back to your roots, guys!

I'm sorry, I really had to laugh here. Us get back to our roots? Remember you came from bud.

Originally Posted by disciple_419

All you need is the Bible! No councils, no creeds, no popes, no heirarchy; keep it simple! All that isn't necessary! You are saved by grace through faith alone, not church tradition, sacraments, etc.!

That's pretty bold, denying what is found in Scripture and throughout all of the 2000 years past.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by JESOd

and sacred Scripture, too... (of course fleshed out by tradition )

Sure, our highest of the Sacred Tradition, our dogmas, are nothing more than the official correct interpretation of something in Scripture.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It doesn't say that. It says leave; cleave ; BECOME ONE FLESH; have your own wife; do not defraud the other; the husband does not have control of his own body.. his wife does; the wife does not have control of her body... the husband does; if you abstain only do it for a short period of time and come back together; etc.

As to "what if that isn't wanted?" , then you don't marry. Sex is a part of marriage.

Mary and Joseph were married, she was his wife.

Lets look at Joseph in all this:

1. Joseph had planned to marry Mary. I don't think you will disagree with this, after all they were betrothed and you don't get betrothed if you don't plan to marry ( at least not if you are Jewish as this was taken very seriously ).

2. When he found she was with child .... ( I would say that since we are told that he didn't want to make her a public example that it wasn't public knowledge at the time he learned of it and most likely it was Mary who told him),.... Matthew 1:19-20 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had thought on this..... He THOUGHT about it. Why? I think its safe to say he loved her or he would not have become betrothed to her and would not have been concerned with disgracing her. So many things were probably going through his mind such as: could he believe she had been unfaithful to him, if she had.. with whom, what should he now do, etc. I think we can safely assume he didn't know what had happened, or Gabriel would have had no need to come tell him and there wouldn't have been any need for him to be thinking of putting her away if he knew she had not been unfaithful....

3. Gabriel tells Joseph " do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife". Now you have argued that this doesn't mean " wife" in the sense we usually think of it, that they called a woman wife when she was betrothed. Fair enough, however....... why would Gabriel tell Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, if she already was his wife?? Gabriel is telling Joseph something he needed to know.. that Mary had not been unfaithful and for Joseph to not think about whether or not to put her away, but to go ahead and marry her.

4. Joseph did what the angel Gabriel told him to do. Matthew 1 :24 - 25 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. He took her as his wife, this isn't something that had occured in the past, its an action he performed after receiving the message from Gabriel.

5. He kept her a virgin until she brought forth her firstborn son. Now I have read all the posts about this part of the passage, and when there is no reason to think a verse means other than what it simply says, you take it at face value. To say that the word " until" here does not mean.... up to the point where something happens ( she gives birth ) does not follow from the context of the whole passage. Why would this verse even be there if it means something different?? This tells us that Joseph took Mary as his wife, but that he waited to consummate his marriage until she had delivered Jesus. Why would this be important that it was stated in God's word??.. because the Jewish marriage was complete when it was consummated.. so the Jews would have believed that Joseph and Mary had had sexual relations since they had married. This passage makes it clear that Joseph made sure Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus was born.

6. Due to the lack of any scripture indicating that Joseph and Mary's marriage was anything other than that which God had ordained when he first created man and woman, I see no valid reason to think otherwise.

You know what? Fine. This isn't getting anywhere. I totally do not believe that sex is required in marriage, so that is where I am going to have to leave off unless we can come to an agreement on something. The Bible praises celibacy, just as it does sex within marriage. Just a few comments on 1 Corinthians 7. [/QUOTE] "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband . . . I say this by way of concession, not of command." [/QUOTE], this shows that it depends on whether the other wants it or not. This whole chapter shows that sex is allowed, but that abstinence is a good thing as well, it just depends on what a person is called to do, [/QUOTE] "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." [/QUOTE]
But this is what I really wanted to get to, as I was reading this chapter I discovered some great things. Read... [/QUOTE] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.[/QUOTE]
This seems to contradict the idea that marriage is the requirement or obvious following of betrothal. Jewish customs were different than they are now. These verses show that one could be betrothed but never marry. Of course I'm not saying that this is what happened with Mary and Joseph, but it's still something that occurred. This whole chapter seems to say that sex is okay and is no sin, but that it is better to have one's passions under control and to abstain if possible. We may disagree on this, but this is where I stand. That both Mary and Joseph, legally wedded or not(I say they were), had their passions under complete control and never demanded anything of each other.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Yes it is cut and dry, it is symbolic not actually the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus spoke these words while He was still alive, so obviously it wasn't really His body because it had yet to be broken, and obviously it wasn't really His blood, because it had yet to be spilled. The bread symbolized His body and the wine symbolized His blood. But that is for another thread.

Several points I have brought up, you first gave your own understanding of what I quoted and told me I was wrong. Then later, you came back after searching the RCCs answer to the question and said you were wrong, but although I was right, it didn't mean what I said for some obscure reason. YOUR own understanding was in opposition to your own church.

Whatever. I'm sorry, but it's starting to get difficult to talk with you. I may have to stop discussing things with you for awhile, because this is not being of any use. All I did was point out that you protestants like to twist this Scripture to be something other than what it says in plain English, just as we are trying to explain something that you say is in plain English. No diff. Besides I have no idea what you are talking about. There's nothing that I would believe that contradicts important Catholic teaching. Nothing.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

The Bible praises celibacy, just as it does sex within marriage. Just a few comments on 1 Corinthians 7. "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband . . . I say this by way of concession, not of command." , this shows that it depends on whether the other wants it or not. This whole chapter shows that sex is allowed, but that abstinence is a good thing as well, it just depends on what a person is called to do, "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another."
But this is what I really wanted to get to, as I was reading this chapter I discovered some great things. Read... If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.


This seems to contradict the idea that marriage is the requirement or obvious following of betrothal. Jewish customs were different than they are now. These verses show that one could be betrothed but never marry. Of course I'm not saying that this is what happened with Mary and Joseph, but it's still something that occurred. This whole chapter seems to say that sex is okay and is no sin, but that it is better to have one's passions under control and to abstain if possible. We may disagree on this, but this is where I stand. That both Mary and Joseph, legally wedded or not(I say they were), had their passions under complete control and never demanded anything of each other.

I feel sad for you that you think that sex inside of marriage is something that one demands. It is GIVEN, not demanded.... see above. I agree, it is better not to marry, because scripture makes it clear that you are then able to totally focus on God, celibacy is a good thing, but NOT inside of a marriage.

You conveniently left out verses so it looks as if " I say this by way of concession" has to do with sex inside marriage..... put in the rest, that statement refers to getting married, not having sex inside marriage.

It may be your stand, but it is not supported by the scripture you yourself provided. Abstaining was said to be better IF one did not marry the woman, not if one DID marry. IF one married , the husband SHOULD GIVE!!! to his wife her conjugal rights.

1 Cor 7 :3- 4 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does


1 Cor 7:25- 29 25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 29 I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short

Paul is saying that it is HIS opinion that it is better for one to remain single. But, if you marry , it isn't a sin...however you will have worldly troubles and he would spare those who are single from these by recommending they stay single.

Here is his reasoning as to why it is better to remain single.

1 Cor 7:31 - 35 31. For the form of this world is passing away. 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Now lets go on to the last part of this chapter....

1 Cor 7:36-38 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

The first marries and we are back to verse 3 ( for sexual reasons it should be pointed out...see italicized in vs 36). The second does not marry, and therefore will not be having a sexual relationship because they are not married. The abstaining is for those who do NOT marry, not for those who do.

The whole chapter is saying that Paul felt it was better not to marry because one could serve the Lord without any distractions of the world. However, IF one chose to marry, or IF one could not physically keep themselves under control, then get married, it was not a sin. The gift of singleness is not given to everyone. The important points Paul made about those who are married are that they will care about each other and will not be 100% focused on the Lord, and that they are to fulfill all the rights and responsibilies of marriage.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Whatever. I'm sorry, but it's starting to get difficult to talk with you. I may have to stop discussing things with you for awhile, because this is not being of any use. All I did was point out that you protestants like to twist this Scripture to be something other than what it says in plain English, just as we are trying to explain something that you say is in plain English. No diff. Besides I have no idea what you are talking about. There's nothing that I would believe that contradicts important Catholic teaching. Nothing.

Its fine if you don't wish to continue the discussion, I have been expecting it to stop. It is of use if the truth comes forth. All I have stated to you is based on the Bible, and on the words of Jesus Himself. Please don't lump me in with "you protestants" as you don't know my view on many many issues and I quite frequently disagree with many things that a lot of the protestants on here say. I don't ( knowingly ) twist any scripture, I read all that is before and after it to see what is being said. My opinion of the " body and blood" of Christ doesn't come from anyone elses opinion, it comes from reading the passage and seeing that what Jesus said the bread and wine stood for were things that had not yet happened, and later his disciples remembered what He had said. For these reasons I believe that it was symbolic. My beliefs about Mary are from what God's word says. I do not seek other sources for explaining away things that are well supported in scripture or for ideas that cannot be supported other than by very remotely from scripture.

This discussion has been interesting, as I have learned a great deal about the RCC beliefs that I had not known or only had a limited understanding of. It has also raised a few questions that I am going to pursue futher. Thank you for keeping this discussion to this point respectful and informative.

[P3chrmd]

This discussion has been interesting, as I have learned a great deal about the RCC beliefs that I had not known or only had a limited understanding of

and that is the most important things...that we learn from each other and have respect for our differences...we are all christians!

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I feel sad for you that you think that sex inside of marriage is something that one demands. It is GIVEN, not demanded.... see above. I agree, it is better not to marry, because scripture makes it clear that you are then able to totally focus on God, celibacy is a good thing, but NOT inside of a marriage.

Okay, I'll give this to you until I find something.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

You conveniently left out verses so it looks as if " I say this by way of concession" has to do with sex inside marriage..... put in the rest, that statement refers to getting married, not having sex inside marriage.

I'm sorry, I didn't think it would change anything. I figured that the concession was referring to all before it.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It may be your stand, but it is not supported by the scripture you yourself provided. Abstaining was said to be better IF one did not marry the woman, not if one DID marry. IF one married , the husband SHOULD GIVE!!! to his wife her conjugal rights.

Okay, again I'll give it to you this time. I still don't think the interpretation lends to mean that this is a requirement within marriage, only that it is to be given if expected. But I'll leave it alone for now.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

1 Cor 7 :3- 4 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does

Okay, again... I don't see this as a requirement within marriage but to be given if expected... I think that it means that if the husband wants his rights, then the wife is to give it to him and vice versa. But this isn't to say that the husband or wife will ask for these rights. But fine, I'm leaving it alone for now.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

1 Cor 7:25- 29 25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 29 I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short

Paul is saying that it is HIS opinion that it is better for one to remain single. But, if you marry , it isn't a sin...however you will have worldly troubles and he would spare those who are single from these by recommending they stay single.

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Here is his reasoning as to why it is better to remain single.

1 Cor 7:31 - 35 31. For the form of this world is passing away. 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Yup.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Now lets go on to the last part of this chapter....

1 Cor 7:36-38 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

The first marries and we are back to verse 3 ( for sexual reasons it should be pointed out...see italicized in vs 36). The second does not marry, and therefore will not be having a sexual relationship because they are not married. The abstaining is for those who do NOT marry, not for those who do.

I see what your saying, but I was referring, in this part of the chapter, to your saying that if one got betrothed then they for sure got married. This doesn't seem to say that is necessarily true. If one is betrothed, it doesn't always mean it goes any farther than that.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

The whole chapter is saying that Paul felt it was better not to marry because one could serve the Lord without any distractions of the world. However, IF one chose to marry, or IF one could not physically keep themselves under control, then get married, it was not a sin. The gift of singleness is not given to everyone. The important points Paul made about those who are married are that they will care about each other and will not be 100% focused on the Lord, and that they are to fulfill all the rights and responsibilies of marriage.

I agree. However I still believe that conjugal rights are just that, rights. Not necessities. I still don't see anywhere where they become more than that. If they are asked for, fine. If not, fine as well.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Its fine if you don't wish to continue the discussion, I have been expecting it to stop.

I'm sorry about that post. It's just that I am now in the last week of my summer semester of school and it's really stressful. I was not in a good mood lately. I don't have a problem continuing the conversation, it just seems as if we are stuck in a place where we cannot come to an agreement.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It is of use if the truth comes forth. All I have stated to you is based on the Bible, and on the words of Jesus Himself.

This is one of our main differences that separate our beliefs on many issues. You believe that we only need the Bible(right?) and I believe that we need the Bible, but also it's infallible interpretation, Sacred Tradition.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Please don't lump me in with "you protestants" as you don't know my view on many many issues and I quite frequently disagree with many things that a lot of the protestants on here say.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to do it, it just comes out sometimes.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I don't ( knowingly ) twist any scripture, I read all that is before and after it to see what is being said. My opinion of the " body and blood" of Christ doesn't come from anyone elses opinion, it comes from reading the passage and seeing that what Jesus said the bread and wine stood for were things that had not yet happened, and later his disciples remembered what He had said. For these reasons I believe that it was symbolic.

Okay, that's for you to believe. This is a whole different ball of wax that I really don't see as a good thing to get into right now with me as the last conversation I had about this went on forever and never got anywhere(much like this one...)

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

My beliefs about Mary are from what God's word says.

Again, that's as you believe. Us Catholics also believe that every teaching about Mary is firmly grounded in Scripture. That is why we debate these issues.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I do not seek other sources for explaining away things that are well supported in scripture or for ideas that cannot be supported other than by very remotely from scripture.

Good! Neither do Catholics. All Sacred Tradition is, is the infallible interpretation of Scripture and the well-founded interpretations of many of the holiest people that ever lived.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

This discussion has been interesting, as I have learned a great deal about the RCC beliefs that I had not known or only had a limited understanding of. It has also raised a few questions that I am going to pursue futher. Thank you for keeping this discussion to this point respectful and informative.

That's great. If you ever have any honest questions, that aren't intended to start an argument, then bring them up. I will, and I'm sure the other Catholics as well, be glad to clear up anything you want to know.
And that is why I was getting mad with this conversation, not because I am faltering in my Marian beliefs, but because I was beginning to feel angry and felt like I was about to say some not so nice things. So that is why I felt like ending the conversation. I'll be around to keep this up as long as there is interest. Sorry again if I ever said anything offensive, it's something I try not to do, but happens at times.
Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Colin.

[goldenchild]

Having said that, I'm still interested in seeing what you think contradicts the Church's teaching on the Assumption.