The difference between Catholicism and Christianity

[bigflamer]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dpcavana wrote:
One very profound difference in the teachings of the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism is the Catholic’s belief that one can acheive salvation, ie go to Heaven, through good works and prayer.

Protestants generally believe in what the Scriptures say on the subject. That one can only be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

There are many other differences. Another example that comes to mind is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is infallible.

From the beginning of the church it has been proven that this belief is not true. Galileo Galilei built a telescoope and observed that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church believed the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. The Church had him imprisoned until he changed his mind and recanted his heretical belief and publically stated that he was wrong. Now we know without a doubt that the Catholic Church was wrong. [/quote]

Galileo (a devout Catholic FYI) came up with a radical theory. The theory was rejected by the scientific community. The church sided with the vast majority of scientists. As soon as the scientific community started accepting his theory, the Church accepted the Galileo model of the universe. It’s also critical to note that Galileo was equally wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe any more than the earth. And even more technically, if the universe is infinite you actually can state factually that the Earth is the center.
[/quote]

However, Bruno was actually correct in his assumptions about the universe, and trumpeted those assumptions as his proof that god was greater than they had yet even imagined!

Aaaaaand they burned him alive for his efforts.
[/quote]

Stalin got us back don’t worry…[/quote]

Stalin did what he did in the name of justice for Bruno? No kidding?!?!

The history books are SOOOOOO wrong, then. You must needs spread this truth; the world needs to know, Pat.

[quote]pat wrote:
And the Catholic Church is the most welcoming and in fact teaches unity with science, rather than departure. So we learned from our mistakes.[/quote]

Well, I can’t argue with the virtues of learning from mistakes. No question that the catholic church has come a LONG way from its horrific past.Some would argue that they still have a long way to go, but I do not subscribe to such snarkiness.

[Sloth]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, welcome back! Right around Lent, too! Good timing.[/quote]

Well Thank you I guess. To be honest I don’t know if I’m back, or going, or staying or anything…I’m truely just searching, and wondering, and hoping, and learning…[/quote]

Organized religion is a scam. Just read the Bible. [/quote]

Why would you do that? The Bible is the product of ‘organized religion’.[/quote]

Not to mention that the Bible is full of “organized religion.”

Church structure and hierarchy is recorded in the Bible…

[pat]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dpcavana wrote:
One very profound difference in the teachings of the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism is the Catholic’s belief that one can acheive salvation, ie go to Heaven, through good works and prayer.

Protestants generally believe in what the Scriptures say on the subject. That one can only be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

There are many other differences. Another example that comes to mind is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is infallible.

From the beginning of the church it has been proven that this belief is not true. Galileo Galilei built a telescoope and observed that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church believed the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. The Church had him imprisoned until he changed his mind and recanted his heretical belief and publically stated that he was wrong. Now we know without a doubt that the Catholic Church was wrong. [/quote]

Galileo (a devout Catholic FYI) came up with a radical theory. The theory was rejected by the scientific community. The church sided with the vast majority of scientists. As soon as the scientific community started accepting his theory, the Church accepted the Galileo model of the universe. It’s also critical to note that Galileo was equally wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe any more than the earth. And even more technically, if the universe is infinite you actually can state factually that the Earth is the center.
[/quote]

However, Bruno was actually correct in his assumptions about the universe, and trumpeted those assumptions as his proof that god was greater than they had yet even imagined!

Aaaaaand they burned him alive for his efforts.
[/quote]

Stalin got us back don’t worry…[/quote]

Stalin did what he did in the name of justice for Bruno? No kidding?!?!

The history books are SOOOOOO wrong, then. You must needs spread this truth; the world needs to know, Pat.
[/quote]
It was a joke. Maybe not funny, but it was just, jest.

[quote]pat wrote:
And the Catholic Church is the most welcoming and in fact teaches unity with science, rather than departure. So we learned from our mistakes.[/quote]

Well, I can’t argue with the virtues of learning from mistakes. No question that the catholic church has come a LONG way from its horrific past.Some would argue that they still have a long way to go, but I do not subscribe to such snarkiness.

I would also argue it’s a very one sided look. We’ve had our black eyes, but in fair assessment the church has done a lot of good too. Nobody has a claim to a spotless past. Our ancestors, whom ever they may be, did some naughty shit.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, welcome back! Right around Lent, too! Good timing.[/quote]

Well Thank you I guess. To be honest I don’t know if I’m back, or going, or staying or anything…I’m truely just searching, and wondering, and hoping, and learning…[/quote]

Organized religion is a scam. Just read the Bible. [/quote]

Why would you do that? The Bible is the product of ‘organized religion’.[/quote]

Not to mention that the Bible is full of “organized religion.”

Church structure and hierarchy is recorded in the Bible…[/quote]

Not to mention the Pentateuch, which organizes right down the button on the garments for the Jewish faith.

[SexMachine]

Why were the books of Maccabees not included in any of the Protestant bibles? Were they redacted by King James’ scribes or much earlier? And if so why?

Also, wouldn’t you agree that Ecclesiastes is steeped in the Greek(gentile) philosophy of Stoicism? Considering myself a Stoic(not as a religion) from an early age, I was thoroughly shocked at its likeness to Zeno of Citium and his followers’ world view.

I would go as far to say that without Ecclesiastes and maybe Job and parts of Proverbs my faith would not be as strong.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dpcavana wrote:
One very profound difference in the teachings of the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism is the Catholic’s belief that one can acheive salvation, ie go to Heaven, through good works and prayer.

Protestants generally believe in what the Scriptures say on the subject. That one can only be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

There are many other differences. Another example that comes to mind is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is infallible.

From the beginning of the church it has been proven that this belief is not true. Galileo Galilei built a telescoope and observed that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church believed the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. The Church had him imprisoned until he changed his mind and recanted his heretical belief and publically stated that he was wrong. Now we know without a doubt that the Catholic Church was wrong. [/quote]

Galileo (a devout Catholic FYI) came up with a radical theory. The theory was rejected by the scientific community. The church sided with the vast majority of scientists. As soon as the scientific community started accepting his theory, the Church accepted the Galileo model of the universe. It’s also critical to note that Galileo was equally wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe any more than the earth. And even more technically, if the universe is infinite you actually can state factually that the Earth is the center.
[/quote]

However, Bruno was actually correct in his assumptions about the universe, and trumpeted those assumptions as his proof that god was greater than they had yet even imagined!

Aaaaaand they burned him alive for his efforts.
[/quote]

Not true. Some are currently accepted, some are refuted, and some are still contended. And Ironically, some of his assumptions were based off of Catholic teachings about God.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Catholicism is considered a branch of Christianity just like Methodism would be. Protestant AND Catholic faiths believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that’s what makes them “Christian” to most people.

They may have a ton of differences, but statistically speaking Catholic AND Protestant are both counted as Christian faiths. Even the protestant faiths differ from each other in numerous ways. [/quote]

It’s not just another branch. It’s the original, from which all others came. That’s a fact of history. The term ‘Catholic’ was used recorded for the first time in the 2nd century by St. Jerome.[/quote]

Big “C” or little “c”.

And actually that is debatable. The Anglicans can actually make the argument that they are the older tradition.

[pat]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why were the books of Maccabees not included in any of the Protestant bibles? Were they redacted by King James’ scribes or much earlier? And if so why?

Also, wouldn’t you agree that Ecclesiastes is steeped in the Greek(gentile) philosophy of Stoicism? Considering myself a Stoic(not as a religion) from an early age, I was thoroughly shocked at its likeness to Zeno of Citium and his followers’ world view.

I would go as far to say that without Ecclesiastes and maybe Job and parts of Proverbs my faith would not be as strong. [/quote]

If my understanding is correct it’s because the earliest sources of those books were in greek and considered of ‘dubious origin’. Not being able to reconcile the original documents was why they left them out.
Or it was a merely subjective thing. Martin Luther did want to leave out the Epistle of James. But cooler heads prevailed, fortunately. Yes, I agree Maccabees was an pretty important OT document to leave out. Especially since it is referenced by other OT documents that were left in.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Catholicism is considered a branch of Christianity just like Methodism would be. Protestant AND Catholic faiths believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that’s what makes them “Christian” to most people.

They may have a ton of differences, but statistically speaking Catholic AND Protestant are both counted as Christian faiths. Even the protestant faiths differ from each other in numerous ways. [/quote]

It’s not just another branch. It’s the original, from which all others came. That’s a fact of history. The term ‘Catholic’ was used recorded for the first time in the 2nd century by St. Jerome.[/quote]

Big “C” or little “c”.

And actually that is debatable. The Anglicans can actually make the argument that they are the older tradition.[/quote]

Well no they cannot because Henry VIII started it. But Anglicans are of apostolic tradition and trace their roots the same way Catholics do.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Catholicism is considered a branch of Christianity just like Methodism would be. Protestant AND Catholic faiths believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that’s what makes them “Christian” to most people.

They may have a ton of differences, but statistically speaking Catholic AND Protestant are both counted as Christian faiths. Even the protestant faiths differ from each other in numerous ways. [/quote]

It’s not just another branch. It’s the original, from which all others came. That’s a fact of history. The term ‘Catholic’ was used recorded for the first time in the 2nd century by St. Jerome.[/quote]

Big “C” or little “c”.

And actually that is debatable. The Anglicans can actually make the argument that they are the older tradition.[/quote]

Well no they cannot because Henry VIII started it. But Anglicans are of apostolic tradition and trace their roots the same way Catholics do.[/quote]

Sorta (that gets complicated). That is more the straw that broke the camel’s back than the cause. And I didn’t say un-interrupted, just older. An Anglican would argue that the Anglican tradition is closer to the apostolic tradition that Catholics have moved away from. That current Catholic tradition is based on later developments and as such is younger. But even by your way they are both connected to the same root.

[bigflamer]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dpcavana wrote:
One very profound difference in the teachings of the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism is the Catholic’s belief that one can acheive salvation, ie go to Heaven, through good works and prayer.

Protestants generally believe in what the Scriptures say on the subject. That one can only be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

There are many other differences. Another example that comes to mind is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is infallible.

From the beginning of the church it has been proven that this belief is not true. Galileo Galilei built a telescoope and observed that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church believed the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. The Church had him imprisoned until he changed his mind and recanted his heretical belief and publically stated that he was wrong. Now we know without a doubt that the Catholic Church was wrong. [/quote]

Galileo (a devout Catholic FYI) came up with a radical theory. The theory was rejected by the scientific community. The church sided with the vast majority of scientists. As soon as the scientific community started accepting his theory, the Church accepted the Galileo model of the universe. It’s also critical to note that Galileo was equally wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe any more than the earth. And even more technically, if the universe is infinite you actually can state factually that the Earth is the center.
[/quote]

However, Bruno was actually correct in his assumptions about the universe, and trumpeted those assumptions as his proof that god was greater than they had yet even imagined!

Aaaaaand they burned him alive for his efforts.
[/quote]

Not true. Some are currently accepted, some are refuted, and some are still contended. And Ironically, some of his assumptions were based off of Catholic teachings about God.[/quote]

So, which ones are refuted? And which ones are still contended? Was he not correct in that each star was just another sun? And that the universe was homogneous? LOL…He was more right than wrong I think. And yes, since he was a monk before they defrocked him for thinking, he considered his new model of the universe more evidence for the glory of his god. How did that work our for Bruno? Well, we know this, when religion runs the show, it DOES NOT PAY to be contrarian, or be an out of the box thinker.

Here is a list of the “crimes” Bruno committed against the poor church:

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass

-Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes

-Dealing in magics and divination.

[DoubleDuce]

Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?

FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dpcavana wrote:
One very profound difference in the teachings of the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism is the Catholic’s belief that one can acheive salvation, ie go to Heaven, through good works and prayer.

Protestants generally believe in what the Scriptures say on the subject. That one can only be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

There are many other differences. Another example that comes to mind is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is infallible.

From the beginning of the church it has been proven that this belief is not true. Galileo Galilei built a telescoope and observed that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church believed the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. The Church had him imprisoned until he changed his mind and recanted his heretical belief and publically stated that he was wrong. Now we know without a doubt that the Catholic Church was wrong. [/quote]

Galileo (a devout Catholic FYI) came up with a radical theory. The theory was rejected by the scientific community. The church sided with the vast majority of scientists. As soon as the scientific community started accepting his theory, the Church accepted the Galileo model of the universe. It’s also critical to note that Galileo was equally wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe any more than the earth. And even more technically, if the universe is infinite you actually can state factually that the Earth is the center.
[/quote]

However, Bruno was actually correct in his assumptions about the universe, and trumpeted those assumptions as his proof that god was greater than they had yet even imagined!

Aaaaaand they burned him alive for his efforts.
[/quote]

Not true. Some are currently accepted, some are refuted, and some are still contended. And Ironically, some of his assumptions were based off of Catholic teachings about God.[/quote]

So, which ones are refuted? And which ones are still contended? Was he not correct in that each star was just another sun? And that the universe was homogneous? LOL…He was more right than wrong I think. And yes, since he was a monk before they defrocked him for thinking, he considered his new model of the universe more evidence for the glory of his god. How did that work our for Bruno? Well, we know this, when religion runs the show, it DOES NOT PAY to be contrarian, or be an out of the box thinker.

Here is a list of the “crimes” Bruno committed against the poor church:

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus

-Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass

-Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes

-Dealing in magics and divination.
[/quote]

Yeah, he was probably closer to the Truth than previous theory. But there is still plenty of debate on all of it. Such is the nature of science. There is no absolute fact.

And yeah, I agree (and all Catholics today) that it was a horrible thing to do. But you could also list it as an offense committed by the state, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have states.

[dpcavana]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?

FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.[/quote]

Baptism - Catholic doctrine is that everybody is born with original sin and therefore babies must be baptised to ‘wash away the sin’. Not sure where this came from but it is not taught in the Scriptures.

Communion - Both Catholics and Protestants practice the sacrement of Communion however Catholics believe that the small white cracker and the wine are ACTUALLY transformed into the ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD Jesus through a miracle during the celebration of the Catholic Mass.

Protestants believe that the communion cracker and the wine or grape juice are REPRESENTATIVE of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]dpcavana wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?

FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.[/quote]

Baptism - Catholic doctrine is that everybody is born with original sin and therefore babies must be baptised to ‘wash away the sin’. Not sure where this came from but it is not taught in the Scriptures.

Communion - Both Catholics and Protestants practice the sacrement of Communion however Catholics believe that the small white cracker and the wine are ACTUALLY transformed into the ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD Jesus through a miracle during the celebration of the Catholic Mass.

Protestants believe that the communion cracker and the wine or grape juice are REPRESENTATIVE of the flesh and blood of Jesus. [/quote]

Well actually, Anglicans are pretty close to Catholics on communion. Methodists believe in a real presence in communion too. But I’m asking about infant communion. Part of the Catholic church does it and part doesn’t. I don’t see the argument for denying a baptized Christian the sacrament of communion.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?
[/quote]
On infant baptism it is the birth of the person into the spirit. It is the first sacrament in preparation for full communion with the church. As in the protestant teaching of being ‘born again’ this happens early in the person’s life so that there is no impediment to being in full union with Christ it is taken on early. The eradication of original sin in preparation for the person to be able to be in union with Christ without impediment. That the person may grow in union with Christ from the start. So we are born again, very early in life. Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit so that as the person grows in life and in faith, there is no block. This is in union with the sacrament of Confirmation which occurs later in life where the person themselves choose to affirm their baptism.

On communion, there is no debate. It is a dogma of the church and always has been maintained the full body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Yes, there are those who try to reconcile it as symbolic or other heretical ideas about it, but in the church itself there is no debate. It is the institution as laid out in the Synoptic Gospels last supper discourses and further affirmed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-27.
This holds true for all the apostolic traditions, not just Roman Catholic. That the Eucharist is the True Presence.
Anybody who teaches or thinks differently is not in communion with Church teaching. It is a violation of the sacrament. It is not up for debate. If you do not believe in the true presence, then do not partake.

Those who preach or teach differently on this matter are in de facto excommunication with the Church. This dogma came from the apostles themselves, the roots go right back to the Last Supper where Christ gave himself in the Breaking of Bread and fulfilled it on the Cross.

[quote]
FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.[/quote]

I am certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. But also understand I am not an authority. Feel free to cross reference and research anything I may tell you so that you are not led falsely by any stupidity I may impart on the matter.

And congratulations on the baby! My kids are all big now, I do miss the baby days… Not all of it, but they are so damn cute!

[pat]

[quote]dpcavana wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?

FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.[/quote]

Baptism - Catholic doctrine is that everybody is born with original sin and therefore babies must be baptised to ‘wash away the sin’. Not sure where this came from but it is not taught in the Scriptures.

Communion - Both Catholics and Protestants practice the sacrement of Communion however Catholics believe that the small white cracker and the wine are ACTUALLY transformed into the ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD Jesus through a miracle during the celebration of the Catholic Mass.

Protestants believe that the communion cracker and the wine or grape juice are REPRESENTATIVE of the flesh and blood of Jesus. [/quote]

I would respectfully ask that you refrain from the term ‘cracker’ as it is offensive to us Catholics who do believe in the Transubstantiation. It’s ok if you think we are nuts.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?
[/quote]
On infant baptism it is the birth of the person into the spirit. It is the first sacrament in preparation for full communion with the church. As in the protestant teaching of being ‘born again’ this happens early in the person’s life so that there is no impediment to being in full union with Christ it is taken on early. The eradication of original sin in preparation for the person to be able to be in union with Christ without impediment. That the person may grow in union with Christ from the start. So we are born again, very early in life. Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit so that as the person grows in life and in faith, there is no block. This is in union with the sacrament of Confirmation which occurs later in life where the person themselves choose to affirm their baptism.

On communion, there is no debate. It is a dogma of the church and always has been maintained the full body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Yes, there are those who try to reconcile it as symbolic or other heretical ideas about it, but in the church itself there is no debate. It is the institution as laid out in the Synoptic Gospels last supper discourses and further affirmed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-27.
This holds true for all the apostolic traditions, not just Roman Catholic. That the Eucharist is the True Presence.
Anybody who teaches or thinks differently is not in communion with Church teaching. It is a violation of the sacrament. It is not up for debate. If you do not believe in the true presence, then do not partake.

Those who preach or teach differently on this matter are in de facto excommunication with the Church. This dogma came from the apostles themselves, the roots go right back to the Last Supper where Christ gave himself in the Breaking of Bread and fulfilled it on the Cross.

[quote]
FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.[/quote]

I am certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. But also understand I am not an authority. Feel free to cross reference and research anything I may tell you so that you are not led falsely by any stupidity I may impart on the matter.

And congratulations on the baby! My kids are all big now, I do miss the baby days… Not all of it, but they are so damn cute! [/quote]

Yeah, I don’t think I worded that question well. What are your thoughts on infant communion. And I am researching on my own. I like to hear from folks to generate other lines of inquiry. I’m not going to live my life according to what someone says on the internet. =0)

And thanks, I’m already experiencing all kinds of wonderful things. Getting to participate in God’s act of creation is amazing. You always hear from other people about things, but it’s something you have to experience. We got the first ultrasound not long ago and seeing her profile with her little nose is the best thing ever. I’m completely obsessed with her cute little nose as weird as that sounds. I would have never dreamed I could be obsessed with the ultrasound image of a nose. And even more interestingly, if you look REALLY at the image of her smallest finger (which is really, really tiny right now) you can actually see me wrapped around it.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pat, or other Catholics, I?d be interested to get your perspective on infant baptism and communion. I know the Catholic Church is split on communion. Do you know what the Papal directive is on these issues?
[/quote]
On infant baptism it is the birth of the person into the spirit. It is the first sacrament in preparation for full communion with the church. As in the protestant teaching of being ‘born again’ this happens early in the person’s life so that there is no impediment to being in full union with Christ it is taken on early. The eradication of original sin in preparation for the person to be able to be in union with Christ without impediment. That the person may grow in union with Christ from the start. So we are born again, very early in life. Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit so that as the person grows in life and in faith, there is no block. This is in union with the sacrament of Confirmation which occurs later in life where the person themselves choose to affirm their baptism.

On communion, there is no debate. It is a dogma of the church and always has been maintained the full body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Yes, there are those who try to reconcile it as symbolic or other heretical ideas about it, but in the church itself there is no debate. It is the institution as laid out in the Synoptic Gospels last supper discourses and further affirmed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-27.
This holds true for all the apostolic traditions, not just Roman Catholic. That the Eucharist is the True Presence.
Anybody who teaches or thinks differently is not in communion with Church teaching. It is a violation of the sacrament. It is not up for debate. If you do not believe in the true presence, then do not partake.

Those who preach or teach differently on this matter are in de facto excommunication with the Church. This dogma came from the apostles themselves, the roots go right back to the Last Supper where Christ gave himself in the Breaking of Bread and fulfilled it on the Cross.

[quote]
FYI: I have a little girl on the way so I?ve been researching and as a result have completely done a 180 on the issue. I?m now in favor of both. Both seem to trace their roots back to at least 140 AD and I have a number of theological reasons now for supporting them. But would appreciate your take on it.[/quote]

I am certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. But also understand I am not an authority. Feel free to cross reference and research anything I may tell you so that you are not led falsely by any stupidity I may impart on the matter.

And congratulations on the baby! My kids are all big now, I do miss the baby days… Not all of it, but they are so damn cute! [/quote]

Yeah, I don’t think I worded that question well. What are your thoughts on infant communion. And I am researching on my own. I like to hear from folks to generate other lines of inquiry. I’m not going to live my life according to what someone says on the internet. =0)

And thanks, I’m already experiencing all kinds of wonderful things. Getting to participate in God’s act of creation is amazing. You always hear from other people about things, but it’s something you have to experience. We got the first ultrasound not long ago and seeing her profile with her little nose is the best thing ever. I’m completely obsessed with her cute little nose as weird as that sounds. I would have never dreamed I could be obsessed with the ultrasound image of a nose. And even more interestingly, if you look REALLY at the image of her smallest finger (which is really, really tiny right now) you can actually see me wrapped around it.[/quote]

It’s not weird at all. My daughter has a tiny toe that I try to kiss all the time…
She’s very cute already. She’s going to have you wrapped around her little fingers… Enjoy every second.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s not weird at all. My daughter has a tiny toe that I try to kiss all the time…
She’s very cute already. She’s going to have you wrapped around her little fingers… Enjoy every second.[/quote]

So what are your thoughts on infant communion?