I got you a very detailed one that should leave no room for misunderstanding https://media.ascensionpress.com/2019/07/01/sharing-communion-with-the-saints-life-in-the-new-covenant/
Speaking of tradition… https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition
“ I do not consider that to be a valid authority for what the Bible says.”
who put that Bible together, boy? 😂😂 oh yeah, Catholic pope!
Regarding transubstantiation:
https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Cannibalism
Always the same ol tired Protestant nonsense
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/waldenses
“ The main focus of the reformation was to print Bibles and let people choose between the Bible or the church, Christ or the pope. The main focus of the catholic church was to find people printing bibles and killing them.”
The Catholic Church put the Bible together 😂 sound reasoning
Alternative take - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sEdCgtDQ9U
https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/did-the-catholic-church-forbid-bible-reading.php
After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).
The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators.
The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century there were no public schools and literacy was not that common, especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin. We got an email that said:
The Church still had its readings and services in the dead language of Latin ...The Church fought to keep the Bible in Latin even though it could not be understood by most people of the time.
Latin was far from a dead language. It was the language of theology and science (the language of all educated peoples throughout Europe and beyond) well into the 17th and 18th Centuries. For example, when Isaac Newton published his works on physics, he published them in Latin so that all of Europe could read them. The same was true of all other scientific and scholarly advances.
The reason that the Protestant reformers used vernacular languages was because (a) most educated people did not take the reformers seriously and (b) they used the masses to get power for their movement. The pamphlets published by Luther and Calvin were filled with all manner of crude and dirty language (lots of references to "shtting," "pssing," and "farting"), and this was done to capture the imagination of the common man and to create popular uprising against the social establishment.
The Bible could very much be understood by people with the intelligence and ability to understand its theological content -- most of whom spoke Latin. Most common people of the time, however, could understand neither the language nor the content ...and most common people are still clueless about the content of the Bible today ...which is why Protestants provide "ministers" to interpret it for them.
The Jewish Bible was in Hebrew until the 19th Century. The Greek versions of the Jewish Bible made in ancient times were used by Christians so the Jews avoided them. Any Jew who wanted the read the Bible was expected to make the effort to learn Hebrew.
And…
“You might enjoy sucking the popes dick but real Christians don't” who talks like that? You really think on the day of judgment Jesus, will look kindly on this? It’s not even a good argument. You’re just trying to be insulting.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-supports-praying-to-the-saints
Like Jesus, the Saints are alive in heaven. We can ask them to take our prayers to God. People on great awakening ask for other people to pray for them all the time. Where do you think the idea of intercessory prayer comes from?
https://www.nairaland.com/2575567/catholics-did-not-invent-islam
This lie again?
In context, Jesus was saying that the "bread" that the people must eat is their BELIEF, and NOT actual physical bread that you ingest.
No it doesn’t. That is your interpretation. We know it is the case that Jesus’ flesh was supposed to be eaten because some Jews took issue with this and left Jesus over this teaching.
When it comes to the famous “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter six of the Gospel of John, Catholics often argue that Jesus meant his words “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” literally. This is in large part because he didn’t backtrack when confronted with the suspicions of either the Jews (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”—6:53) or his disciples (“This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?”—v. 60).
But some Protestants counter that Jesus did clarify his meaning in John 6, and he did so in verse 63: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” Protestant apologist Matt Slick, founder of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, interprets this text as Jesus “stating that the words he was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.” Slick concludes, “[Jesus] did not say they were literal words; that is, he did not say that they were his actual body and blood.”
Slick seems to be arguing that Jesus’ words were intended to be interpreted in a spiritual sense—that’s to say, his words were intended to have a spiritual meaning and not that his words refer to his actual body and blood.
Let’s take a look at how we might respond and see whether we as Catholics need to abandon the above line of reasoning in support of our belief.
One problem with Slick’s argument is that it doesn’t explain why Jesus’ disciples still leave him. The disciples leave Jesus immediately after he gives the “spirit and life” teaching (v. 66). Why would the disciples still leave Jesus if Jesus were clarifying that he intended his words to have only a spiritual meaning?
The whole point of interpreting his words as having merely a spiritual meaning is to suggest that his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is not that difficult a teaching. The difficulty, therefore, seemingly would have disappeared for the disciples after this supposed clarification, and they would have thereby stayed with Jesus. But that’s not what happened.
Now, Slick, or another Protestant, might reply, “The remaining difficulty was accepting Jesus’ divine claim to have the power to give eternal life.” But the disciples were “disciples,” which means they were already predisposed to accept such a claim, assuming they weren’t already believing in Jesus’ divinity, but only in his messiahship.
Furthermore, elsewhere in John’s Gospel where Jesus makes divine claims (8:58, 10:30-33), his disciples never leave him. It’s “the Jews” who oppose him and try to kill him (John 8:59, 10:33). So it would seem that Jesus’ disciples leave him in John 6 not for divine claims, but for the reason of the difficulty of his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Slick’s counter-argument also fails because it doesn’t consider Jesus’ statement about “the flesh,” which he contrasts with “the Spirit”: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (v. 64). Understanding the idiom of “the flesh” sheds light on what Jesus meant by his statement, “my words are spirit and life.”
“The flesh” is a New Testament expression that often describes human nature apart from God’s grace (Rom. 8:1-14), as well as those who see reality only from an earthly perspective. John uses the expression this way in John 8:15, where Jesus says to the Pharisees, “You judge according to the flesh [Gk. ho sarx].”
So when we come back to John 6:63, and Jesus says, “The flesh is of no avail,” Jesus means that his teaching can’t be analyzed from an earthly perspective. The eyes of faith are needed, since eating his flesh and drinking his blood is going to involve the miraculous, like his ascension into heaven, which Jesus appeals to in response to the disciples’ difficulty with his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood (vv. 60-61).
The need for faith is the reason why Jesus puts these commands within the bookends of his teaching: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (v. 44) and “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (v. 65). It’s not that his exhortation to “eat” and “drink” have only a spiritual meaning, but rather that his words are discerned, not in a worldly or world-focused way.
The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up this explanation nicely:
In the scriptural opposition of “flesh and blood” to “spirit,” the former always signifies carnal-mindedness, the latter mental perception illumined by faith, so that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin.
The argument that Jesus is clarifying his disciples’ literal understanding and helping them with their difficulties by saying his words are “spirit and life” doesn’t hold water when critically examined. A Catholic, therefore, doesn’t need to give up on the argument that appeals to Jesus’ doubling down in the face of the interior objections of both the Jews and his disciples.
The biggest pushback I see against Trump is the rolling out of vaccines. Never mind that people were begging for it and if the media told the people Trump wasn’t allowing it’s release, the people would scream “he’s trying to keep us from getting better” and worse. Still they don’t see anything but Father of the Vaccine and resent him for it.
No I didnt say you said that. I was asking if you believe people in heaven are dead.
“Dead? You think Jesus in heaven is dead? People in heaven are not dead, they are alive in Jesus. What the…“
Jesus is in heaven. Is he dead? Mary is in heaven. Is she dead like YOU SAID? No, they are alive in heaven and hear prayers. Jesus answers but the saints, Mary included, take your prayers to the Father.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/defending-the-prayers-of-the-saints
Are you repeating Judeo -Freemason history lessons?
https://www.lumenchristi.org/news/2016/08/inquisition-what-really-happened
And more on “forced conversions”
In the Papal states it was customary to baptize any orphan Jew or gentile child. The Jews see this as a forced conversion especially since in their traditions conversion to Christianity is to be cut off from the Jewish people whether or not their was a legal guardian for the child. the church also being the legal government would take these children as a type of "wards of the state".
the Mortara case is different and is its own can of worms. as the Child was alleged to have be baptized by emergency in secret and therefore by canon law was not a Jew and was taken from his parents. the evidence of the baptism is flimsy and I can't understand Pope Pius IX's mentality of why, he would press this issue at this time with his parents still alive. Either way the backlash in the world press and the Italian risorgimento members caused a brake down in talks with the papal states and led to the reduction the papal states to just the city of Rome.
as for a broad forced conversion no the church didn't forced any large group of Jews to convert. Military/national powers in the north of Europe, in the Americas and during the crusades did practice "forced conversions" but they were dressed up as a condition to trade, as a peace treaty or the king would foist conversion on his subjects after his personal conversion.
Haunted Europe? The Catholic Church was keeping Islam and Judaism at bay. You’re so ignorant. The church was dealing with the JQ and Zionism looooong before it was hip.
The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. Look it up.
Forced conversions are against the faith, whoever may have done it:
1885 A.D. - Pope Leo XIII - “[No] one should accuse the Church of being wanting in gentleness of action or largeness of view, or of being opposed to real and lawful liberty. ... [R]ulers [may], for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow...each kind of religion [to have] its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’ ” (Immortale Dei 36)
1876 A.D. - Archbishop Gibbons - “A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God. Every act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled religious intolerance. This religious liberty is the true right of every man because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon him. … [The] Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty… [W]henever any encroachments on these sacred privileges of man were perpetrated by professing members of the Catholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the Church, were committed in palpable violation of her authority. … Her doctrine is, that as man by his own free will fell from grace, so of his own free will must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are two terms that can never be reconciled.” (Faith of Our Fathers Chapter 17)
1608 A.D. - Robert Persons - “[Consider] the grievous sin which they commit, who force, and press other men to swear against their consciences, then which, almost nothing can be imagined more heinous: for it is to thrust men headlong (especially such as are fearful) into the very precipitation and downfall of hell itself. ... For he that [would] force a Jew, or Turk to swear, that there [is] a blessed Trinity, either knowing or suspecting that they would do it against their Conscience, [would] sin grievously, by forcing them to commit that sin. This is Catholic doctrine, which I also think the learned Protestants themselves will not deny.” (The Judgment of a Catholic Englishman Living in Banishment for his Religion Section 1 Paragraph 35)
1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More - “The fear of [the] outrages and mischiefs [which] follow upon [non-Catholic] sects and heresies, with the proof that men have had in some countries thereof, have been the cause that princes and people have been constrained to punish heresies by terrible death, whereas else more easy ways had been taken with them.” (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
And: “[The princes] never indeed [would have] fallen so sore to force and violence against heretics, [unless] the violent cruelty first used by the heretics themself against good catholic folk, [drove] good princes thereto.” (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
And: “[As] I said before, if the heretics had never begun with violence, though they had used all the ways they could to [attract] the people by preaching...yet if they had set violence aside, good Christian people [would have perhaps] yet unto this day used less violence toward them than they do now.” (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas - “[T]he heathens and the Jews...are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the [free] will.” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 8)
And: “Christ's faithful...wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will.” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 8)
And: “Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue.” [[Note: in classic Catholic theology, God doesn't prevent all evil because doing so would take away a greater good, that being man's free will.]] “Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred.” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 11)
And: “[The] rites of [some] unbelievers...[may] be tolerated...in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans...” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 11)
1201 A.D. - Pope Innocent III - “It is contrary to the Christian religion to force others to into accepting and practicing Christianity if they are always unwilling and totally opposed.” “The one who never consents and is absolutely unwilling receives neither the reality [rem] nor the character [characterem] of the sacrament because express dissent is something more than not consenting at all.” (Letter Maiores Ecclesiae causas to Archbishop Humbert of Arles)
~1150 A.D. - Gratian's Decree - "Those who sincerely wish to lead people who stand outside the Christian religion into the proper faith should strive to do so by gentle means rather than by harsh means, lest adversity alienate the mind of those whom a reasonable argument would have been able to attract. For those who do otherwise and wish to force them, under such pretext, from the customary observance of their rite are seen clearly to attend to their own affairs more intently than those of God." (Distinction 45 Causa 3, quoting Pope St. Gregory I, as quoted in Dwayne Carpenter, Alfonso X and the Jews: An Edition of and Commentary on Siete Partidas 7.24 "De Los Judíos", Volume 115, [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986], 80.)
1065 A.D. - Pope Alexander II said: “Although We have no doubt it stems from the zeal of devotion that your Nobility arranges to lead Jews to the worship of Christendom...you seem to do it with a zeal that is inordinate. For we do not read that our Lord Jesus Christ violently forced anyone into his service, but that by humble exhortation, leaving to each person his own freedom of choice, he recalled from error whomsoever he had predestined to eternal life, doing so not by judging them, but by shedding his own blood. Likewise, the blessed Gregory forbids, in one of his letters, that the said people should be drawn to the faith by violence.” (Letter Licet ex to Prince Landolfo of Benevento)
866 A.D. - Pope Nicholas I said: “Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force, proving that what they know in vain, is wrong. ... Furthermore, violence is never in any way to be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For whatever is not from an inner desire [ex voto], cannot be good.” (Ad consulta vestra, Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians)
633 A.D. - The Fourth Council of Toledo decrees against religious intolerance: "No one should henceforth be forced to believe, [for] God hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth; such men should not be saved unwillingly but willingly, in order that the procedure of justice should be complete; for just as man perished obedient to the serpent out of his own free will, so will any man be saved—when called by the divine grace—by believing and in converting his own mind. They should be persuaded to convert, therefore, of their own free choice, rather than forced by violence." (Fourth Council of Toledo, Canon 57)
602 A.D. - Pope St. Gregory the Great - "Those who sincerely wish to lead people who stand outside the Christian religion into the proper faith should strive to do so by gentle means rather than by harsh means, lest adversity alienate the mind of those whom a reasonable argument would have been able to attract. For those who do otherwise and wish to force them, under such pretext, from the customary observance of their rite are seen clearly to attend to their own affairs more intently than those of God." (Letter to the Bishop of Naples as quoted in Dwayne Carpenter, Alfonso X and the Jews: An Edition of and Commentary on Siete Partidas 7.24 "De Los Judíos", Volume 115, [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986], 80.)
308 A.D. - Lactantius - “Religion, being a matter of the will, cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.” (De Divinis Institutionibus 5, 10)
Merrick 🕍✡️