lol nah, Jesus said the gates of hell won’t prevail
I’m talking about none of the surfaces the water touches are food grade and all surfaces in contact with rainwater are made with heavy metals that will accumulate in soil. The plants uptake these metals. These metals are especially toxic to pregnant women, children, but toxic to everyone. Can cause kidney, liver, and brain damage.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxEE9UXC88 Nope