Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

What is Wrong With Catholics?

ianspigler
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.
thisisnottom
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:19:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

There is nothing wrong with Catholicism. Maybe something is wrong with you.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:49:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Catholic Church knows exactly what it is doing. If I were to become a Christian, I'd probably be Catholic.

The Catholic Church is a very scary place if you are one to study the bible. Everything about it just seems off, but I still think they do it on purpose. There is too much symbolism for it to be unintentional.

When I was deep in my religious studies, and stepped into a Catholic Church for the first time, it freaked me out. Too many weird things were happening.

The thing that really solidified it for me though were my conversations with the priest. He seemed to be aware of what I was talking about.

First thing I asked him when scheduling a meeting with him was, "Does any of this bug you?". We had an interesting talk.

I don't really feel like going into details. It's one of those things where it is better for you to find out on your own.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 10:55:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cosmic, your post is very ambiguous. What do you mean they "know exactly what they're doing?" And why of all Christian denominations would you pick Catholic? Christianity and religion in general relies on symbolism. When I was very religious, I was Roman Catholic. That's what happens when you're 100% Italian-American I suppose. This also answers the other thread: was your religion chosen or inherited? Mine was inherited; I was born into a Catholic family/tradition.
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:34:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 10:55:32 AM, Danielle wrote:
Cosmic, your post is very ambiguous. What do you mean they "know exactly what they're doing?" And why of all Christian denominations would you pick Catholic? Christianity and religion in general relies on symbolism. When I was very religious, I was Roman Catholic. That's what happens when you're 100% Italian-American I suppose. This also answers the other thread: was your religion chosen or inherited? Mine was inherited; I was born into a Catholic family/tradition.

I'm purposely being vague, but throughout history, the Catholic Church has taught more through art and indirect methods than through text and spoken word(This was primarily because of the inability of the congregation to understand either). I think that sort of thing has continued into contemporary times to some extent.

To be a little less vague, I think the point of the Catholic Church is detach you from the Catholic Church. The church itself embodies everything that Jesus himself despised about the church of his day.

I am convinced that it is intentional because of the fact that some of the best biblical scholars and translators work for the catholic church, and they have to go through a lot of study. I would honestly be shocked to hear that the cardinals, and even the pope were not aware of how off everything is.

If they aren't doing it on purpose, they must deal with a lot of cognitive dissonance.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 7:48:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??

I noticed most of your language was quite condescending.

I do not disagree with the transubstantiation concept of the eucharist because of your misplaced zeal for fecklessness.

First they do not claim magic changes the wine and bread but that the change is a mystical one. This can be completely accounted for from a practical expectation.

In theological concepts , "Mystical" is an unseen forces whereas "magic" is by a non existent force. Please be clear.

I disagree from a teaching standpoint.
It would need to be shown that Priests have this ability which has not been shown in early literature that we have today.
This by no means makes my disagreement valid only that I need to see a document to assent. These documents could have existed at one time but did not survive.

My reasoning is a practical one, it is that if it had been so important in the church and to God... a document should have survived showing such teachings to be without question.
However, the first readily abandoned dogma that churches abandon upon division from the 5 patriarchal churches is transubstantiation.

So I would need to see substantial evidence to show that the Eurcharist is exactly as taught by the Catholic Church.

The second would be the concept of asking Mary to intercede.
I have no problem with asking dead saints to aid you....
I have no problem asking living ones to intercede for you...

I just do not see a teaching anywhere in the Church that states that Mary or any other Saint is everywhere present... that they can literally now hear every intercession requested of them...which the world over could be millions at any given moment...

I see that humans in every description, in every book have one locus. There is no description where even angels are able to be in more than one place at one time.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 12:59:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 7:48:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??

I noticed most of your language was quite condescending.

I do not disagree with the transubstantiation concept of the eucharist because of your misplaced zeal for fecklessness.

First they do not claim magic changes the wine and bread but that the change is a mystical one. This can be completely accounted for from a practical expectation.

I'm confused how you purport to account for the difference between "magical" and "mystical" by offering a practical expectation (explanation?). Regardless, the fact remains that the bread and wine do not physically change, nor do they have some mystical property of substance separate from their physical components.

In theological concepts , "Mystical" is an unseen forces whereas "magic" is by a non existent force. Please be clear.

The difference in application here is entirely semantic. They atheist will call it magic, while the theist will call it mystic simply because that party believes that one term denotes non-existence. Both terms reference fantasy.

I disagree from a teaching standpoint.
It would need to be shown that Priests have this ability which has not been shown in early literature that we have today.
This by no means makes my disagreement valid only that I need to see a document to assent. These documents could have existed at one time but did not survive.

I'm a little confused here... do you mean you need something (other than the catechism) that states that priests actually have the power to perform consecration?

My reasoning is a practical one, it is that if it had been so important in the church and to God... a document should have survived showing such teachings to be without question.
However, the first readily abandoned dogma that churches abandon upon division from the 5 patriarchal churches is transubstantiation.

This really is no surprise, considering a large percent of "Catholics" themselves do not believe the doctrine. Your statement above may confuse cause and effect, but it's not clear that that is what you are saying.

So I would need to see substantial evidence to show that the Eurcharist is exactly as taught by the Catholic Church.

Don't you think that we could avoid considerable embarrassment for the Church and
a colossal waste of resources if they simply admitted it's figurative?

The second would be the concept of asking Mary to intercede.
I have no problem with asking dead saints to aid you....
I have no problem asking living ones to intercede for you...

I just do not see a teaching anywhere in the Church that states that Mary or any other Saint is everywhere present... that they can literally now hear every intercession requested of them...which the world over could be millions at any given moment...

I see that humans in every description, in every book have one locus. There is no description where even angels are able to be in more than one place at one time.

Agreed...

I'm not really sure that we actually disagree on any of this...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 5:15:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

Check it out: http://www.debate.org...
The Cross.. the Cross.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 2:21:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 7:48:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??

I noticed most of your language was quite condescending.

I do not disagree with the transubstantiation concept of the eucharist because of your misplaced zeal for fecklessness.

First they do not claim magic changes the wine and bread but that the change is a mystical one. This can be completely accounted for from a practical expectation.

In theological concepts , "Mystical" is an unseen forces whereas "magic" is by a non existent force. Please be clear.

I disagree from a teaching standpoint.
It would need to be shown that Priests have this ability which has not been shown in early literature that we have today.
This by no means makes my disagreement valid only that I need to see a document to assent. These documents could have existed at one time but did not survive.

My reasoning is a practical one, it is that if it had been so important in the church and to God... a document should have survived showing such teachings to be without question.
However, the first readily abandoned dogma that churches abandon upon division from the 5 patriarchal churches is transubstantiation.

So I would need to see substantial evidence to show that the Eurcharist is exactly as taught by the Catholic Church.

The second would be the concept of asking Mary to intercede.
I have no problem with asking dead saints to aid you....
I have no problem asking living ones to intercede for you...

I just do not see a teaching anywhere in the Church that states that Mary or any other Saint is everywhere present... that they can literally now hear every intercession requested of them...which the world over could be millions at any given moment...

I see that humans in every description, in every book have one locus. There is no description where even angels are able to be in more than one place at one time.

Have you read anything by Justin Martyr? There are several documents that have survived in which he defended "eating flesh" when questioned by the Romans.

I wondered the same thing about the Saints being able to hear all of our prayers. But then I thought about time. I think there is no "time" in Heaven. There is no "hearing" like we have to do it here. There is no "tongue" like we have here.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 2:34:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

I would love to.

I have a hard time with Sola Scriptura, or Bible Alone. Where in the Bible is it written that we are to take the Bible Alone?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 11:47:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 2:21:24 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2011 7:48:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??

I noticed most of your language was quite condescending.

I do not disagree with the transubstantiation concept of the eucharist because of your misplaced zeal for fecklessness.

First they do not claim magic changes the wine and bread but that the change is a mystical one. This can be completely accounted for from a practical expectation.

In theological concepts , "Mystical" is an unseen forces whereas "magic" is by a non existent force. Please be clear.

I disagree from a teaching standpoint.
It would need to be shown that Priests have this ability which has not been shown in early literature that we have today.
This by no means makes my disagreement valid only that I need to see a document to assent. These documents could have existed at one time but did not survive.

My reasoning is a practical one, it is that if it had been so important in the church and to God... a document should have survived showing such teachings to be without question.
However, the first readily abandoned dogma that churches abandon upon division from the 5 patriarchal churches is transubstantiation.

So I would need to see substantial evidence to show that the Eurcharist is exactly as taught by the Catholic Church.

The second would be the concept of asking Mary to intercede.
I have no problem with asking dead saints to aid you....
I have no problem asking living ones to intercede for you...

I just do not see a teaching anywhere in the Church that states that Mary or any other Saint is everywhere present... that they can literally now hear every intercession requested of them...which the world over could be millions at any given moment...

I see that humans in every description, in every book have one locus. There is no description where even angels are able to be in more than one place at one time.

Have you read anything by Justin Martyr? There are several documents that have survived in which he defended "eating flesh" when questioned by the Romans.

I wondered the same thing about the Saints being able to hear all of our prayers. But then I thought about time. I think there is no "time" in Heaven. There is no "hearing" like we have to do it here. There is no "tongue" like we have here.

I have read Justin Martyr's work extensively. I did not find the quotations and contexts having the ability to point in either direction. He was simply trying to explain they were not cannibals butchering people or eating dead people recently in the graves.

As to your practical considerations in the hereafter, where do you see the concept of a non-linear concept of eternity?
We see clearly laid out in scripture a linear fashion of time described in heaven. God as a metaphysical being is not bound by time but even the angels are bound by time. Satan in eternity past at some point sinned, fell, caused the rebellion etc... Where do you see heaven taught as having no concept of a linear forward timeframe?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 11:49:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 2:34:33 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

I would love to.

I have a hard time with Sola Scriptura, or Bible Alone. Where in the Bible is it written that we are to take the Bible Alone?

Agreed Sola Scriptura is self defeating. Clearly scripture does not stand on its own. God's intent for the scripture was always and active and Living Church.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 12:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 12:59:04 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/27/2011 7:48:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??

I noticed most of your language was quite condescending.

I do not disagree with the transubstantiation concept of the eucharist because of your misplaced zeal for fecklessness.

First they do not claim magic changes the wine and bread but that the change is a mystical one. This can be completely accounted for from a practical expectation.

I'm confused how you purport to account for the difference between "magical" and "mystical" by offering a practical expectation (explanation?). Regardless, the fact remains that the bread and wine do not physically change, nor do they have some mystical property of substance separate from their physical components.

In theological concepts , "Mystical" is an unseen forces whereas "magic" is by a non existent force. Please be clear.

The difference in application here is entirely semantic. They atheist will call it magic, while the theist will call it mystic simply because that party believes that one term denotes non-existence. Both terms reference fantasy.

That's fine but when you discuss transubstantiation you must take the terms to mean what they mean in historical theological context.
For example Hope today mean "I wish".
Hope in theological terms and in the Bible means "I confidently expect".

I am pointing out that you need to keep things in a theological perspective and to work to understand the terms being used or you will get confused.

I disagree from a teaching standpoint.
It would need to be shown that Priests have this ability which has not been shown in early literature that we have today.
This by no means makes my disagreement valid only that I need to see a document to assent. These documents could have existed at one time but did not survive.

I'm a little confused here... do you mean you need something (other than the catechism) that states that priests actually have the power to perform consecration?

To explain:
The catechism itself will quote sources where its theological framework derives. I however see no teaching or framework that survived which supports or validates the belief system.

It is not like baptism where you can see countless different regional churches all performing the same functional ritual of immersion. If it was made up after the fact you would see divergent practices from the original early on. There were no divergent practices. The only thing that came up even at 150 in the didache was the what could be practically acceptable given water conditions and amounts available.

The ritual never changed then some 500-600 years later a discussion exploded if it was literal or symbolic. There seems to be no traceable way of determining which one was true. At least I have not discovered it.

If someone has that traceable truth I am more than willing to change my mind.

My reasoning is a practical one, it is that if it had been so important in the church and to God... a document should have survived showing such teachings to be without question.
However, the first readily abandoned dogma that churches abandon upon division from the 5 patriarchal churches is transubstantiation.

This really is no surprise, considering a large percent of "Catholics" themselves do not believe the doctrine. Your statement above may confuse cause and effect, but it's not clear that that is what you are saying.

So I would need to see substantial evidence to show that the Eurcharist is exactly as taught by the Catholic Church.

Don't you think that we could avoid considerable embarrassment for the Church and
a colossal waste of resources if they simply admitted it's figurative?

Actually, I more than willing to admit they know something that I do not. However, there are countless documents in the vatican that have yet to be read. There simply are not enough scholars that can be trusted with such precious works of history.


The second would be the concept of asking Mary to intercede.
I have no problem with asking dead saints to aid you....
I have no problem asking living ones to intercede for you...

I just do not see a teaching anywhere in the Church that states that Mary or any other Saint is everywhere present... that they can literally now hear every intercession requested of them...which the world over could be millions at any given moment...

I see that humans in every description, in every book have one locus. There is no description where even angels are able to be in more than one place at one time.

Agreed...

I'm not really sure that we actually disagree on any of this...

I agree with you that the practicality needs to be explained on both counts.

Where we might disagree is the valid practical explanation. I believe science (specifically mathematics) has fundamentally explained nearly every interaction of the supernatural.
This one conversion into literally Jesus would be one that I have not encountered a scientific explanation for. I have no problem with the mystical concepts or abilities of the priest only the practical teachings in this instant compiled with no scientific explanation to account yet.
I do not need the scientific one, to determine the teaching true, if the track record is there.
After all the Church has been proven right in nearly every instance.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 1:21:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 11:47:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/2/2011 2:21:24 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2011 7:48:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 9/27/2011 5:34:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/26/2011 4:56:33 PM, ianspigler wrote:
The title is a bit misleading. I do not say that anything is wrong with the individual Catholic. It is just that I would like Protestants (or anyone else) to critique Catholic teaching. I am doing this to give the person posting to look at themselves and see if there views on the Catholics are logical or just spiteful. Catholics are also welcome to post any comments.

It's pretty simple... Transubstantiation is both a cornerstone of their belief, as well as a physical impossibility.

So to be Catholic, you are required to believe that priests are able to magically change the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood without changing any of their physical properties.

My question for Catholics is why they believe that watered-down wine and nasty crackers have this additional property of "substance" that can be changed, but is somehow independent of physical properties.... what about other stuff? Can we use Ritz crackers and Coke? Or do they not have the magical, changeable "substance" ??

I noticed most of your language was quite condescending.

I do not disagree with the transubstantiation concept of the eucharist because of your misplaced zeal for fecklessness.

First they do not claim magic changes the wine and bread but that the change is a mystical one. This can be completely accounted for from a practical expectation.

In theological concepts , "Mystical" is an unseen forces whereas "magic" is by a non existent force. Please be clear.

I disagree from a teaching standpoint.
It would need to be shown that Priests have this ability which has not been shown in early literature that we have today.
This by no means makes my disagreement valid only that I need to see a document to assent. These documents could have existed at one time but did not survive.

My reasoning is a practical one, it is that if it had been so important in the church and to God... a document should have survived showing such teachings to be without question.
However, the first readily abandoned dogma that churches abandon upon division from the 5 patriarchal churches is transubstantiation.

So I would need to see substantial evidence to show that the Eurcharist is exactly as taught by the Catholic Church.

The second would be the concept of asking Mary to intercede.
I have no problem with asking dead saints to aid you....
I have no problem asking living ones to intercede for you...

I just do not see a teaching anywhere in the Church that states that Mary or any other Saint is everywhere present... that they can literally now hear every intercession requested of them...which the world over could be millions at any given moment...

I see that humans in every description, in every book have one locus. There is no description where even angels are able to be in more than one place at one time.

Have you read anything by Justin Martyr? There are several documents that have survived in which he defended "eating flesh" when questioned by the Romans.

I wondered the same thing about the Saints being able to hear all of our prayers. But then I thought about time. I think there is no "time" in Heaven. There is no "hearing" like we have to do it here. There is no "tongue" like we have here.

I have read Justin Martyr's work extensively. I did not find the quotations and contexts having the ability to point in either direction. He was simply trying to explain they were not cannibals butchering people or eating dead people recently in the graves.

Did you read the part where he talked about it being the flesh and blood?

I made a mistake and didn't explain myself full about there being to time in heaven. The difference is time difference between here and there. In our time we age, the universe ages. In Heaven this time stops. Moses appearing with Jesus is a good example of this.

I know this sounds cheesy but imagine our time like a dvr recording. You would be able to pause, stop and remind. It would not effect us in this time but allow the Saints ample time to pray for us.

Hope this helps. I'm surprised this is a big road block for you. For me the biggest hurdle was whether they should pray for us. Once I resolved that issue the "time" issue became superficial, for me anyway.


As to your practical considerations in the hereafter, where do you see the concept of a non-linear concept of eternity?
We see clearly laid out in scripture a linear fashion of time described in heaven. God as a metaphysical being is not bound by time but even the angels are bound by time. Satan in eternity past at some point sinned, fell, caused the rebellion etc... Where do you see heaven taught as having no concept of a linear forward timeframe?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen