Only Catholics go to heaven?

[WolfVanZandt]

[rusmeister]

Wolf, I don't want to answer at all - I feel that answering these posts is unproductive. But I don't want to be blatantly misunderstood.

My point was that there is NO imperative for manifestation of (effects of) the Eucharist, as my examples from the night of the Last Supper were intended to point out. There was nothing in terms of mystical experience that the disciples could talk about. It would seem mostly the opposite - a lack of faith, running away, Peter's denial... Instead, you focused on some fairly low-importance stories about miracles that I mentioned (in passing) and took that to be my point.

There can be no one-upmanship on the Holy Mysteries. God reveals what He will to whom He will. Demons can also reveal things. We call this 'prelest' - a sparkling illusion, a deadly mirage. That's why we can't trust the personal experience of others.

Forgive me!

[WolfVanZandt]

Rus, whether trasnubstantiation exists or not is irrelevant to what I'm talking about (or it certainly seems to be, so let me reiterate that first.

THere is no noticeable difference between the quality of a Christians life and faith whether they accept tradition or not. Tradition, in the end, goes not in any way hinder the persons involvement with the Lord Jesus - so what real difference does it make? It doesn't make any difference as to how much Christ is manifested in peope's lives. It doesn't make any difference in the amount of time they can spend with the Lord or how much guidance He gives. It doesn't ake any difference in their salvation. If so, explain how.

Now, to the side question - you build mountains out of molehills. When the Bible says "mystery" it doesn'tmean something that can'tbe explained in words. When Paul said, "Let me tell you a mystery", he didn't say "Something is going t happen but I can't explain it in words." What he did was to say what would happen and to go ahead and say what he wanted to say about it in words. A mystery is something that has remained hidden until the Lord got ready to divulge it.

So there is no mystery of transubstatiation. If it exists at all, it manifests. If it doesn'y manifest, it doesn't exist. If it manifests, to manifests in some distinctive ways. What folks like you say is that it's real but there's no way of observing it's reality because it's a mystery.

But there is no observing it. The Bible doesn't talk about it (not in any obvious way). The only observable difference is the act itself.

Some folks in the church once decided that it would be cool if, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine actually changed into the body and blood of Christ so that your body would take part in the physicallity of Christ (not to mention that it could be used to establish control over people - withdraw it and the bodies remained poor, lost, normal, matter). And the Bible could easily be made to "say" it by ignoring the fact that Jesus, like any other human being use figures of speech.

It's strange, I struggle to maintain a literal interpretation of the scripture but when a person is speaking and it's obvious by what they're saying, that they're talking figuratively (and it is obvious at the Lord's Supper that He's talking figuratively - if you can't figure it out, I'll be glad to explain it), but you folks decide when something's literal according to whether it will further your philosophy or not.

The people who are hyperconcrete of speech - those that don't use verbal embellishments (figures of speech) are usually diagnosed as having some form of ental problem - Jesus wasn't in that category.

So, a few folks thought it was cool. But it was cool to alll the folks under them because it reallyse the apart. It made them cool. So suddenly, they were not just servants of Jesus and kin by His authority - they were HIM - physically (by the Eucharist) and mentally (by the real process of taking on the mnd of God. THey didn't have to wait for the glorification of the body - they moved themselves right into the tipdog positions of the universe. Woof!

Sounds good! Whether there was any support that it was real or not - it was practical. It could be used. So, since there was no real basis for believing that it actually occurred (and how could there be - someone just came up with it because t sounded cool), t became a mystery. That eliminated any need to support it to others. THat effectively eliminates any further debate. We don't have to show that we're cool because it's a mystery. There are no real time manifestations of it. It exists but we don't have to show you because there's nothing to show. We don't have to show that we've changed - there doesn't have to be any evidence of what sets us apart from others (although Jesus, in the Bible, most clearly said that there would be evidence.) - it's a mystery. THat.......is a what known in the vernacular as a cop out.

[Adam]

[Pizza Man]

[WolfVanZandt]

[Adam]

[WolfVanZandt]

[Kolbitar]

::THere is no noticeable difference between the quality of a Christians life and faith whether they accept tradition or not.

Chesterton wrote a book on St. Franics, and one on St. Thomas Aquinas--they actually sell a single volume containing both books. Anyway, you read those two books and then show me that a Protestant version of either one of them exists, or ever has existed: when you fail to produce, when you note the difference in kind between the quality of Christ's life illuminating them, and that of the rest of us, you'll have your principle difference...

The difference, I say, may not actually exist between you and me, but potentially? I believe it does...

Jesse

[WolfVanZandt]

Kolbitar. what did you just say?

An actual difference doesn't exist, but you think that a potential difference does exist.

Does the potential ever develop so that you can distinguish between the two? What makes you think that a potential difference exists?

I don't know if an equivalent book by a Protestant exists - certainly not one that looks the same because Protetants don't venerate those two like Catholics do. That's given, but what does it mean? That's pretty doggone close to begging the question. Of course a book written about Thomas Aquinas and one written about Augustine would look different if it were written by a nontraditionalist than one written by a traditionalist. That's almost trivial. You haven't said much of anything, there.

[Kolbitar]

::Kolbitar. what did you just say?

I don't know, I feel like you're responding to an entirely different post so I have to wonder.

::An actual difference doesn't exist, but you think that a potential difference does exist.

I said MAY not actually exist between the two of us. However, I won't say the difference doesn't exist between my formerly Protestant self and my currently Catholic self. My Catholic self is much more Christlike due to the Sacraments, to accepting Christ's authority, and to perceiving the beauty of His Church-- though I still fall far short of the Saint I should be.

::Does the potential ever develop so that you can distinguish between the two? What makes you think that a potential difference exists?

As a Protestant I could never have been a St. Francis or a St. Aquinas. As a Catholic I'm expected to be...

::I don't know if an equivalent book by a Protestant exists - certainly not one that looks the same because Protetants don't venerate those two like Catholics do. That's given, but what does it mean? That's pretty doggone close to begging the question. Of course a book written about Thomas Aquinas and one written about Augustine would look different if it were written by a nontraditionalist than one written by a traditionalist. That's almost trivial. You haven't said much of anything, there.

That's because I'm talking about the Saints themselves, not the books.

Thanks,

Jesse

[WolfVanZandt]

Of course those two individuals don't exist in the Protestant denominations, there's no Billy Graham in the Catholic church either. Neither is there a Lottie Moon. You're not saying anything.

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? Simply because you have made a decision, you will see that the decision was right and you will see positive result - whether those results are a basis of that decision or not - but you didn't say how you've changed for the better because of the Eucharist and the rituals and the "beauty of the church".

You're still not answering my question and, as a result, you haven't shown how traditionalists are any better off than nontraditionalists.

And this thing about explaining how you used to be Protestant but changed to Catholic (or Orthodox) and you now know that it was the right choice......

I used to be a member of a board (I can't imagine how I got there since I'm certainly not part of the target population) composed of people who used to be Catholic but became Protestant because they found so many things in the Catholic church that upset them - and they thought they had made the right choice. In fact, I believe I know more people that has moved from Catholicism to Protestantism than I know that went the other way.

You prefer Catholicism to Protestantism. You prefer Augustine and Aquinas to Graham and Moon and Theime and Wesley. Give me something beyond personal preferences.

[WolfVanZandt]

Honestly, Kolbtar. All Christians are not only expected to be saints - they are saints (if they're actually Christians). I'm as much a saint as Francis (maybe or maybe not as good a saint). If you couldn't be a saint as a Protestant, you can't be a saint as a Catholic.

BTW, if I were Catholic, my middle name would definitely be Francis.

[Kolbitar]

[WolfVanZandt]