The New Christian Thread 4

[Messier_Object]

Question for anyone who might know: are there any distinctions between Arminianism and classic Catholic or Orthodox teachings on the same areas of theology?

Throughout this year, the Calvinism that I had affirmed for so long has crumbled. Having been a Calvinist for 7 years, I can very easily look at TULIP, think of a Bible verse (or verses) that seems to fit neatly with any given point, and see where Calvinists are coming from, but over the years my awareness of passages that contradict 5-point Calvinism has built up, and eventually I've found myself looking at the whole system and at every stepping saying: "I see why you think that, but..."

I've looked into Roman Catholic teachings on these things, and the framework seems to connect the dots pretty coherently. I haven't been able to get such clarity from Eastern Orthodox teachings insofar as I've been able to access them, beyond an adamant affirmation that we do in fact have free will. I had always thought that Jacob Arminius thought that the only thing predestined was that Jesus would die as an atonement for sins, although this year, as far as I've looked into it, it appears he thought more was predestined than just that.

So I don't really know where my understanding sits in relation to these traditions, or where they sit in relation to each other. So...curious.

I get what you're saying about the lack of clarity in the EO church. It's not so much lack of clarity, but lack of defined language. For example, you brought up the atonement. The EO doesn't necessarily believe in an atonement, but in the recapitulation theory. They also teach that the Eucharist is the actually blood and body of Christ, but don't formally call it transubstantiation like the western churches but instead just refer to it as a mystery. The EO also teaches there's a resting place after death, which the Catholics call purgatory, but that the EO do not define but makes it clear it is not purgatory. This can make comparing some points difficult unless you know exactly what you're looking for.

[The_Standard]

Very curious to hear the rationale behind the doctrines of grace crumbling...

[rdferguson]

The orthodox church is the correct church. It's the "back to the roots" christianity. The schism occured due to the fact that the catholic church went off the road. Sucks that the sunday church is 3 hours long

I'm aware enough about how the schism happened. There are some issues in which I favour the EOC position, insofar as I understand what their position is (eg the Trinity); the issue I'm asking about is one where I find myself agreeing with the RCC position insofar as I understand their position.

I get what you're saying about the lack of clarity in the EO church. It's not so much lack of clarity, but lack of defined language. For example, you brought up the atonement. The EO doesn't necessarily believe in an atonement, but in the recapitulation theory. They also teach that the Eucharist is the actually blood and body of Christ, but don't formally call it transubstantiation like the western churches but instead just refer to it as a mystery. The EO also teaches there's a resting place after death, which the Catholics call purgatory, but that the EO do not define but makes it clear it is not purgatory. This can make comparing some points difficult unless you know exactly what you're looking for.

I guess a lot of this is the impact of their apophatic approach to theology, which makes it a lot easier for me to make sense of what they disagree with than what they actually affirm to be true.

Very curious to hear the rationale behind the doctrines of grace crumbling...

BRB Calvinism = grace.

I affirm grace. My affirming grace does not equate to me being able to affirm Calvin's teachings about God.

I was initially sold on Calvinism because the Bible plainly affirms predestination, and I was led to believe that you're either a Calvinist or you deny predestination. With that being the case, I let Calvinism influence how I read the Bible, which wasn't much of a problem for the parts that have become proof texts for most Calvinists. But then I also kept encountering parts of the Bible that fly in the face of Calvinism. Every time I did so, I had to mentally make a trade off between letting the Bible speak and letting Calvin speak. Eventually I was still identifying as a Calvinist, but had hedged every aspect of Calvinism that I know of in order to make it better fit the Bible enough that it no longer resembled Calvinism. When I realised I'd already done that, I decided to stop trying to squeeze the parts of the Bible that don't sit well with Calvinism into Calvinism. And now I look at the 5-point model, and on every point I'm quite content saying "this is half right, but it's using what it gets right to justify what it gets wrong."

[The_Standard]

I was initially sold on Calvinism because the Bible plainly affirms predestination, and I was led to believe that you're either a Calvinist or you deny predestination. With that being the case, I let Calvinism influence how I read the Bible, which wasn't much of a problem for the parts that have become proof texts for most Calvinists. But then I also kept encountering parts of the Bible that fly in the face of Calvinism. Every time I did so, I had to mentally make a trade off between letting the Bible speak and letting Calvin speak. Eventually I was still identifying as a Calvinist, but had hedged every aspect of Calvinism that I know of in order to make it better fit the Bible enough that it no longer resembled Calvinism. When I realised I'd already done that, I decided to stop trying to squeeze the parts of the Bible that don't sit well with Calvinism into Calvinism. And now I look at the 5-point model, and on every point I'm quite content saying "this is half right, but it's using what it gets right to justify what it gets wrong."

Evidence?

[Harbinger]

I was initially sold on Calvinism because the Bible plainly affirms predestination, and I was led to believe that you're either a Calvinist or you deny predestination. With that being the case, I let Calvinism influence how I read the Bible, which wasn't much of a problem for the parts that have become proof texts for most Calvinists. But then I also kept encountering parts of the Bible that fly in the face of Calvinism. Every time I did so, I had to mentally make a trade off between letting the Bible speak and letting Calvin speak. Eventually I was still identifying as a Calvinist, but had hedged every aspect of Calvinism that I know of in order to make it better fit the Bible enough that it no longer resembled Calvinism. When I realised I'd already done that, I decided to stop trying to squeeze the parts of the Bible that don't sit well with Calvinism into Calvinism. And now I look at the 5-point model, and on every point I'm quite content saying "this is half right, but it's using what it gets right to justify what it gets wrong."

It's like you're almost seeing the bigger picture here but not quite.

[rdferguson]

Evidence?

I'm hesitant to answer this, partly just because I don't keep a list of proof texts (the good news, however, is that I will bertstare into oblivion any non-Calvinist who thinks John 3:16 is an objection), but more because the predictable s#!7storm that follows is predictable.

In saying that, I'll throw you a bone. Calvinism teaches unconditional election and perseverance of the saints, which culminates into the saying "once saved always saved." Yet there are plenty of warnings against losing salvation in the Bible. Romans 11 gives a vivid example:

13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Now, I'm fully aware of how Calvinists make this fit their theology. As I post this, I'm bracing for (again) the very predictable argument(s) that will follow and expecting to hear something I've heard a thousand times before.

But the text itself gives an overt warning, and not one made in vain against an idle threat. It doesn't affirm that those who appear to lose their salvation never really had it -- it affirms that they really did, having been grafted onto the tree; and they really lose it, being cut off from the tree; and they can really regain it, being grafted back in.

It's like you're almost seeing the bigger picture here but not quite.

8/8 m8 gr8 deb8

[BonsaiBrah]

I was thinking more along the lines of demonic worship, pro-sinner stuff online that pushes agendas like the LGBT stuff, satanic philosophies etc.

Possession can take hold of anyone at anytime even from the very moment they are born and it does not mean they will be foaming at the mouth or cursing. Every culture, ideology, movement, religion can be used and is used, all forms of communication, everything you see and hear can be used.

That being said, let's talk about the Catholic Church's gross violation of the 2nd Commandment..

Well going by that logic if the Catholic Church is guilty then Orthodox Churches would also be guilty?

[CalmWind]

Possession can take hold of anyone at anytime even from the very moment they are born and it does not mean they will be foaming at the mouth or cursing. Every culture, ideology, movement, religion can be used and is used, all forms of communication, everything you see and hear can be used.

Christians who love and obey the Lord cannot be used unless God himself gives permission.

[BonsaiBrah]

Christians who love and obey the Lord cannot be used unless God himself gives permission.

True but if you let your guard down you can be and will be used.

[CalmWind]

True but if you let your guard down you can be and will be used.

Yes this is true.

Any Christian who forgets that we are in a daily spiritual battle, and does not stay close to the Lord..... opens themselves up to the enemy.... which will try to get us to commit a small sin, which then opens the door to bigger sin.....

But an obedient Christian filled with the Holy Spirit scares the fallen. They run away at the sight of it, because that Christian knows that the fallen can be tormented and placed under the authority of Christ.

It is the demons who fear us, and should never be the other way around.

[MuscleXtreme]

Yes this is true.

Any Christian who forgets that we are in a daily spiritual battle, and does not stay close to the Lord..... opens themselves up to the enemy.... which will try to get us to commit a small sin, which then opens the door to bigger sin.....

I agree with this, and thinks it's doubly true being a secular society driven by the media and establishment.

[The_Standard]

I'm hesitant to answer this, partly just because I don't keep a list of proof texts (the good news, however, is that I will bertstare into oblivion any non-Calvinist who thinks John 3:16 is an objection), but more because the predictable s#!7storm that follows is predictable.

In saying that, I'll throw you a bone. Calvinism teaches unconditional election and perseverance of the saints, which culminates into the saying "once saved always saved." Yet there are plenty of warnings against losing salvation in the Bible. Romans 11 gives a vivid example:


Now, I'm fully aware of how Calvinists make this fit their theology. As I post this, I'm bracing for (again) the very predictable argument(s) that will follow and expecting to hear something I've heard a thousand times before.

But the text itself gives an overt warning, and not one made in vain against an idle threat. It doesn't affirm that those who appear to lose their salvation never really had it -- it affirms that they really did, having been grafted onto the tree; and they really lose it, being cut off from the tree; and they can really regain it, being grafted back in.

Thanks for throwing me a bone, I guess. I can assure you that I'm not looking to necessarily debate so much as have a full understanding of where you are coming from.

As Piper argues, I would state that threats from God is one way He keeps his saints persevering to the end. While these are not idle threats, we have promises throughout Scripture that guarantee our salvation. An argument you were expecting, I'm sure, is 1 John 2:19, but it is relevant.

Furthermore, you state that salvation lost can be regained. While that may appear to be true for Israel here, it certainly cannot be true for one who was once a believer in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 6:4-6).

Paul never gives the guarantee that there are definitely believers who will be cut off. He's simply stating, "Don't do this, or you risk being cut off." Revelation 3:5 comes to mind. Christ never says there are some whose name He will erase from the Book of Life; He simply states that He will not erase those who endure and overcome.


Ultimately, I believe the same thing is being taught in both camps. The problem is that it isn't taught clearly.
Perseverance of the saints has led to, "All I have to do is pray this prayer, and I'm good."
Loss of salvation has led to behavior modification and a constant thought that God is just waiting for us to mess up so that he can snatch back what he has gifted us with.

We can fully agree, though, that the Bible is very clear that the only way to fully assure ourselves salvation is to continually follow after Jesus Christ.

[CalmWind]

Here's a question ....

why is it that Humans need fire to cook food, and need to boil water before drinking it? Boiling water is a relatively modern discovery, but for thousands of years humans didn't really drink water, but instead drank stuff like beer and wine to hydrate themselves.


It's almost as if, Humans appeared on this earth already knowing how to cook food and we never developed the need to eat raw.

If we were truly just primitive animals that evolved alongside other great apes...... why is it that Humans can't eat raw meat or drink water from standing water without getting dysentery, or sick, and even dying?


Meanwhile, a chimpanzee can go down to the local watering pond, like any other animal, and drink up and it's fine. A chimp can hunt and kill another animal and eat it's meat raw and it's fine.

But humans are soft and fragile by comparison.


If evolution is true, we should be hardcore animals just like the rest of the animal kingdom, and should be able to go down to the local pond and drink up and have no ill effects. Or eat meat raw straight from a wild animal and still be fine. Since, you know, we're nothing more than just advanced great apes, according to Darwin.

Yet... we can't.

When you look at yourself in the mirror, do you feel as if you're just a primitive animal like a great ape..... do you feel like a primitive animal wearing a business suit going to work? I sure don't.

[CalmWind]

If Israel never begged God for a human King...... if Israel had stayed true to God's initial plans of having no human King.., if they hadn't rebelled.......

would Israel have ever been destroyed and conquered? Would it still be standing today, with obvious changes post-Messiah ?

[The_Standard]

If Israel never begged God for a human King...... if Israel had stayed true to God's initial plans of having no human King.., if they hadn't rebelled.......

would Israel have ever been destroyed and conquered? Would it still be standing today, with obvious changes post-Messiah ?

Stupid humans... Always thwarting God's sovereign will... Am I right?

[benedetto27]

Good article about Donald Trump's pagan religion:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/...p-man-of-faith

Donald Trump, Man of Faith

Donald Trump is a man of faith. It�s true that during his presidential campaign he has demeaned women, mocked the disabled, and praised the abortionists of Planned Parenthood; that his early exploits include repeated adulterous affairs, about which he boasts, and a failed attempt to evict a widow from her home; that, unlike King David, to whom his more shameless supporters compare him, he has never asked God for forgiveness. Trump is nonetheless a man of strong and very American faith. His career throws a light on the spirit of the age, as Lytton Strachey once said of Cardinal Manning. The light is not very flattering.

Trump was baptized and confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, in New York City. His parents raised him in the austerities typical of devout low-church Protestants. As a result, he does not gamble, smoke, or imbibe�even when the stimulant is caffeine. �I�ve never had a cigarette. I�ve never had a glass of alcohol. I won�t even drink a cup of coffee,� he told Esquire last year. (It is hard to forget when noting Trump�s abstemious habits that Hitler and Mussolini neither smoke nor drank.)

In his late twenties, Trump began attending Marble Collegiate Church on Fifth Avenue. Founded in 1628 in the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, Marble Collegiate is one of the few institutions that survives from the city�s founding. Peter Minuit, the governor of New Amsterdam, was the first church elder, and Peter Stuyvesant, the colony�s director general, led worshippers to service every Sunday. The high steeple of its current home, erected in 1854, rises two hundred feet above the pavement, a symbol of uprightness set in stone. Here Trump walked down the aisle after exchanging vows with Ivana and heard the sermons of Norman Vincent Peale, a man whose philosophy would become Trump�s own.

When Trump met him, Peale was already famous as the author of The Power of Positive Thinking, a book that would go on to sell some five million copies. Peale occupied a position at the center of the establishment, though this standing was endangered in 1960, when he joined a group of 150 Protestant pastors, including Billy Graham, that wanted to keep Kennedy out of the White House. The group issued a manifesto asking whether a Catholic could be trusted as president when Rome had shown such �determined efforts . . . to breach the wall of separation of church and state.� Peale led the public presentation of the document and faced an immediate backlash from Union Theological Seminary�s Reinhold Niebuhr and John Bennett, who accused him of �blind prejudice.� The embarrassed Peale apologized and from then on sought to distance his teaching from the harsh realities of politics.

Before Trump made his own foray into politics, he read Peale�s book and adopted its program of �positive thinking.� The two men began to trade public compliments. Peale, always generous in his assessments of human nature, said that Trump had a �profound streak of honest humility.� Trump, not exactly showing that humble streak, said that Peale �thought I was his greatest student of all time.� In a certain sense, Trump was right. Peale has had no more perfect disciple.

Peale distilled the optimism and self-sufficiency of the American character into a simple creed. The first article of his faith was a warm patriotism. He called the U.S. �the greatest country in the world� and addressed his writing to �everyday people of this land� who �are my own kind whom I know and love and believe in with great faith.� These were the people he met in masonic halls, resort hotels, and cruise-ship conference rooms. In them he sensed innate decency and ability. Any one of them could become efficient and successful�if only he would believe in himself, harnessing the power of positive thinking.

Peale promised his readers �constant energy� if they thought positively. Optimistic thoughts opened one up to a vital force coming directly from God. Negative thoughts, especially a tendency to dwell on one�s faults, could interfere with the divine charge. He warned those with active consciences that �the quantity of vital force required to give the personality relief from either guilt or fear� was so great that it left �only a fraction of energy� for going about one�s tasks. Productivity and cheeriness became for him the signs of eternal election. (In attacking Jeb Bush for being �low-energy,� Trump effectively accused him of having forfeited the Holy Ghost.)

For Peale, �attitudes are more important than facts.� The man who displays �a confident and optimistic thought pattern can modify or overcome the fact altogether.� The first fact that Peale�s positive thinking had to overcome was the fact of human frailty. Peale knew about the difficulties some encounter in alcohol, in troubled marriages, and in economic hardship, but he never could accept the inevitability of misfortune or that all must pay the wages of sin. Like one of Job�s comforters, he told the suffering that they simply needed to look on the bright side. Where the Bible urges man to search his heart and know his faults, Peale encourages him to �make a true estimate of your own ability, then raise it ten percent.� For Jeremiah the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, but for Peale its dark recesses are bathed in California sunshine.

Thus the necessity of repentance recedes. It is important to think positively, and a negative thought, such as Domine, non sum dignus, can be injurious to spiritual health. Yet the gloomy aspect of traditional Christian practice is also the wellspring of Christian compassion. At the moment a Christian asks for forgiveness, he must acknowledge his own weakness and look mercifully on the weakness of others. In the Our Father, the Christian asks that he be forgiven, just as he in turn forgives. From the holy terror that Peale called �fear thoughts� comes the light of Christian love.

At a campaign event in Iowa, Trump shocked the audience by saying that he had never asked God for forgiveness. All his other disturbing statements�his attacks on every vulnerable group�are made intelligible by this one. The self-sufficient faith Trump absorbed from Peale has no place for human weakness. Human frailty, dependency, and sinfulness cannot be acknowledged; they must be overcome. This opens up the possibility of great cruelty toward those who cannot wish themselves into being winners. A man who need not ask forgiveness need never forgive others. He does not realize his own weakness, and so he mocks and reviles every sign of weakness in his �fellow men.

Because Peale was a decent man of sincere if not quite orthodox Christian faith, he never drew out the harsh implications of his views. Trump feels no such restraint, and so has taken Peale�s teaching to its logical conclusion. He has called the widow whose house he tried to take a �terrible human being� whose lawyer is a �loser.� He has mocked a reporter for having a disfigured hand. He has demeaned a contestant on one of his reality shows by suggesting how she�d look in a pornographic scenario. And he has applauded Planned Parenthood for doing �very good work.�

Peale is now largely forgotten, and his bestseller languishes in used book stores. This is a shame, for it has led us to underestimate the influence and power of the self-sufficient faith that he promoted, and that he imparted to his greatest student. Peale meant to preach a gentle creed, one that made hellfire and terror into mere afterthoughts. In Trump it has curdled into pagan disdain. Both forms of this philosophy have captured the public imagination, and both stand at odds with the faith taught by Christ.

Christianity is a religion of losers. To the weak and humble, it offers a stripped and humiliated Lord. To those without reason for optimism, it holds up the cross as a sign of hope. To anyone who does not win at life, it promises that whoever loses his life for Christ�s sake shall find it. At its center stands a truth that we are prone to forget. There are people who cannot be made into winners, no matter how positive their thinking. They need something more paradoxical and cruciform.

After one of Trump�s outbursts, I walked up to Marble Collegiate Church to see where he once worshipped. I tried a front and then a side door before deciding that the church must be closed. When I was about to turn away, a janitor came out of the building. He asked me what I wanted and then led me inside. The sanctuary was painted in burgundy and gold, with soft carpet, and pew brackets that hold plastic thimble cups used for communion. The janitor pointed out a recently installed stained-glass window depicting the Crucifixion. �Before that window was put in, there was no cross in here,� he told me. I asked him whether he attended church there and he said, no, he was a Catholic.

Matthew Schmitz is literary editor of First Things.

[The_Standard]

Posts in this thread have been few and far between lately. In the interest of possibly sparking discussion...

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence [or has been coming violently], and the violent take it by force. -Matthew 11:12

How are we to interpret this statement by Jesus?

Is He referring to the religious leaders being violent toward the actual establishment of the Kingdom of God and seeking to forcefully stop it?

Or is He saying that the arrival of the Kingdom of God is forceful and those who are forceful or zealous for it will enter it?

Is is possible that both interpretations are correct?

[rdferguson]

Posts in this thread have been few and far between lately. In the interest of possibly sparking discussion...

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence [or has been coming violently], and the violent take it by force. -Matthew 11:12

How are we to interpret this statement by Jesus?

Is He referring to the religious leaders being violent toward the actual establishment of the Kingdom of God and seeking to forcefully stop it?

Or is He saying that the arrival of the Kingdom of God is forceful and those who are forceful or zealous for it will enter it?

Is is possible that both interpretations are correct?

I think the entire remainder of the chapter flows out from the premise of this verse. That being the case, I don't think there's any endorsement of force or violence here.

[CalmWind]

So now there is a growing movement within Scandinavian countries to reject Christianity and embrace "their ancient pagan heritage". The pagan heritage their ancestors had before they were "forced" to convert to Christianity.


The unseen enemy is hard at work undoing the past 2,000 years of Christian globalization.

Soon enough.... we Christians will once again be persecuted..... we will be jailed for our oppressive and hateful beliefs...... we will be forced to become counter-culture rebels or be tempted to join the world. Hopefully, the strength of the Lord holds strong on our hearts and we never abandon Jesus.

[Jonjo8558]

Short version:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR4xcStBARU

Long verson:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQpJqmbYPXg

Not only are his views of homsexuality crazy his views on cults are also crazy by going to a mosque saying a prayer and then saying Islam is peaceful I don't know how he ever became Pope he is a disgrace to the Church.

[sawoobley]

Swedish church to use drones to drop thousands of Bibles in ISIS-controlled Iraq
http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...iraq/92438.htm


That's what I'm talking about!

[ImRightUWrong]

Swedish church to use drones to drop thousands of Bibles in ISIS-controlled Iraq



That's what I'm talking about!

give them one week to convert. If not, then drop thousands of bombs instead. Deus Vult.

[Jonjo8558]

if you say and do nothing and even promote them they. . . win.

Turning the other cheek never meant promoting dangerous pagan religions, especially while those pagans are killing Christians in their thousands.

[Harbinger]

So now there is a growing movement within Scandinavian countries to reject Christianity and embrace "their ancient pagan heritage". The pagan heritage their ancestors had before they were "forced" to convert to Christianity.


The unseen enemy is hard at work undoing the past 2,000 years of Christian globalization.

Soon enough.... we Christians will once again be persecuted..... we will be jailed for our oppressive and hateful beliefs...... we will be forced to become counter-culture rebels or be tempted to join the world. Hopefully, the strength of the Lord holds strong on our hearts and we never abandon Jesus.

[rdferguson]

Romans 6:3-6 states that we were baptised into Christ's death so that we might united with him in both his death and resurrection. This got me thinking recently about communion/eucharist in a way I hadn't previously considered. If in baptism we are joined with Christ in his death, does that mean that when we receive eucharist we are also uniting with him specifically in his death? The thought never crossed my mind before, but then my church is right up the deep end of memorial theology, only having communion 4 times a year, and actively stating half the time that "there's nothing magical about the bread or juice," so it's rather in spite of them that I'm even really aware of the tradition that in communion we are in some way intimately receiving Christ, so I think I've got a better shot at hearing a valid answer here.

[sawoobley]

Romans 6:3-6 states that we were baptised into Christ's death so that we might united with him in both his death and resurrection. This got me thinking recently about communion/eucharist in a way I hadn't previously considered. If in baptism we are joined with Christ in his death, does that mean that when we receive eucharist we are also uniting with him specifically in his death? The thought never crossed my mind before, but then my church is right up the deep end of memorial theology, only having communion 4 times a year, and actively stating half the time that "there's nothing magical about the bread or juice," so it's rather in spite of them that I'm even really aware of the tradition that in communion we are in some way intimately receiving Christ, so I think I've got a better shot at hearing a valid answer here.

Considering the sacrament is done to remember Christ's life, ministry and atonement and the bread specifically represents his body I would say yes. It's kind of all encompassing so if it evokes insights in a certain area then I'd say go with it.

[CalmWind]

What do Catholics think of Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes?

If he's right, Francis is the final Pope and we are living in the End times. Malachy got Benedict right, with the Olives reference.

However..... there are many people who believe Benedict is still the Pope, because he is still alive...... and that Francis is not really Pope....

which is interesting because of the following fact : The current Secretary of State of the Vatican is Pietro Parolin. He is an Italian who is literally named Peter. Malachy's prophecy says the final Pope will be Peter the Roman....

if something happens to Francis and the other papal administrator's, (ISIS vowed to attack the Vatican by 2020)..... then Peter the Roman, Pietro Parolin, would become defacto Pope...... and thus HE would be the Final Pope that would steer the church in the End Times trials and tribulations.

So.... perhaps Francis' term as fake Pope will be very short..... and it will be Pietro Parolin who will be the next Pope?

I do believe Francis made these comments :

"I have the feeling that my pontificate will be brief - four or five years, even two or three. Two have already passed. It's a somewhat strange sensation," he said

"I feel that the Lord has placed me here for a short time," the Argentine-born pontiff said.

[Athanasius90]

Said I wasn't going to post here for a month, but my uncle just died and if you guys believe in making some prayers for his soul, I'd appreciate it. Or if not please shoot some prayers for our family so we can make it through this.

ty brethren <3

Sorry to hear, brother. Prayers for the happy repose of his soul.

[Athanasius90]

From what I've gathered over the last six months, I now believe its the best bet--so I've got my ticket too.


I'm just a tad concerned that now I'll wind up on an undesired radar. This was me reading GOOs posts since campaign season kicked in:

[CalmWind]

God uses people you would never expect to lead nations. King Nebuchadnezzar went back and forth between praising God and being a pagan following demonic false gods, and forcing his subjects to bow to them and to him. Yet still God chose him for that role. It still might be that King Nebuchadnezzar is written in the Book of Life, who knows.

Hillary is not a real Christian, just like Obama. She will say whatever is politically expedient. She now supports homosexual marriages, etc. She will say anything. She's even admitted to consulting with demons, or who Hillary calls "Eleanor Roosevelt"..... as Hillary believes she has spoken to the ghost of the deceased First Lady. There's even a leaked e-mail in which Hillary says she will sacrifice to Moloch. Whether it's a joke or not, every fiber of my being tells me that Hillary is an evil soul and does not follow Jesus Christ.


Meanwhile.... Trump may have been a womanizer (honestly, which red blooded male DOESN'T constantly battle with lust/women? Even Christians....), but Trump is a legitimate ally to Christians. He opposes same sex marriage even though HE KNOWS the tide has turned against Christians. He opposes unchecked illegal immigration, even though he KNOWS that it will bury him under an avalanche of criticism and SJW labels like "bigot" or "racist"...... the man has courage to stand up for what he believes is right.... he does not fear swimming against the current if it is the right thing to do.

I truly believe Christians will have a strong ally in the White House when Trump is elected.