KFC POSTS on Feb.6 How did I arrive at the conclusion that Christ's Church must be a unified-----not a segmented ,many churches--body? I correlated those texts above with these:
"there shall be one fold and one shepherd" St. John 10:16. "And the glory that thou, Father, has given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one." 17:22. "You are called in one body...one spirit....one hope...one Lord....one faith...one baptism" Eph. 4:4-5.There it is in Scripture, as plain as can be, at least to me, that Christ's true Church was constituted as one---one in every respect: one in membership, one in belief, and one in worship and one in government.
you are way too entrenched to even "get" what I'm saying Lula. I don't have the energy nor the time to go thru the whole Peter/Petros thing.

Of “getting” what you are saying? C’mon KFC, give me more credit than that! Getting it and buying it are 2 different things.
As far as going through the whole Peter/Petros thing? I think you will find that most Protestant scholars agree that there is no argument used in the Latin or Greek translation that will avail. Did you notice that most of the quotes I cited were from Protestant scholars---Baptist I believe?
-------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS on Feb.6 Did you ever go to a reliable source outside the CC to find the he/she controversy in Gen 3:15? I think you need to check with a Hebrew scholar on that one and I'm absolutely sure you'll find out it's "he."

Of Gen.3:15, you are referring to something I posted on another site having to do with the doctrine of Original Sin. The verse in question is “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed, she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” I brought the fact that St.Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheims Bible translation is “She shall crush” and "lie in wait for her heel " while all the more modern Bibles have the same parts of the verse translated as “He shall crush” and “his heel”. Another problem with the modern translations is it doesn’t cover the "lie in wait" part at all---it's just gone, not there, not addressed in every one of them.

“She shall crush” and “her heel” comes from St. Jerome Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheims which I have good reason to believe are the most authentic and accurate translations of the originals that are available today. St.Jerome was considered a linguistic genius and was fluent in Hebrew. I’m content to trust in St.Jerome’s translation which by the way was the verse accepted by all of Christendom up until the 16th century.

Having said that, I can see where you are coming from re: “She shall crush thy head”. The Douay Rheims footnote has the explanation of “She” as the verse coming from St. Jerome’s translation of Ipsa, meaning the woman. Some Church Fathers read it as ipsum, viz, the seed. The sense is the same for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. So from this, I’ve seen it both ways in Catholic commentaries, that is, that Christ crushes the serpent by His Cross and Mary does in the sense as described by the Church Fathers in this footnote. From this I’m left with the notion that the modern versions are all mis-translations. If you want to discuss this further, I’ll be glad to, however, we’ll have to get beyond translation and into interpretation of the entire context of the verse and how that relates to the final battle when Satan will be crushed for good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS on Feb. 6 But I want to address just the quote above.
I agree Christ's church is to be unified. But it's not to be unified physically. It's not to be unified in one physical churchbuilding or denomination. It's to be unified by the spirit. It's the spirit that gives life said Christ. Christ did not come to this earth to make bad people good. He came to give dead people life. We get life from the HS. That's what unites us. We are alive where before we were dead.


Yes, it is the Holy Spirit that will be doing the unifying....but unifying in what? In the “one faith”, that’s what.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: The one shepherd, the one worship is all about Christ. He is the one that is the good Shepherd. He is the one that ALL Christians are to worship. That's where the unity comes from. Not the CC. That's bogus. That's a lie.


The only ones who universally worship God in unity of the “one faith” are Catholics-----by virtue of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which Christ instituted at the Last Supper.
If it’s “all about Christ”, then why do Protestants selectively decide which of His teachings and commands they will obey? One example is when Jesus said, “Take and eat...This is my Body...this is my Blood”. Yet, Protestants say “No Jesus, you’re wrong, “this” isn’t your body; “This” is just a symbol of your body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: He is the one that ALL Christians are to worship. That's where the unity comes from.


Yes, absolutely all Christians are to worship Jesus. So, when and how do Methodists, Congregationalists, or Baptists, just to name a few, actually worship God? Is there unity in the different denomination’s worship? I have always thought Sunday service was more about fellowship than worship. Am I wrong?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Look what Peter said himself to the elders in his day:
The elders which are among you, I exhort who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ....Feed the flock of God.....neither as being lords over God's heritage but being examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd (Christ) shall appear you shall receive a crown of glory......1 Peter 5:1-4

From the Douay Rheims Bible V.1 “The ancients (senior priests) that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come. V2. Feed the flock of God, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God.....V.3 Neither as lording over the clergy but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.”

The Acts of the Apostles 14:23 tell us that Paul and Barnabas ordained priests in the various churches of Asia Minor to which St.Peter is now writing this letter.

When the full context of chapter 5 is read, we see that Peter was acting as the one in authority (yes, presbyteroi was elders and later designated priests) because he was the one doing the exhorting to the others. Although he refers to himself as one of them, he also distinguishes himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory of God that is to be revealed”. V2. “Feed the flock, taking care of it..”--- here Peter is doing exactly what Christ told him to do after the Resurrection. Christ told Peter his duties and as head of the Church, Peter is telling the pastors of their duties and how to carry them out being mindful that they should display true priestly and pastoral ministry. V4. He tells them if they approach their duties in this way they will have no reason to fear the Judgment. That if they imitate the Good Shepherd, Jesus, in taking care of their flock, they will gain an unfading crown of glory in Heaven. Christ gave St.Peter his teachings and the teaching is being handed on through St.Peter to others in the ministry of Christ.
V.5-11 The Apostle concludes his exhortation with a call to humility and watchfulness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: never was there supposed to be any hierachy. Never.

With all due respect, KFC, this dogmatic assertion is more regurgitation of Protestant oral tradition. That’s exactly what the Reformers said. Again, you are being consistent with what the Reformers denied. In order to propound their own doctrines the submission and the authority of the Pope as successor of St. Peter had to be eliminated.

I’ve just posted a rather lengthy explanation showing Apostolic Succession from a Biblical standpoint.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Even Peter put himself at the same level as these other elders as a fellow elder. Here was his chance to tell them that he was elevated among them as the "head" of the church. He says no such thing in either of his two letters.


Actually, St. Peter did tell them, but in a very humble way. I’ve just explained that. False pride, as you know, is a great evil force in the world. God, Himself, has said that “he resists the proud and gives His grace to the humble”. In this instance, St. Peter was a man who humbled himself in this situation. That may be one of the reasons why God who He has absolute sovereignty over the Church chose him and delegated this particular authority to him as head of His Church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Some Pastors don't even like an elevated pulpit because they think it violates what Jesus would have wished. And Lording over the people...com'on Lula you know the CC as an organization has famously erred in this regard.

Well, you can’t accuse St. Peter, even though he was head and had the authority, of “lording over the people” then. He exhorted the priests against being domineering and to be a good example to the flock. I admit that the Church’s history throughout the ages shows those religious from the top down who have behaved in ways woefully contrary to the exhortation of St. Peter. And for that, they will have to face the Judge.


KFC POSTS: Also, I just thought of this. The CC loves the quote in Matt 16 about Peter being the rock instead of Christ.


According to the Magisterium of the Church, St.Matt.16 taken with the whole of the Gospels, affirms that Christ is the Cornerstone and St.Peter is Rock of the Apostles and one of the 12 foundation stones. See Apoc. 21:14 as well. On the other hand, the Reformers interpret the rock in St.Matt.16:18 is either Christ Himself or Peter’s confession of faith. They attack and deny the Primacy of St. Peter and spurn the CC for these stand in the way for their own doctrines to work. They threw out 7 Books of the Bible in an attempt to make their doctrines work, but we see here that St. Matthew saying that Peter is the rock is still in their way. The Reformers recognized that apart from the Church Fathers, whom for the most part, they either ignore or misrepresent, the chief witness for the primacy of St. Peter is Holy Scripture. According to Protestant oral Tradition, St. Matthew must be telling us something that isn’t, i.e. Peter isn’t the Rock, the keys of the kingdom really aren’t and the authority to bind and loose are fictitious incidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Well don't you think it odd it's not in Mark? Mark wrote the gospel thru Peter's eyes. Basically Peter wrote the book of Mark and he didn't even put that in there. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

Bringing up that the fact that Peter is the rock is not in St. Mark’s Gospel is another one right out of the Protestant oral tradition handbook. Do they wish their readers to think that if all four Gospels do not report the same thing, it did not happen even once?

The Magisterium of the Church tells Catholics to look at the unity of Scripture as a whole. This principle is based on the fact that because God is the principle author of the Bible, there is a fundamental unity about them even though it may not always be immediately apparent. Clearly, Scripture can carry different emphases, can put the stress on different aspects of something, whether a narrative or a doctrinal passage, due to the way Revelation gradually unfolds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Mark wrote the gospel thru Peter's eyes. Basically Peter wrote the book of Mark and he didn't even put that in there

I don’t know what you mean “that Peter wrote the book of Mark”. I know that St.Mark wrote chiefly from St.Peter’s own teachings; so what it isn’t found in St.Mark?


My research tells me that the greeting at the start of the letter 1StPeter1:1, gives the author as the Apostle, St. Peter. Throughout Christian antiquity, no doubts were raised about the Petrine authorship of the letter or about its being a canonical, inspired text. That means, at least to Catholics, that what St.Peter said in it is binding to all the Church. Certain things point to the letter having been written around the year 64. The opening greeting of the letter implies that Christianity had already spread through Asia Minor and after St.Paul’s last journey in the region. St. Irenaeus of Lyons quotes from it several times, attributing it expressly to St. Peter. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria, 214, the author of the first commentary on the letter. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Lula, you, yourself said the church was a supernatural entity, not necessarily temporal and not necessarily 100% spiritual. It's not "the people" so much as it is something... else.

So, is there the smallest chance that "the church" may be made up of a LOT of people from diverse beliefs, but who share a commonality? Do our distinctions define the church FOR God, or does God define the church?

BAKERSTREET POSTS:
So, is there the smallest chance that "the church" may be made up of a LOT of people from diverse beliefs, but who share a commonality? Do our distinctions define the church FOR God, or does God define the church?

Q1--Yes, "the church" in the situation you are decribing is Protestant in nature. According to dogmatic decree of Protestant oral tradition (POT), the definition of "Church" is all believers in every church (except the CC). I think the main commonality of "believers" in the various denominations (a euphemism of sects) is their declaration of "faith" which is------ believers need only believe that they are saved i.e. "I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior." Then comes the "personal relationship" and they are saved without effort and this "faith" is what saves them. None of this is found in the Bible by the way...and therefore, those POT distinctions define the church for God.

To Catholics, "the Church" is the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body with Christ as the Supreme Head, by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice (Holy Eucharist), and the same 7 Sacraments, under the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Another way of saying that "the Church" is comprised of the living faithful, united under an earthly head, who is the VIcar of Christ, who Himself is the Cornerstone Ps. 86:5, It is the body of Christ, who is the head of the Church Eph.5:23, which completes and continues Christ's mission. Col.1:24 that is for the salvation of all men. God has defined "His Church" and His holy religion in Sacred Scripture.

Here is "the visible Church" founded by our Lord: "In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted abouve the hills, and all nations shall flow into it" Is. 2:2. Of this Church, the Church of all nations, He dsaid, You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. St.Matt.5:14 What cannot be hid, can be seen. St.Paul asks, "What have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge" 1Cor.5:12-13. The early Church, sometimes called primitive and sometimes called infant, was one visible Church, whose members were within the Church, sinners, saints and all. Those who were not in the Chruch were "without".

St. Paul speaks of "the Church" 17 times. St.Luke 8 times, and St.Peter and St.John once each. "The Church of God" appears 11 times, "in the Church" 12 times, "of the Church" 18 times, and "to the Church" , 5 times. The "whole Church" is seen 3 times. There's more,but you get my drift. The writers of the NT point to this visible body, the Church in 110 references. In the Gospels, "Church" occurs only twice, in St.Matt.16:18, and 18:17. In every other case, it is spoken as the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and sometimes simply as 'the kingdom'. In St. Matt. "the Church" is spoken of 36 times as 'the kingdom". So the visible Church, with its good fish, bad fish and cockle in the wheat St.Matt. 13 is the kingdom of God.

During the very time "the Church's" bishops were writing what we call the NT, as confirmed by Apostolic Tradition, "the Church" was a functioning organism. Surviving documents and the Church Fathers testify to the one true Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the CC. Scripture is divinely inspired testimony to the fact that God reveals Himself in order to save the people of Israel and, later ,all mankind, through His Son made man, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Accomplished once and for all the Death and Resurrection of Christ, this salvation is constantly made present here and now through "the Church". "The Church" exists for the salvation of men.

there's tons in the bible.....but for brevity sake....try Eph 2:8-9

For by grace are you saved thru faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works lest any man should boast."

Thru faith ....faith is the vehicle that gets us there.

how about this one...

But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13.

It's all God Lula. Salvation is all Grace and All Faith. It's not our effort but his effort that saves us.

KFC POSTS: For by grace are you saved thru faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works lest any man should boast."

I totally agree that salvation is the work of God, a gratuitous gift that originates with God's Infinite mercy. It acts in man by faith, that is man's acceptance of the salvation offered him in Jesus. But, even faith is a divine gift that man cannot merit (work for; earn) on his own .

Now, let's put your beautiful quote above with the "one faith, one baptism" in Eph. 4:5 and see what we come up with.

So one who has faith has been given a gift. "The precious gift of faith shall be given to Him." Wisdom 3:14. The infused virtue of faith enables him to perform an act of (faith): he believes what God has revealed for the simple reason that God has revealed it."I give you to understand...that the Gospel that was preached by me is not according to man; for neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11-12.

KFC POSTS: The diff between the Protestant (there you go again) and the CC is that the Protestant doesn't go by tradition as a rule. At least not the fundamental evangelicals. Their belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptora. Perhaps you've heard of it?


Catholic belief (Deposit of Faith) is based on written revelation (Sacred Scripture) and on Christ's oral teachings (Apostolic Tradition). Catholic theology rests on the literal interpretation of St. Matt. 16:18; St. John 3:5; 6:53; 20:23; St. Luke 22:19; 1St.Peter 3:21 and Romans 6:3.

Most, if not all, of the sects within Protestantism deny these truths either fully or in part. That's why I said that you are forbidden to believe anything the Reformers denied. For example, the Protestant forefathers denied the Real Presence of Christ's Body, BLood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist when they were setting up their own doctrines, and therefore, as a Protestant, you are forbidden to believe this as well.


I wonder when you say that fundamental evangelicals base their beliefs on the bIblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, does their "beliefs" mean the same as their "faith"?

Sola Scriptura is Latin for, "by Scripture alone". You say that fundamental evangelicals base their belief on the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Would you explain to me where the Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Can you prove it from the Bible?

they didn't deny it...they just read scripture and figured it out all by themselves....John 6:63 was pretty plain.

I am not forbidden to believe anything. Please believe me if you believe nothing else I say.

I am not tied to a denomination that says I have to believe what they teach.



all scripture is God breathed...you know the verse in Timothy? That's the famous one. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Also if you read Colossians you see Paul pleading with them not to go outside of what they've been taught and that everything they needed was in Christ and Christ alone. He was sufficient. Nothing else needed to be added to make their lives more complete.

Jesus is the word. He is the word that became flesh says John 1:1.

KFC POSTS: The diff between the Protestant (there you go again) and the CC is that the Protestant doesn't go by tradition as a rule. At least not the fundamental evangelicals. Their belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptora. Perhaps you've heard of it?

all scripture is God breathed...you know the verse in Timothy? That's the famous one. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Also if you read Colossians you see Paul pleading with them not to go outside of what they've been taught and that everything they needed was in Christ and Christ alone. He was sufficient. Nothing else needed to be added to make their lives more complete.


C'mon, KFC, you can do better than this wishy-washy non answer to my question. You haven't explained where or how the Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You said that fundamental Evangelicals belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptura. I'm thinking biblical doctrine of sola scriptura?? What? Where do you find that in Scripture KFC? C'mon, you've stated your claim, now prove it, show where/how the BIble teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the verses in Timothy and Colossians prove what you claim, then show it.

I don't think you can because Sola Scriptura is a purely human construct that has been passed on as Protestant oral traditon. Sola Scriptura is one of the pillars on which the theology of the Protestant Reformation was founded. The other one was Sola Fide, Luther's claim that we are saved by faith alone. We'll have to contrast those pillars with the one that St.Paul teaches in 1Tm. 3:15.

LULA PILGRIM POSTS: And for that matter, aren’t Protestants more closely aligned with the Sadducces with their “free thinking”, I.e. picking and choosing which of Christ’s Biblically revealed doctrines to accept or reject.

KFC POSTS IN REPLY: you've got that wrong Lula. I can tell you I accept them all. It's the CC church that does not. That's why their tradition usurps written scripture anytime there's a controversy.

LULA POSTS: Jesus' teachings like the one at the synagogue in Carpharnum St.John 6:48, 55,61, 65 when He said, “I am the Bread of life...He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life”. And v.65, “But there are some of you who believe not”. Those Jews didn’t believe Him and found this teaching “too hard’ to accept and left Him.

KFC POSTS IN REPLY: I agree with you but not how you want. Look at the verses you just picked from Chap 6. I've been around a long time debating this with other Catholics over the years and there's one thing that is so predictable. They always, always, always omit scripture to back up their belief. Always. Do you notice that you did not include v63 in your above quote? Why not? Because it puts a crimp in your message.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS IN REPLY:

Here is the entire narrative, St.John 6: 22-72 from the Douay Rheims Bible with commentary. That should take care of your concern that I somehow purposely omitted v.63. Once the entire narrative is read carefully, it is easily understood that Jesus truly means that we take His Words literally in this case. You shall see that He tried repeatedly to convince the Jews, and when He finally did, they found the teaching 'hard' and left Him while the Apostles didn't fully understand, but having faith, believed.

St.John 6:22-24: "The next day the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. But the other ships came from the Tiberias ; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum seeking for Jesus."

The narrative opens on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee with the feeding of the 5,000, the only miracle recorded in all 4 Gospels. After the people were fed, Jesus withdrew to the hillside to be alone. Night fell, and the disciples went down to the lake without Him, and embarking on the only boat available sailed for Capharnaum, which was on the Western shore.

V25-26:"and when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said: Amen, Amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves are were filled."

They found Jesus and asked him when (but not how) he had made his way there apparently thinking he had walked around the lake. Jesus did not answer their question, but uttered to them a reproach which proved Him to be a discerner of their hearts. They sought Jesus for bread to sustain mortal life, however, Jesus fed them such that faith being awakened, they might be prepared to receive the bread (His Body and Blood) which will give them everlasting life.

V27:Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you. For Him hath God, the Father sealed."

He told them to work to earn food which gives eternal life. Jesus had provided them their fill of natural bread, now He began to speak of supernatural bread. Here, meat is referred back by the word "that". "Meat" refers to His Body, His Flesh. "Which the Son of Man will give you." can only refer to Jesus, in this case as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus, the Son of Man, gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. Through the eating of His Body and Blood in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, our divine faith is strengthened by the grace of having God present in us.

V28: They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
V29: "Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent."
V. 30: “They said therefore to him: what sign dost thou show , that we may see, and may believe in thee? What dost thou work?”

With verse 30 the colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capharnaum begins. The Jews ask him what signs (miracles) He could perform and as a challenge they, they noted V. 31.

V31: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

Could Jesus top that they were asking?.


V32-33:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say to you. Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my father fiveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world."

Jesus told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. And that He was the fulfillment of all that Moses did and stood for. The change from the past tense, gave, to the present, giveth, is significant. The bread of the past--the manna in the desert--satisfied the Israelites' physical needs and sustained them for the journey to the promised land. Now, the new bread---the Son of God--is in their midst, and He has promised so much more than manna. He has come to satisfy every hunger the human heart could ever know. Jesus is greater than Moses. Moses gave them a food that perished every night, and he led them to an earthly promised land. Jesus, however, gives Himself as the bread of eternal life.

V34:"They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread."

Give us this bread they insisted.
"give us always" --The Jews being fleshly-minded, could not perceive of the Lord's words. They thought He was promising some miraculous earthly food, such as the manna, and that it would take away all necessity of providing for their daily bread.

V35: "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." .

But Jesus told them , It is I who am the bread of life.
"of life"--thus Our Lord promised: to give i.e. to sacrifice His Body for the life of the world. 2.) to give His Body to be our food and in this sense the Jews, as we shall see, understood His words. Jesus is the Bread of Life who satisfies every hunger and thirst. Both the OT and the NT speak about God as "bread" that gives life to God's people. In the Last Supper, Jesus chose bread as the sign and instrument of the greatest of gifts, that is, His life in the Eucharist. St. Luke 22:19-20.

V36-37: But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will not cast out."

Christ continues to make His point with the Jews getting more explicit.

V38:"Because I come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."
V39: "Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day."
V40: " And this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day."

Jesus promises that He will not lose anyone whom the Father gives Him. He will raise them up to new life.

V41-42: The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which come down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?"

Jesus was getting more and more explicit and the Jews started to complain and question, but still understood Him to be speaking metaphorically. Jesus repeated what He said before, then summarized. "I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven."

V43-44: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves." No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him in the last day."

"Draw him"--not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of His heavenly grace. We cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws us--unless the Father stirs us to hope in His mercy and love. This is a free gift of God, however, we have to love God and want to truly be with Him.

V45: "It is written in the prophets: and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me."

V46-47: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, Amen, I say to you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life."

V48-51:"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

Notice that Jesus repeated what He had said before. I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven.

V52-53:"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world. Then the Jews ask, incredulously, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Setting aside all respect for Him, they spoke of Him as "this man" and loudly disputed with one another, how it was possible for Jesus to give them His flesh to eat. Our Lord wished them to believe the fact, and leave the how to Him.
At last, they understood Him literally and were stupefied.

V. 54-57: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you; Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Christ repeats His words with extra ordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does He introduce the statement about drinking His Blood.
Here Jesus repeats and explains even further. He tells us we can have no life in ourselves unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. The man that eats My flesh and drinks My blood enjoys eternal on the last day. My flesh is real food, My blood is real drink. The man who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives continually in Me and I in him.
And there was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings", for there were none. His listeners understood Him quite well. No one of them any longer thought He was speaking metaphorically, or symbolically. If they had, why was there no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was a confusion, Christ explained what He meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, Christ repeated what He said becoming more and more explicit.

KFC, you are keeping company with the disbelieving Jews when you say this isn’t literal. Even the Jews took Jesus literally after He repeated it enough. Many times over He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four (4) times He said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood". John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper--it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

V58-60:"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that come down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said teaching in the synagague, in Capharnaum."
"live by me"--Because Christ's flesh and blood are inseparably united to Himself, the Son of God. So intimate is the union with Him of those who receive Him that He compares it to the union between the Father and the Son.

V 61-62: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard and who can hear it? But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"

"Who can hear it?"---Or who can believe it? And these were His disciples, people who were already used to His remarkable ways having seen His miracles. They took Him literally and wouldn't believe Him. They would not accept faith and believe in Him, in what He says He is and what He says He will do. Here, "If then" means ---Our Lord makes one more attempt to win them to faith. "Does this offend or scandalize you?"---But if you see me, the Son of Man, go up to heaven with my glorified body, will you not then believe that I can give my body to you to be your Food?

V 63-64:"If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
“If then” Jesus made one more attempt to win them to faith.
“Son of man ascend” means but if you see me the Son of man go up to Heaven with my glorified Body, will you not then believe that I can give My Body to you to be your food?
Christ by mentioning His Ascension, would confirm the truth of His power and divinity that he had before asserted. As on other occasions, Jesus speaks about future events to help His disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. St.John 14:29. And, at the same time, He warns them not to think of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a gross, carnal manner and receive His words badly.

“the flesh profiteth nothing” Flesh, as flesh cannot give life, but you must not think of the dead flesh, for it is a question of the Flesh of the Son of man, in which dwells the Spirit of God, gloryifying it, and filling it with divine power. My Flesh, united to the Spirit of God, has life-giving power.
"spirit and life" For the Flesh which I mean (that you eat) is penetrated by the Holy Spirit and united to the living God.

V65-66: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given it be given him by my Father."
Judas betrayed Him and he was one of the Twelve. Christ knew that some would not believe, including the one "who he was that would betray Him". It is here in the rejection of the Holy Eucharist that Judas fell away.

V67: "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked with him no more."

They went back to their ordinary way of living and to their various occupations. Their chief object in following Our Lord had been the hope which they built on an earthly Messias and they cared nothing for our Lord's spiritual and supernatural promises. They now formed a part of the unbelieving mass of Jews. However, besides the 12 Apostles, there still remained the 72 disciples whose sending forth by Our Lord is later in the chapter 41, as well as some other disciples and some holy women. Thus His disciples were sifted. Those whose vocations were real and whose faith was firm, remained with Jesus. Whereas many of the weak and wavering could not stand the test to which their faith was put and left Him.

This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking Him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews and the disciples who had accepted everything up to this point would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol. But He did not correct these first protesters, He let them go.

V68: "Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away?"
"will you also go away?" Jesus made no further attempt to keep back those who wished to leave Him. On the contrary, He searchingly asked the Apostles: "Will you also go away?" He left it to their free will to forsake them if they chose, and forced them to make a clear and open declaration of their intentions.

V69-72:" And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray Him, whereas he was one of the twelve."
St.Peter said this because of his faith. He believed Jesus was God, and he told him so, "thou art the Christ." "We have believed and have known".

This is what this whole discourse is about--- belief and faith. Who has it and who doesn’t. Simon Peter answered in the name of the rest of them. "Who but thou can lead us unto life?" They know Jesus is the only one to eternal life, even if they cannot understand the mysterious words that Jesus spoke, they still did not doubt them. They remained true to Our Lord, openly confessed Him to be the Son of God, and placed themselves in opposition to their unbelieving fellow-countrymen. If that isn't giving God the glory, then what is?
Christ's revelation in this discourse is utterly remarkable. He fulfilled every one of His promises at the Last Supper when He instituted the most Holy Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist.

KFC, you comment that 6:63 is omitted as though that was intentional becasue that puts a crimp in my message. KFC, I have no message here. Christ is the one doing the talking. Either you believe what He said as the Apostles did even though they at least at the time didn't really understand what He was saying. They believed and understood on faith. Some of the Jews on the other hand, had no faith and wanted more temporal things from Christ. Even after they fully understood what He was saying, they left. Christ wasn't speaking in a spiritual sense. He was speaking plainly, clearly, and with great emphasis that He said what He meant and He meant what He said.
Later, at the Last Supper, He would raise the bread, and say, take and eat, "This is My Body,....this is My Blood." Do this in remembrance of me."

Are we to deny God’s omnipresence because we cannot conceive how He does it? If Christ, who was on earth as a natural body and now reigns in heaven in a glorified body, certainly He can make bread and wine into His own Body and Blood. We can’t limit God’s acts to our own understanding.

Douay Rheims V 63-64:"If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

I’ll even give the same verse in the King James Version, so you feel right at home. (Please note that DR has 72 verses in all and that’s becasue 51 and 52 are combined into one verse in the KJV as 51.)

KJV V. 62-63: “what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

You appeal to Verse 63, in an attempt to repudiate or disprove Christ’s revelation that He is present, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist. This was the same verse that anti-Catholic Jimmy Swaggart used in a 1984 debate on the question, “Is the Real Presence real?” By citing V.63, do you think that Christ, who had just commanded His disciples to eat His flesh, now said there doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh profiteth nothing” means? And were the disciples to understand the line, “the words I have been speaking to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution, and a fairly clumsy one at that, for “symbolic”.

In St.John 6:64 the word “flesh”, is not used in the same sense as in 53-59. It’s being used more in the Pauline sense in which it is contrasted with “spirit”. The contrast is between unaided nature and nature elevated by grace. Compare St.John 3:6, “what is born by natural birth is a thing of nature, what is born by spiritual birth is a thing of spirit.”

After carefully reading the entire narrative, Jesus undoubtedly promises that He will give us His very flesh to eat. Twelve months later, He kept that promise, at the Last Supper taking bread and saying, “This is my Body...” The word of God is power unlike anything that we can fathom. And when He held the bread and said, ‘This is my Body..., His physical body was present. Now since the appearances or qualities of bread did not change, there was only one way left in which the bread could become His body, and that was according to substance. The logic is clear enough. Could God do it? Yes. Did He do it? Yes, for His words to the Jewish disciples bear no other logical explanation. I admit that the Real Presence of Christ’s body in the Holy Eucharist is as much of a mystery to be believed as an act of faith as the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The difficulties in my mind as to how God could do this is of no value against the fact that He did do it. If you believe Genesis literally, then it follows that you can’t say the omnipotent God did not do this, for He who created substance out of nothing , can put it through any subsequent changes that He might wish.

Finally, if you accept from this narrative that Christ can walk upon the waters, and that He could amplify 5 small loaves of ordinary bread to feed thousands of people and that Christ could act independently of natural laws, then despite your inability to see how He could do so, you must accept that He gave His very flesh to eat in the substance of bread. It all comes back to the question of searching the truth and asking yourself, do I really have faith in Christ or not?

KFC, earlier, I asked that you admit that there is no “one faith” and no “one baptism”, as Eph.4:4-5 describes, within Protestantism with all its thousands of Protestant churches each with their own set of theology. To which you posted:

KFC POSTED on Feb. 9: Lula, the ONE faith and the ONE baptism is this.....ONE FAITH....we as united Christians believe in CHRIST. That's the one faith. Our faith is in him. Our faith is only as good as the object its in. People have faith in many things, as Christians our faith is in him.. one faith. ONE SPIRIT-we all are baptized into one spirit. ONE. It's not WATER baptism. That's where you're getting hung up on. You are looking at the physical and Christ and Paul were talking the spiritual. We are unified in Christ connected and baptized by the HS.


I was following along half convinced until you said--it’s not WATER baptism. That’s when you you blew your entire argument. This proves that Protestants themselves aren’t theologically united according to Eph. 4:4-5. You can’t profess to be “unified in Christ connected and baptized by the HS”, yet widely differ in teaching that Baptism is necessity for salvation or not, that water is necessary or not, that infants may not be baptized or not, etc. It can’t be this way because truth is consistent and Christ prayed for unity. It’s quite evident from the NT that differences in doctrine do matter very much. Gal.1:8; 1Tim.1:3; 6:3.


Your acquantanice with St.Matt 16 which shows that Christ established a Church, and not churches, ought to bring you to the realization that Protestant churches, not one or all of them combined, can be theologically united according to Eph. 4:4-5, “one faith, one baptism..”. The reason: each church (by your definition “all believers”) has its own theology based upon the Luther and Calvin’s principle of Sola Scriptura and private instead of authoritative interpretation.


On the other hand, the Catholic Church alone contains the theological unity of Eph.4, one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. In full continuity with historical Apostolic Christianity, the most diverse types of people drawn from different nations, those who have disagreed on everything else, are at one on the fact that Catholic docrtrine is correct with the infallible authority of God Himself.


Baptism is an essential doctrine of Christianity. To Catholics, Baptism is one of the 7 Sacraments instituted by Christ and one of the constant teachings of the Church. Concerning your statement, “It’s not WATER baptism”, let’s consider the passages of 1St.Peter3: 20-21 and St.John 3:5.

1St.Peter3:20-21 highlights the sacramental manner in which God gives His grace through Baptism. We are told that God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built wherein only 8 souls were saved by water. Baptism which corresponds to this now saves you; not the putting away of filth from the flesh but the pledge of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Notice the words in bold. To Catholics, it makes perfect sense because Christianity from the beginning has always taught that Baptism is essential for salvation. We draw from a wealth of other Biblical passages that continuously and consistently teach the doctrine of Baptism. Take St.John 3:5, “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” Now that’s direct and clear language.

This has always been understood to mean water baptism until descendants of the Protestant forefathers denied it and came up with new interpretations. We’ve heard everything from that the water refers to the water of the womb, the word of God, or even a synonym for the Spirit, (as in, “water, even the Spirit”).

Ever since the Protestant Revolution, Protestants, acting like the free thinking Sadducees, have been picking and choosing which Biblical doctrines they choose to accept or reject. Baptism is one of those doctrines.
When I pressed you on accepting or rejecting Biblically revealed doctrines, KFC, you told me, “you've got that wrong Lula. I can tell you I accept them all. It's the CC church that does not. That's why their tradition usurps written scripture anytime there's a controversy.”

As you can see from these 2 passages, the doctrine of Baptism is biblical and I haven’t brought Apostolic Tradition into it other than to point out that the doctrine of Baptism is a constant, unchanged teaching of the Church and has been from her beginning at Pentecost and throughout her history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS on Feb. 9: His church is not man-made. Religion is. The CC is a religion.

I agree with your first statement that His church is not man-made. We know this because written Revelation (the Bible) clearly shows that Christ established “His Church”. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build “My Church”.St.Matt.16:18. From this, we can surely say that His church is not man-made. From this passage, we see that Christ is the builder, the Cornerstone. Now following that, we know from history and from Apostolic succession that St.Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, later called Pope. Therefore, “His Church” and “My Church” can only be the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the kingdom on God on earth. Christ established His Church for the purpose of teaching and sanctifying all people.

I would say that false religion is man-made and that the CC is a holy religion. Since written Revelation comes from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity) revealed that the Catholic Church was “the Church” instituted by Christ, who is the Word and Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, it follows that “the Church” is the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic religion. Only the religion that has these 4 marks is “the One” established by Christ. (By holy, I mean that by His grace, Jesus makes the Church holy, just as He is All-holy becasue she teaches, according to the will of Christ, holy doctrines. This doesn’t mean each member is holy for He said there would be good and bad members in the Chruch St.John 6:70 and not all members would go to heaven. St.Matt.25:31-46. The Chruch herself is holy becasue she is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the 7 Sacraments.

The word “religion” comes from a Latin word meaning ‘to bind’. An ancient writer, Lactantius, said, “We are tied to God and bound to Him by the bond of piety and it is this that religion has received its name. St.Thomas Aquinas says religion is the virtue which prompts man to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right. Objectively, religion is the voluntary acknowledgment of man’s dependence on God through acts of homage.

False religion is man-made and since the Catholicism is the holy religion revealed from Sacred Scripture it cannot be false. False religion is the negation on the part of man of perfecting beneficent communion with the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LULAPILGRIM ASKS KFC: And for that matter, aren’t Protestants more closely aligned with the Sadducces with their “free thinking”, I.e. picking and choosing which of Christ’s Biblically revealed doctrines to accept or reject.

KFC RESPONDS: you've got that wrong Lula. I can tell you I accept them all. It's the CC church that does not. That's why their tradition usurps written scripture anytime there's a controversy.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS: Jesus' teachings like the one at the synagogue in Carpharnum St.John 6:48, 55,61, 65 when He said, “I am the Bread of life...He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life”. And v.65, “But there are some of you who believe not”. Those Jews didn’t believe Him and found this teaching “too hard’ to accept and left Him.

KFC RESPONDS: I agree with you but not how you want. Look at the verses you just picked from Chap 6. I've been around a long time debating this with other Catholics over the years and there's one thing that is so predictable. They always, always, always omit scripture to back up their belief. Always. Do you notice that you did not include v63 in your above quote? Why not? Because it puts a crimp in your message.

KFC, you do not accept them all...only bits and parts of them as you decide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there's no way I really want to get into a CC/Protestant argument here Lula. We should concentrate on those things we agree on. If you want, you should just research (I know you love to do that) "water" and "word" and see what you come up with.

Also, think about the thief on the cross. He was going to heaven sans baptism (of water only). I believe he was baptized with the spirit right there on the cross.

You may also want to check out Acts 10:44-48. Which came first? Baptism of the HS or the water?

You know how I believe. I beieve water is an external symbol of the inner baptism of the HS. One baptism is external, one is internal. The internal is the one which saves (thief on cross). The external is one that shows what's going on internally. Actually Nicodemus in John 3 would have understood this as an OT principle which is way too much to go into...if you do the word/water search you may figure that out. Ezek would be the go to book.

LULAPILGRIM POSTED: Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. Christ said He came to fulfill the Law.

KFC RESPONDED on Feb. 9: No Christianity is not Jusaism fulfilled. Where are you getting that from? Yes, Christ did say he came to fulfill the law. But he did not come to replace the Jews. Big diff




The Jewish religion of the OT and practiced at the time of Christ was essentially a prepatory religion meant by its very nature to merge into its perfect fulfillment when the Messiah came. Christ was that Messiah and He said, I have come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.” He gave us the holy religion which the Jewish religion foreshadowed and said that it would last, just as He had given it, till the end of the world. It has lasted in the Catholic Church which alone has existed since His time in perpetuity.

So, yes, indeed, the religion of the OT prophets Isaias, Ezechiel, Jeremias, and Hosea and others is fulfilled in Christianity, specifically in Catholicism. God gave His true religion to mankind gradually so that men would be prepared by more simple doctrines for still more noble truths. He sent Moses the lawgiver, and after him a series of prophets to explain the law and to predict the coming of the Messiah. Christ fulfilled these predictions and taught the perfect law of God. The religion therefore known to the Jews before Christ was imperfect and prepatory. The religion of Christ was its perfect fulfillment. Some Jews at the time recognized and accepted it. The majority didn’t. Then Christ sent His Apostles to preach it to the Gentiles.

We know from Scripture that humans are related to God in a sacred partnership called a “Covenant”. Hosea is the first prophet to describe the marital characteristics to this sacred partnership. God wedded Israel in the desert. The Old Covenant also called the Old Law and sometimes the Old Dispensation was fulfilled in the New Covenant or New Law. The rabbinical rituals and laws of the Old Covenant being abolished now count for nothing, confer no grace, and save no one. Worse, they bring a curse upon those who obstinately cling to them. St.Paul warned the Jews: “for as many as are under the works of the law, are under a curse.” Gal. 3:10. St.Paul further declares: “there is an abrogation of the former commandments because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law brought nothing to perfection.”

The beginning of the New Covenant in the Blood of the Savior Jesus Christ meant the end of the religion of the Old Covenant. At the moment of Christ Crucified, the Temple veil was rent from top to bottom St.Matt.27:51; St.Mark 15:38, God was making it known that the matter pertaining to the Law of the OT, its ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices etc. were made void by Christ’s death on the Cross. Jesus established a New Testament (Covenant) in His Blood shed for the whole human race. At that moment, there was a transfer from the Old to the New, from the Synagogue to “the Church” St.Matt.16:18, and from the many bloody sacrifices to one Victim.

It was by His Precious Blood shed on the cross that God’s anger was averted and the at all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces on the New and Eternal Testament could then flow from the Savior for the salvation of men. The Old Law gave way to the New Testament of which Christ as Supreme Head of all of humanity chose His Apostles . Only in the CC is the true worship of God now to be found St.Luke 22:13-20; St.Matt. 26:26-28; St.Mark 14:22-24. The Apostles were the first budding forth of “the Church”, the New Israel, the New Jerusalem, the Bride, the spouse of the Lamb.

St.Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians explains the relationship of the Christian Church to the Old Covenant. On the one side stands the Church with her freedom in Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. On the other, is the Law as practiced by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. St.Paul tells us the early Church had to struggle against “Judaizers” who thought they could combine the practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant with the holy religion of the New Covenant. This tendency had to be fought because the rituals of the Old Law only foreshadow the coming of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Mass and to persist in those rituals after His coming would be implicitly to deny that He had come. “O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been set forth, crucified among you...Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of the faith?” Gal. 3:1-2.
The supersession of the Old Covenant and its rituals by the New Covenant is another of the Catholic dogmas present day Modernists are trying to “interpret” out of existence. Yet, St.Paul himself declared that if justification came from the Old Law, “then Christ died in vain.” Gal. 2:21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




LULAPILGRIM POSTS: Another difference is the Jewish and Christian outlook on life. The former is material and temporal, while the latter is spiritual and eternal; neither, of course, is exclusively so.

KFC RESPONDS ON FEB. 9: I think the Jews might have an issue with this. They also were a spiritual people and still are, not a belief in Christ but a strong belief in Jehovah God of the OT.

I may be wrong, however, I think the theology of the afterlife is not highly developed in modern Judaism and this is due in part to Jewish people’s emphasis on the importance of this life and the continuance of the Jewish people as a race and as a nation.
KFC, think seriously about this. How can God’s New Covenant people include both those who accept Him and reject Him? Didn’t the great Jewish convert St. Paul of Tarsus infallibly teach, “There is neither Jew, nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free; their is neither male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” ?

Sacred Scripture tells us and history shows that there is no longer an Israelite nation constituting a distinct coventantal People of God, but only the New Israel of the CC to which all men embraced by the New Covenant belong, without distinction between Jew and Gentile.
Think about it. This is the mystery that Daniel could not fully understand in his final vision. This is what Jesus said the Old Covenant prophets longed to see, but could not. St. Matt.13:17. “The Church” is the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah on earth. This is the everlasting kingdom that accepts Jew and Gentile on an equal footing as long as they are willing to eat together at His Supper as one people. This is the Church redeemed in His Precious Blood.

The Church is God ‘s Bride and she is ultimately tied to the number 12. The Book of the Apoc, we’re told The Bride has 12 gates, and the gates have 12 angels, and on the gates the names of the 12 tribes, the city had 12 foundations and on them the 12 names of the Apostles. The most important appearance of twelve in the Old covenant had to do with God’s chosen people, His Ekklesia. They were the 12 sons of Israel, and they headed the 12 tribes of the household of God. St. John uses the symbolic number 12, and makes it crystal clear that this new Bride has superseded or is the completion of the 12 tribes of Israel. The new people of God have sprung historically from the old. There is no going back to the Old Covenant. The New fulfills the Old as Zechariah had predicted when he broke his two staffs. This is the strong covenant of Daniel made with the Church , rather than with ethnic Israel. The Church’s mission is the salvation of all men. Her eternal dignity stems from her choice as the Bride of the Lamb. The Old Covenant’s time is over due to unfaithfulness.

Israel of the Old Covenant was wedded to God in the desert. The Bride, “the Church” of the New Covenant was founded by Jesus Christ as did the Old Covenant upon God’s appointed Moses. The New is built upon a foundation of her Apostles, just as the Old had its prophets. The New has her priesthood just as the Old Covenant did. The New has initiation rites (Baptism) as did the Old, (circumcision). The New has essential ceremonies--the Eucharist, as did the Old--animal sacrifices. The New has human leadership--bishops, as did the Old---kings and high priests. The Church is a visible institution just like the Old. Just as the Old Covenant Israel was composed of imperfect humans, it was still the Chosen people of God. Just so, the Church is fraught with imperfect humans. The human and divine nature of the Church has been a mystery since time immemorial.


St.Peter brought thousands of Jews to their Messiah.We know that St.Paul brought hundreds of Romans, Corinthians, Galations and Thessalonians to “the law that is sweeter than honey and the honeycomb”. So, whether you like it or not, believe or not, agree or not, Catholicism is the completion of the Jewish religion. Had all of the Jews of Jesus’ time accepted Him as the Messiah and entered the Church, there would have continued to be one true religion. But because Jesus of Nazareth was not accepted as the Messiah by the majority of the Jews of His time, a split occurred. Pre-Christian Judaism was the divinely revealed true religion while post-Christian Judaism is an incomplete religion because it lacks recognition of the Messiah it anticipates.

The Jewish religion as practiced today has virtually nothing in common with the religion of the Israelites of the OT, the religion practiced by the Jews during the time of Christ. That’s because this OT religion came to an end with Our Lord’s death on the Cross by which He established His New Covenant that made obsolete the Old. I think the present day religion is primarily based not on the OT, but on man-made works called the Talmud and the Kabbalah.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTED on Feb. 9: They also were a spiritual people and still are, not a belief in Christ but a strong belief in Jehovah God of the OT.

Concerning “JEHOVAH God of the OT” ........

The Douay Rheims Bible has no such word, “Jehovah” in either the OT or in the NT.
I had to go to a Protestant Bible to find it --------Exodus 6:3; Psalms. 83:18; and Isaias.12:2; 26:4.

Douay Rheims Exodus 6:2-4, “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; and my name Adonai, I did not shew them. And I made a covenant with them, to give them the land of Chanaan...”

King James Version, Ex. 6:2-4, “ And God spake unto Moses , and said unto him, I am the Lord. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan...”

DR footnotes explain “my name Adonai” as the name which is in the Hebrew text that is most proper name of God which signifies His eternal, self existing being Ex.3:14. The Jews out of reverence never pronounce because the name of God was considered too sacred. Instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies ‘the Lord’, and therefore they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name, Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name Jod, He, Vau. Some moderns have framed the name Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians, for the true pronunciation of the name , which is in the Hebrew text , by long disuse is now quite lost.

Another explanation is that for the proper name of God, the OT uses the sacred tetragrammaton (literally 4 letters) in Hebrew that we moderns transliterate in English as YHWH, or using an alternative form of transliteration , JHVH). Ancient Hebrew writing contained only consonants and did not record vowel sounds. So when the ancient Jews read Scripture, as a sign of reverence, they would substitute for it the divine title, “Lord” in Hebrew, Adonai. The Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Greek Speaking Jews throughout the world (and by the early Christians made the same kind of substittuion, using the Greek term for Lord, “kyrios”.


At the beginning of the 17th century, the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, follows a few earlier biblical scholars in attempting to make a complete word out of YHWH by adding vowels “e”, “o” and “a” to the JHVH for of the word (JeHoVaH). Today most scholars agree that this was a mistake calling it exegetical gymnastics in transliteration. The rendering Yahweh is probably closer to the original Hebrew pronunciation.

YHWH is, for the Jews, even today, a sacred name. Out of consideration for their sensitivity at this point and following the ancient custom, most Catholics Bibles translate YHWH as “Lord”. The Jerusalem Bible uses the Yahweh wherever the tetragrammation occurs in the text of the OT Books. In my opinion, JEHOVAH is a faulty transliteration and should not be used.

Rutherford used the term “Jehovah” for God. It’s an English misspelling of the Hebrew word for God. The Jehovah Witnesses say there is no God but Jehovah and Rutherford is His prophet.