M
mcq72
Guest
Agreed, but it hasnt stopped you from critiquing.
Quoting Bishop Sheen, you “hate what you wrongly perceive…”
- Status
Quoting Bishop Sheen, you “hate what you wrongly perceive…”
po18guy
Well-known member
By way of explanation: Before I could become a bible Christian, I would have to abandon and renounce Christ. I am not willing to do that.
He is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. Once convicted of that, I cannot walk away from Him. John 6:66.
Think about that.
He is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. Once convicted of that, I cannot walk away from Him. John 6:66.
Think about that.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… I think you’re mistaken on both of these points. The Catholic Church had the “Catechism of Trent” in the 1500’s, and various Protestant denominations have statements of the elements of their faith (Luther’s Catechisms and the Augsburg Confession come to mind immediately).
I bought a golf swing trainer once. It’s a hinged club and it has a grip that’s built up (so that I place my hands on the club correctly). The whole purpose of the club is that, if I swing in a way that’s not optimum, the hinge will cause the club to fold into two… but, if I swing in a way that has all the elements of form which will maximize my swing’s power and efficiency, then the club will stay in one piece.
Now, I hear you when you say that you perceive the Church’s rules as if they were a straitjacket, but I would assert that’s not the case. Rather, they’re like my swing trainer – they do guide us in one direction and not the other… but they do so in order to train us not to do what’s not helpful, and they allow us to do what is maximally good.
M
mcq72
Guest
I do not see invisible in that. You and many others claim we follow visible men (Luther, Calvin etc), yet we are also criticized mistakingly for purporting an invisible church/heirarchy…The Lutheran Church is quite visible, as is the Anglican Church and others.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I don’t mind rules either. However, I think your analogy would go more like this, that you play the real game with your hinged club.
As an example, when you baptize the water must be plentiful for sprinkling , enough to progress partly down the face. If not it may not be valid. Then there are all the rules for a proper communion and vessels for elements , and disposal etc etc., or confession. Of course you can say properness is desirable, just that i think where two or three are gathered, they can do things in order, or that one can confess one to another, or even to God, in a valid orderly fashion.
It is interesting that two of the most spiritual gratifying experiences (communion /confession) requires a priest for some churches. I don’t think it was this way for the first church.
M
mcq72
Guest
And where does He say or act so that "Tradition’’ may be fulfilled ?
Where does He say or act so that the magisterium may be fulfilled/satisfied ?
Where does he say or act so that the councils may be fulfilled/satisfied ?
Bible alone does not negate authority in elders, presbyters, apostles, bishops, councils, teachers, rabbis, parents, prophets, tradition, rhema words etc., after all, they are all "biblical’’. Just that by 1520 AD, when “bible alone” was first coined, the bible was considered complete, widely distributed, and to be considered “surpassing authority” (Augustine), the rule by which all other authorities are subject to.
Don’t know if any of the authorities I listed above would ever want to be unbiblical. Pretty sure today all said authorities would also want to be subject to one another, provided they were also first “biblical”.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
The “real game” is played in heaven. Our “practice” happens here on earth.
So… a baptism without water is really a baptism?
So… we’re not supposed to honor the Body & Blood of Christ?
They can, of course, but that wouldn’t be sacramental. That wouldn’t be following Jesus’ commands to his Church. You could decide to ignore His directives to us, but… why would you?
Actually… it was. The “breaking of the bread” only happened when an apostle/bishop was present to lead the assembly. If you read the earliest documents we have available, you’ll find that they speak to this point…
M
mcq72
Guest
That’s the point, someone has written down just how much water is needed, almost to the drop, for a valid baptism.
M
mcq72
Guest
So daily the apostles broke bread in hundreds of homes in Jerusalem? Could a disciple minister, was it to specifically a bishop?
There is no evidence that a “priest” had to minister the “thanksgiving”, not even in bible, those first years of the church. Maybe 50 years later you read of the mass having a president (which you probably had from the begining, someone presiding , an elder, head of household etc) and later you hear the admonition of having the bishop .The idea of it only being a bishop and then a priest was not from day one, or even apostolic, but afterwards, one sees the development.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, the Bible doesn’t say that it was “in hundreds of homes.” Rather, the description in Acts 2:42 implies exactly what you doubt – that is, that the apostles led this worship: “they devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”
Did this happen in only one location? Seemingly, no: “every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.” If they’re meeting together and then later breaking bread, why would you assume that they’re breaking bread all by themselves?
In fact, there is Scriptural evidence that they gathered together: even though they were having problems, Paul witnesses to the communal meals of the Church of Corinth, which are not simply dinners, but the “Lord’s supper” (1 Cor 11:20). He points out that the role of ‘apostle’ is distinct – that not all are apostles! – and that this designation is from God (cf 1 Cor 12:28, 29). If this designation is distinct from ‘prophets’, ‘teachers’, and miracle workers… then what role do you think he’s describing?
There’s also extra-Scriptural evidence, including documents from the first 100 years of the Church’s existence.
I would assert that your take on it is a teaching of a particular “tradition of men”, and not the experience of the early Church.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Matthew was a tax collector. He knew money and likely had whatever technology existed to weigh coins accurately. Being Jewish he likely knew the Old Testament prophets better than you or I.
M
mcq72
Guest
No, what i doubted and goes unanswered, was the assertion that only the apostles were presiding over the breaking of bread.
Thousands were saved , and THEY devoted themselves to the gospel and breaking bread. It is not explicit but I suppose the apostles ministered, but also many other disciples, not bishops/priests, also ministered (breaking bread) in the hundreds of households.What is explicit is that apostles performed many miracles. The apostles did not lead all the worship (and bread breaking)n my opinion, and the bible is not explicit. To say only they did is just another opinion.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, I addressed it and asked you: if Paul talks about the various ministries, and mentions ‘apostle’ as one of them – and, it is mentioned in addition to teaching and preaching and healing – then what, exactly, is the distinct ministry of ‘apostle’?
I appreciate that this is your opinion. Here’s the thing, though: if the early fathers talked about the Lord’s Supper, and asserted that only the ‘bishop’ performed this ministry, and they also asserted that they followed what the Church had always practiced… then on what basis do you hold a contrary opinion?
No… it follows the witness of the early church fathers. I mean, I really do get it that, from a Reformation perspective, it’s necessary (for internal consistency of logic) to suggest it was otherwise.
Yet, if that’s not what the earliest leaders of the Church are telling us… then how do you hope to say anything other than “it’s my opinion”?
M
mcq72
Guest
No church father says only the apostles or bishops broke bread in the first weeks, months, or years of the church. I believe it is more than fifty years of a first mention by a forefather of a “president”, one presiding over the ceremony/service/mass. No specification given about a priest or bishop.Certainly a president can see that things are done in order, which soon became the concern (Paul addresses it, then a few fathers much later on)…No mention of proper credentials for valid communion, as we do today.
Now i would imagine the president would be a “leader” or gifted to the task (elder, presbyter/bishop, but certainly not barring what we today would call a lay person (no such thing back then), a gifted, mature disciple.
Not sure an early church father says as it was in the beginning, requiring a bishop…but maybe you have one…yet you have one stating Peter and Paul founded the Church at Rome and i say inacurately, for certainly Paul did not, and maybe Peter not,…so fathers are not infallible sources
Now i would imagine the president would be a “leader” or gifted to the task (elder, presbyter/bishop, but certainly not barring what we today would call a lay person (no such thing back then), a gifted, mature disciple.
Not sure an early church father says as it was in the beginning, requiring a bishop…but maybe you have one…yet you have one stating Peter and Paul founded the Church at Rome and i say inacurately, for certainly Paul did not, and maybe Peter not,…so fathers are not infallible sources
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Cute, i know what you mean…but…the consequences, stakes are much higher for all involved here and now. The battle(s), the war , against principalities is now, not later. Hence do not want a hinged club/sword now.The “real game” is played in heaven. Our “practice” happens here on earth.
M
mcq72
Guest
yes, in truth and spirit. Paul was more concerned not about the vessels that might hold the consecrated elements of bread and wine, but consecrating the receiving participant…as one forefather wrote, we are His monstrance.
M
mcq72
Guest
There’s nothing Jesus said directing only apostles/preists to break bread.
There is no evidence from Jesus that the apostles were to hold confessional times . But yes sins are kept or forgiven by their gospel message and its reception or rejection, much like the OT jews and the yearly Day of Atonement…no specific confessing but a general cleansing of sin in deep humility…for those that believed and participated.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s not our battle, though. It’s God’s.
Our ‘battle’, having accepted Christ and having received His grace, is living in His will for us.
He only said it to His apostles.
That’s a matter of administration, not of Jesus’ command. How they implemented it was up to them – remember “what you loose and bind on earth will be loosed and bound in heaven”?
That’s interesting… because the Bible says precisely the opposite!
M
mcq72
Guest
Touche but we still wrestleThat’s not our battle, though. It’s God’s.
Our ‘battle’, having accepted Christ and having received His grace, is living in His will for us.
M
mcq72
Guest
Well they were Jesus’s disciples, as we are of the apostles and their successors, and a disciple is trained to do as his master/teacher.
Jesus also called them friends…is that like an inner circle then, only for priests?
Well if a congregation can appoint elders and presbyters, I suppose they can appoint “presidents” of the rite
Last edited:
- Status