Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[PRmerger]

Don’t think so .The council was intended at first to try to unify the kingdom/church, including the Lutherans. Luther was invited. I believe a few German (Lutheran) princes were there.

LOL!

Yes, and it’s absolutely correct to declare them to be anathema. Fr. Martin (emphasis on the Father part) was a Catholic, was he not?

 

[pocohombre]

No, poco. They are still held today.

Good point ,which is why I think the council still speaks strongly to differing views today, in or out of CC.

Please cite your source for this. Thanks.

You yourself said, though not totally correct, that all Christians back then were Catholic ( “only Catholics,Jews, and pagans”). So we sprang out of Catholicism, hence we are not ignorant of warnings and anathemas of cannons. Of course you could say if you are second generation Protestant then maybe it does not apply. But Protestants were there at the council, though not as equals and could not vote. True that by the third portion of council there presence was minimal at best. Most attendees were Italian and then Spanish. Anyways, understand what you are putting forth, that it only applies to Catholics, but it is not hard to see that the cannons, not dogma, were directed toward Protestant “thought”. To say they don’t apply might be like saying the bible doesn’t apply to anyone outside CC because it is a CC book. Maybe. Just some humble thoughts. It all began with taking Jesus’s words literally about “eating” and it’s consequences also, to be consistent.

 

[pocohombre]

LOL!

Yes, and it’s absolutely correct to declare them to be anathema. Fr. Martin (emphasis on the Father part) was a Catholic, was he not?

I believe he was already excommunicated and not sure if you are still Catholic after excommunication. Otherwise, no extra charge for the laughter. It is good for the soul.

 

[PRmerger]

Good point ,which is why I think the council still speaks strongly to differing views today, in or out of CC.

Do you object to speaking “strongly to differing view today”, poco?

Also, could you please answer the question, thrice asked now: Are you saying that there were those from the earliest days of Christianity who held the position that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ?

It would appear to be “yes”, as you profess that the Council of Trent was needed because the teaching on the RP was being disputed.

 

[pocohombre]

I would like to hear more about how Augustine is disputing the RP.

He also speaks of a “figure”. He also speaks of not eating with “mouth”. He says Peter ate by faith right there in John 6. What would be nice, and I have never seen it, is to see all his writings together on the topic.He does stress a real presence, just think other communion views are in harmony also.

The Church is organized around the Bishops,a nd the bishops in council determine how best to respond to heresies.

Well be careful, for there have been “councilarists” who state councils have ultimate authority, when in fact it is the Pope who does in CC.

There is One Faith.
Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Amen. I believe in that.
It is valid for all.

If one does not embrace the doctrines of the One Faith, then one is not in communion.

No, we are in communion to the point we embrace common doctrines, universal doctrines, The Nicene Creed is quite universal.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe he was already excommunicated and not sure if you are still Catholic after excommunication.

Yes, you are still Catholic.

Father Luther was baptized a Catholic, instructed as a Catholic, and chose to excommunicate himself.

But there were no other Christians, except Catholics, at the time of Fr. Luther, poco.

 

[PRmerger]

It is valid for all. No, we are in communion to the point we embrace common doctrines, universal doctrines, The Nicene Creed is quite universal.

And yet you reject the Real Presence. That’s kind of a big deal.

 

[PRmerger]

You yourself said, though not totally correct, that all Christians back then were Catholic ( “only Catholics,Jews, and pagans”).

Ah, so you have no source then to back up what you believe about the Catholic faith?

You can search all the Magisterial documents for something to support your claim, but…

So we sprang out of Catholicism, hence we are not ignorant of warnings and anathemas of cannons

You are at least ignorant of this.

It appears you did not know this, from our Catechism?

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” CCC 818

So, even if you have divorced yourself from the faith, given once for all, to the apostles, you cannot be charged with the sin of separation.

But Protestants were there at the council, though not as equals and could not vote.

There were no Protestants at Trent, poco.

 

[pocohombre]

]Do you object to speaking “strongly to differing view today”, poco?

No, I like it for it is consistent. I think most Catholics are not consistent with John 6. I welcome them to say to non-transubstantialists that literally Christ said you must"eat" Him, if not you literally are accursed of God, separated, no life, no in dwelling, no eternal life ,no resurrection. Again, literal eat , literal consequence per His words, judgement.

Also, could you please answer the question, thrice asked now: Are you saying that there were those from the earliest days of Christianity who held the position that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ?

I believe scripture says the wine and bread remain, that it is a memorial, symbolic,yet with a blessing of His spiritual presence. I believe and interpret Ignatius and Martyr and Augustine were saying the same thing. That is early church for me, beyond that not sure who clearly began defining it further. For sure P. Radbertus in 800’s did, then Aquinas, Lateran Council I think.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Well be careful, for there have been “councilarists” who state councils have ultimate authority, when in fact it is the Pope who does in CC.

You do realize we’ve had 21 ecumenical councils, while the Vicar has only spoken ex cathedra twice, right? You’re looking at is as an ‘and/or’ kind of thing. It’s actually both. The ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, when speaking infallibly, are just as infallible as the pope when speaking infallibly. It’s in union, not conflict.

 

[pocohombre]

You are at least ignorant of this.

It appears you did not know this, from our Catechism?

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” CCC 818

So, even if you have divorced yourself from the faith, given once for all, to the apostles, you cannot be charged with the sin of separation.

Yes,thank you. My escape clause in above post was “second generation” Protestant not under the Trent cannons.

There were no Protestants at Trent, poco.

But I read it on the internet ! It is late .I must regroup. love your “moving” pictures

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I believe scripture says the wine and bread remain, that it is a memorial, symbolic,yet with a blessing of His spiritual presence. I believe and interpret Ignatius and Martyr and Augustine were saying the same thing.

Yet they so clearly refer to the actual substantial, physical bread and wine (Augustine say ‘the chalice, or rather what is in the chalice’) as being the Body and Blood. You don’t even remotely think that they held a view similar to Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, that it is literally the flesh of Christ, and is a mystery beyond complete understanding?

Additionally, your interpretation of a pure spiritual presence is not supported because the fathers refer to the actual, substantial, physical ‘bread’ as being Him. Transubstantiation follows quite naturally and logically as the only possible explanation with which human intellects can understand the mystery a bit more.

 

[pocohombre]

You do realize we’ve had 21 ecumenical councils, while the Vicar has only spoken ex cathedra twice, right? You’re looking at is as an ‘and/or’ kind of thing. It’s actually both. The ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, when speaking infallibly, are just as infallible as the pope when speaking infallibly. It’s in union, not conflict.

Thanks. Just read it when reading about Trent, and the concerns with differing interests.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Thanks. Just read it when reading about Trent, and the concerns with differing interests.

In Acts 15, the Judaisers had differing interests. Somehow they managed to come to the right conclusion. God has always taken into account our human nature while preserving His Church infallibly on this earth. The Apostles are an excellent example of this. He used very imperfect men (who were imperfect even after Pentacost) to be channels of the Holy Spirit and evangelize the world. He’s smarter than many give Him credit for.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I like it for it is consistent.

Excellent. Then we are agreed. Not sure, then, what your point was in stating, “which is why I think the council still speaks strongly to differing views today, in or out of CC.”

Yes, the Church does speak strongly to differing views. As she should.

I think most Catholics are not consistent with John 6. I welcome them to say to non-transubstantialists that literally Christ said you must"eat" Him, if not you literally are accursed of God, separated, no life, no in dwelling, no eternal life ,no resurrection.

That is above our pay grade. (However, we do state that you are separated from us, or, rather, joined to us imperfectly.)

We don’t even tell Muslims, Jews, pagans and atheists that they are accursed of God, so why would we tell that to our Christian brethren?

I believe scripture says the wine and bread remain,

Really? Where does it state that?

that it is a memorial, symbolic,yet with a blessing of His spiritual presence. I believe and interpret Ignatius and Martyr and Augustine were saying the same thing.

But not* only* symbolic. That’s a huge point that you seem to be ignoring.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes,thank you. My escape clause in above post was “second generation” Protestant not under the Trent cannons.

You are contradicting yourself. Either you thought you were anathemized, or you understood that “second generation” Protestants were not anathemized.

Which one is it?

 

[Porknpie]

I believe scripture says the wine and bread remain, that it is a memorial, symbolic,yet with a blessing of His spiritual presence.** I believe and interpret Ignatius and Martyr and Augustine were saying the same thing. **That is early church for me, beyond that not sure who clearly began defining it further. For sure P. Radbertus in 800’s did, then Aquinas, Lateran Council I think.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine all speak to the Real Presence. Justin Martyr says “we have been taught”. Taught by the Bishops, who were taught by the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus Christ. All of which is in your bible and understood through the faith that produced it.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,** so likewise have we been taught**that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“‘And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood,** He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.**’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).

 

[brb3]

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine all speak to the Real Presence. Justin Martyr says “we have been taught”. Taught by the Bishops, who were taught by the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus Christ. All of which is in your bible and understood through the faith that produced it.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,** so likewise have we been taught**that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“‘And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood,** He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.**’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).

Good quotes used to support, PORKNPIE !

Poco…

U will not get away anymore with tossing out ‘hearsay’ about/from the Fathers. Look up and cite their words …in context.

Don’t be a lazy, or errant apologist here with us & all. No one is convinced by a case poorly presented, un-referenced, etc… or, by your inability /unwillingness to respond to others questions to you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There were no Protestants at Trent, poco.

But I read it on the internet !

poco,

Where are your references? No valid references - it is then just an opinion.

Twice, were Protestants given sage conduct and invited to attend and voice their position at the Council of Trent:

13th Session

Chapter VIII

DECREE FOR POSTPONING THE DEFINITION OF FOUR ARTICLES TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, AND FOR GIVING A SAFE-CONDUCT TO PROTESTANTS

SAFE-CONDUCT GRANTED TO PROTESTANTS

And then during the 15th Session:

DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION

…and whereas it was thought that, in the interim, there would have presented themselves at this sacred and holy Council those who call themselves Protestants, for whose sake It had deferred the publication of the said articles, and to whom It had given the public faith, or a safe-conduct, that they might come freely and without any hesitation; nevertheless, seeing that they have not as yet come, and the holy Synod has been petitioned in their name, that the publication which was to have been made on this day, be deferred to the following Session, an assured hope being held out that they will certainly be present long before that Session, upon receiving in the meanwhile a safe-conduct in a more ample form :-The same holy Synod, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios presiding, desiring nothing more ardently than to remove, from amongst the noble nation of Germany, all dissensions and schisms touchingreligion,and to provide for its tranquillity, peace and repose; being ready, should they come, both to receive [Page 122] them kindly, and to listen to them favourably, and trusting that they will come, not with the design of obstinately opposing the Catholic Faith, but of learning the truth, and that they will at last, as becomes those zealous for evangelical truth, acquiesce in the decrees and discipline of holy Mother Church;…

And then again, during the 15th Session:

SAFE-CONDUCT GIVEN TO THE PROTESTANTS

Here’s the entire Council of Trent online

I have not seen a credible reference to Protestant attendance during the Council of Trent.

Peace,

Jose

 

[brb3]

poco,

Where are your references? No valid references - it is then just an opinion.

Twice, were Protestants given sage conduct and invited to attend and voice their position at the Council of Trent:

13th Session

Chapter VIII

DECREE FOR POSTPONING THE DEFINITION OF FOUR ARTICLES TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, AND FOR GIVING A SAFE-CONDUCT TO PROTESTANTS

SAFE-CONDUCT GRANTED TO PROTESTANTS

And then during the 15th Session:

DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION

And then again, during the 15th Session:

SAFE-CONDUCT GIVEN TO THE PROTESTANTS

Here’s the entire Council of Trent online

I have not seen a credible reference to Protestant attendance during the Council of Trent.

Peace,

Jose

Excellent Jose…

Documents on Reformation, Chp. 8 …in your link above !!

Addresses the Churches desire to let all attend. Yes, wonder how many did ? Probably some, …they even allowed to bring/send their Counsel with them !!
No trap, to arrest them was set.