Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[PeaceInChrist]

Another topic worthy of much dialogue. Fathers are split -wasn’ t settled till what 12-13th century ? Sometimes the elements are referred as body/blood, sometimes loaf/bread/cup. Sometimes real presence is Jesus is there in spirit and some say He is in elements . For sure the Mass developed . At first was thanksgiving (eucharist) with the leader/president of service may have prayed the commemoration/thanksgiving over the elements. to finally requiring a priest to consecrate and ringing bells and a sacrifice we offer to God, not just" thanksgiving". Some have said leave your teeth and belies behind, for Peter “ate” with his confession of faith.

Ignatius actually writes of having one Eucharist, one altar (what is done on an altar, Poco?), and one bishop to preside. He says that the bishop or those appointed by him shall be the only ones to preside. So your theory of gradual development of priests is quite wrong.

Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the fathers also refer to the actual bread and wine to be Christ. Whether or not they define it as transubstantiation is irrelevant, as there was no heresy that said otherwise. It was both a spiritual and physical sacrament to them, as it is to us now. You can see this from Ignatius, to Justin, to Ambrose and Augustine.

 

[pablope]

No. Again, not either or but I would say if we are wrong on something, and we all are (none are perfect in all understanding), it is because we are not totally like Him yet . But thanks be to God we are getting there and to a degree, have His mind, and His rightness about many things.

No,there are usually just a handful of interpretations by professing folks .This has been our history since from the beginning. The Godhead -is it two or three ,was he man or flesh ,created or creator. Is it" con" or “trans” or one or two more substantiations. Is it by immersion, or pouring ? Do we baptize once or can you rebaptize ? Was Mary’s grace from conception or just after birth ?Was she assumed before death, just after or not at all ? Were Jesus’s “brethren” half brothers ,cousins ? These are just some of the things that have been debated within the church ,that eventually decided upon in unity or decided upon to separate ways .I would not say there are thousands views on any one issue .

 

[pocohombre]

Don’t ya subscribe to the HS, as inspiration of all scripture ?

And, that Christ gave the HS to his Church, to decipher what the earliest fathers said/wrote ? The Church being those Bishops and members of their flocks …who received the oral tradition(al) meaning of the early Apostles’ writings and oral instructions.
Christ having set the Primus & Primo example for his Apostles & Church …teaching by word & deed, not leaving personal writings to them.

So, there you have it, TRADITIONS taught to the Apostles was THE crucial KEY to understanding Christ & his Soteriology …only a small fraction of which survives in written form. Thus, TRADITION WAS MAMMOTH to they, and to the Church then & now.

The HS is given to all men that receive Him.Gifts too, The Body too. Yes tradition, equal to scripture for some in Christendom. Poor Barnabus.

 

[PRmerger]

The HS is given to all men that receive Him.Gifts too, The Body too. Yes tradition, equal to scripture for some in Christendom. Poor Barnabus.

I am still uncertain why you keep referencing Barnabus.

If you are talking about the disciple of Jesus named Barnabas, who is the alleged author of the Gospel of Barnabas, could you please make that clear? And proffer what you mean by referencing him?

 

[pocohombre]

What “line” are you referring to?

And think about this, poco. How is it that you know that the writings of Barnabas are “not Holy Scripture”?

What is your answer to that?

Yes, are of Peter, and do you prefer a parochial view of Christendom ? Why did Vat.2 have to reminds folks that it is more benevolent/eccumenical to say God gave us scripture, rather than lift up the men that wrote it, kept it cannonized, translated ,etc etc. ?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, are of Peter, and do you prefer a parochial view of Christendom ? Why did Vat.2 have to reminds folks that it is more benevolent/eccumenical to say God gave us scripture, rather than lift up the men that wrote it, kept it cannonized, translated ,etc etc. ?

Because that is Catholic teaching. The men who gave us the canon of the NT are the servants of Scripture.

You are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from, say, Philemon, and each and every time you say that the Gospel of Barnabas is not inspired.

You would not know it any other way, poco.

 

[pocohombre]

Ignatius actually writes of having one Eucharist, one altar (what is done on an altar, Poco?), and one bishop to preside. He says that the bishop or those appointed by him shall be the only ones to preside. So your theory of gradual development of priests is quite wrong.

Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the fathers also refer to the actual bread and wine to be Christ. Whether or not they define it as transubstantiation is irrelevant, as there was no heresy that said otherwise. It was both a spiritual and physical sacrament to them, as it is to us now. You can see this from Ignatius, to Justin, to Ambrose and Augustine.

Tertullain reminds us that a presbyter and bishop are interchangeable .So can your priests appoint a non priest to administer. Ignatius seems to imply he can. Other fathers just say “president” . Augustine shows the issue was not settled for he himself is somewhat split. I would say the first christians did communion in commemoration and only some worried about the theology of the elements.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Tertullain reminds us that a presbyter and bishop are interchangeable .So can your priests appoint a non priest to administer. Ignatius seems to imply he can. Other fathers just say “president” . Augustine shows the issue was not settled for he himself is somewhat split. I would say the first christians did communion in commemoration and only some worried about the theology of the elements.

We can see as early as Ignatius and Justin that the elements were quite important to the theology. Also, Ignatius makes it quite clear that there are bishops, presbyters, and deacons. These are all distinct in the hierarchy, and he is writing from Antioch, not Rome, so it is not merely a Roman distinction.

 

[brb3]

The HS is given to all men that receive Him.Gifts too, The Body too. Yes tradition, equal to scripture for some in Christendom. Poor Barnabus.

Yes, all receive HS…but, can all teach, can all interpret scripture, can all confect the Eucharistic blessing upon the bread & wine, can all do this or that to same degree ? No !!

Tell us, what are your gifts ?
Can we alone compose the full body of the Church ? Can we in isolation, be pleasing to the Lord …apart from the full body of believers ?

What must we do by command, on the Lord’s Day ?

 

[pocohombre]

We can see as early as Ignatius and Justin that the elements were quite important to the theology. Also, Ignatius makes it quite clear that there are bishops, presbyters, and deacons. These are all distinct in the hierarchy, and he is writing from Antioch, not Rome, so it is not merely a Roman distinction.

Yes ,ignatius mayhave but Paul interchanged them. Interesting he -Igantius- mentions no bishop at Rome. Ignatius mentions flesh cause the gnostics don’t believe he came in the flesh,nor died ,resurected in flesh .That is what communion is thankful for, His flesh and blood spilled for us.The heretics did not believ this .The issue was not transubstantiation.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, all receive HS…but, can all teach, can all interpret scripture, can all confect the Eucharistic blessing upon the bread & wine, can all do this or that to same degree ? No !!

 

[brb3]

brb3;10506247:

Yes I was going to mention the giftings of "offices-teacher, healer, interpreter -but I put them all under the term “Body”.Paul does not mention who can or who can’t transubstatiate.
Not sure what you are getting at .I mentioned the body and of course it has different parts. I mentioned meetings/mass have presidents/leaders, teachers.

We must assemble on the Lord’s Day, not forsaking the fellowship of believers. And, as often as we meet, (every Lord’s Day), we are to partake of body & blood of Christ, …only the Bishop / Priest able to confect the blessing upon.
So, apart from our Priest …we are not truly connected, via the Eucharist, to Christ. To know this and not to follow, is to cut ourselves off from our Lord and his One Body.

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10507251:

We must assemble on the Lord’s Day, not forsaking the fellowship of believers. And, as often as we meet, (every Lord’s Day), we are to partake of body & blood of Christ, …only the Bishop / Priest able to confect the blessing upon.
So, apart from our Priest …we are not truly connected, via the Eucharist, to Christ. To know this and not to follow, is to cut ourselves off from our Lord and his One Body.

Understand .However, the must, the when, have evolved. The gospels say nothing about when or how often. Only Corinthians say "as often as you drink it ". Is that as often as you drink the passover cup, as the original last supper, which could be at least once a year, or is it every time you break bread and drink the supper meal -every day ? It is not every time you meet, unless of course you supper every time you meet. We do know in Acts they did it every day ,in homes, people brought their own food and “elements” and had a “celebration”. No evidence of priestly consecration. A blessing was said by somebody or everybody . We later do hear of Sunday meetings. Then we hear of presidents/officers/deacons involved with elements but brought by participants still. Later priests were formalized in the sacrament( per some historians, not CC teaching of course). I think around 1200 a definition was put forth for real presence by Catholics and further dogmatized at Trent. So there still remains transub…,consub… spiritual presence, and finally symbolic presence amongst Christian communities today.

 

[pocohombre]

Because that is Catholic teaching. The men who gave us the canon of the NT are the servants of Scripture.

You are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from, say, Philemon, and each and every time you say that the Gospel of Barnabas is not inspired.

You would not know it any other way, poco.

Sorry, I am being humored by the Lord who says to all who would be proud, that he can even make a jackass speak truth ( was it Balaam I forget). No, of course give honor where honor is due, to those who scripted it, preserved and kept it, translated it, and even died for it. I understand CC view of history on it . Of course you know there is another perspective on the matter. Some have said maybe CC gave the Book to us, but we (reformers) sure ran with it to great efficacy, as CC once did.

 

[pocohombre]

I am still uncertain why you keep referencing Barnabus.

If you are talking about the disciple of Jesus named Barnabas, who is the alleged author of the Gospel of Barnabas, could you please make that clear? And proffer what you mean by referencing him?

I believe #589 thread covers it.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I am being humored by the Lord who says to all who would be proud, that he can even make a jackass speak truth ( was it Balaam I forget). No, of course give honor where honor is due, to those who scripted it, preserved and kept it, translated it, and even died for it. I understand CC view of history on it . Of course you know there is another perspective on the matter. Some have said maybe CC gave the Book to us, but we (reformers) sure ran with it to great efficacy, as CC once did.

Excellent.

Then you are not a Sola Scriptura person!

You give submission to the authority of the Catholic Church. And acknowledge that you accept Sacred Tradition.

And this also means (unless you think the Church erred?) that you believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church.

 

[pocohombre]

POCO…these were resolved by the early Church Fathers…by Catholic bishops…but after the Reformation…why did this become issues again when they were not prior to the Reformation (after being resolved)?

 

[pocohombre]

Excellent.

Then you are not a Sola Scriptura person!

You give submission to the authority of the Catholic Church. And acknowledge that you accept Sacred Tradition.

And this also means (unless you think the Church erred?) that you believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church.

Not sure honor is the same as submission. I do accept the beautiful history of the Book I have in front of me. You rightly point out the beautiful assurances the Book says are given to the Church, and as we have discussed here, to the individual also. We have also seen how some are stronger than others in seeing or not seeing the counter - assurance scriptures for the individual (conditions). The same warnings/conditions could be can be applied to church assurances. OSAS and ORAR are in the same boat. (Once Saved Always Saved for the individual and Once Right Always Right for the particular church).

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure honor is the same as submission.

But what you are doing, poco, is submitting to the authority of these men to tell you what was inspired and what was not inspired.

You would not know it any other way, except by submitting to their authority.

 

[PRmerger]

You rightly point out the beautiful assurances the Book says are given to the Church,

Indeed.

So you are also acknowledging that the charism of infallibility has been given to men. Catholic men. Catholic bishops, to be specific. On multiple occasions.

But, I already knew that you believed that men could be infallible, by reading you quote from the NT. When you quote from St. Paul I know that you believe that what he wrote, he wrote infallibly, and therefore you believe that men can be infallible.