Authority of the Church

[Old_Scholar]

NW

You say you disagree with me in post 394.

I wrote

Do you disagree with this?

I am only translating the Bible. I am simply trying to write out what is in the Bible, the inspired word of God. I am not interpreting it.

However simply, either you are right or I am.

I repeat that MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA means a man of one wife.

Do you disagree with this?
Do I give the correct words in the NT (MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA)?

This is the correct Greek of 1 Tim 3:2

δει ουν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον ειναι μιας γυναικος ανδρα νηφαλεον σωφρονα κοσμιον φιλοξενον διδακτικον

Out of that, I get: ‘Aner Mia Gune’ and it means husband of one wife.

While I do not remember arguing this point, I have always said a bishop must be married. The husband of one wife should be interpreted as having only one wife and not multiple wives.

A bishop can’t be the husband of one wife unless he is married. If he is divorced, then he already is disqualified. If he is widowed, then he should remarry.

Either way, it does not give permission for bishops to be unmarried.

 

[NotWorthy]

I haven’t said that ‘no one is offerred.’ I have posted RCC decisions that have stated that it is improper for the laity to receive the cup. I have said that many do not get the opportunity to partake of both. Now what is incorrect about that?

You have stepped far, far back from your original stance, and you still claim the Cup to be the exception, rather than the rule. You claimed in the past that people you worked with couldn’t get the cup - this supported your claims.

You’ve used a document from the 14th century to prove that the Cup is still not shared 600 years later.

We have showed you why this was the case, and that it is no longer the case. Your words show that you don’t believe us.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

If I offended you personally, I am sorry. I am not trying to offend any person here. We are discussing practices of our churches and I thought that was the intention of the forum. I have stated that I have many RCC friends and only a very few of them are given the opportunity to participate in the cup at mass. It appears it is a ‘church’ thing.

So some of them are offered the Cup? That must mean it’s not forbidden!

I can also show you quite a bit of Roman Catholic information, as I have already done, that forbids the cup for the laity. That’s one of the things that keeps getting changed.

Perhaps, but it’s a practice, not a doctrine or dogma. Practices can change without having any bearing on Church teaching. If practices never changed we’d still be meeting in houses, praying that the pagans would leave us alone and let us worship God and not feed us to the lions.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Oh really?!? You mean the Council of Jerusalem could only control Judaizers in Jerusalem?!?

That’s news to me.

Why in the world do you think that this type of authority died with the Apostles. As we’ve discussed before, St. Clement certainly displayed authority over the selection of bishop and priests in the 1st century Church at Corinth.

I believe you are mistaken about Clement. What authority did he display? Maybe just information???

As for as the council of Jerusalem, the decision there was one of what to teach. The gospel Christ gave to Paul was not known to all and since this was the Church of God, albeit in its early days, it was necessary for all to teach the same gospel. That’s why Paul’s gospel was selected. It post-dated the gospel given Peter and the others.

This was not a matter of the church using its authority. It was a matter of the church recognizing the gospel as given by Christ. A church could teach anything it wants—you should know that—but if it is to be an apostolic church, then it must teach as the apostles taught. And after that time they all taught the same gospel, even Peter.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Wrong. Christ is Risen, and we do not crucify Him again by separating His Body and Blood (as you guys seem to be doing).

We share in the Risen Body.

You keep saying you don’t “separate His body and blood.” Does that mean you *don’t *partake of both?

 

[Old_Scholar]

You have stepped far, far back from your original stance, and you still claim the Cup to be the exception, rather than the rule. You claimed in the past that people you worked with couldn’t get the cup - this supported your claims.

You’ve used a document from the 14th century to prove that the Cup is still not shared 600 years later.

We have showed you why this was the case, and that it is no longer the case. Your words show that you don’t believe us.

So that’s just something else your church has changed???

And those I said were not given the opportunity went to mass where they were not given the cup…

 

[Old_Scholar]

So some of them are offered the Cup? That must mean it’s not forbidden!

Perhaps, but it’s a practice, not a doctrine or dogma. Practices can change without having any bearing on Church teaching. If practices never changed we’d still be meeting in houses, praying that the pagans would leave us alone and let us worship God and not feed us to the lions.

Are you saying that the Sacrament of Communion, or Eucharist, is just a “practice”?

 

[NotWorthy]

I believe you are mistaken about Clement. What authority did he display? Maybe just information???

He told them to replace their priests with those appointed by the Apostles and their successors. He told them he would anxiously await the return of his legates with the good news that Corinth would accomodate his requests.

As for as the council of Jerusalem, the decision there was one of what to teach. The gospel Christ gave to Paul was not known to all and since this was the Church of God, albeit in its early days, it was necessary for all to teach the same gospel. That’s why Paul’s gospel was selected. It post-dated the gospel given Peter and the others.

And this is exactly what the Church of Rome does today. No difference.

This was not a matter of the church using its authority. It was a matter of the church recognizing the gospel as given by Christ. A church could teach anything it wants—you should know that—but if it is to be an apostolic church, then it must teach as the apostles taught. And after that time they all taught the same gospel, even Peter.

But, OS, you are ignoring the fact that numerous heresies rise up from time to time and there had to be a body to distinguish the heresies from the Truth.

Without this body, you end up with 100’s and 1000’s of little branches of faiths, each believing their own interpretation of this scripture or that.

As proof of this, I give you exhibit A: The Protestant Faith

 

[Old_Scholar]

He told them to replace their priests with those appointed by the Apostles and their successors. He told them he would anxiously await the return of his legates with the good news that Corinth would accomodate his requests.

And this is exactly what the Church of Rome does today. No difference.

But, OS, you are ignoring the fact that numerous heresies rise up from time to time and there had to be a body to distinguish the heresies from the Truth.

Without this body, you end up with 100’s and 1000’s of little branches of faiths, each believing their own interpretation of this scripture or that.

As proof of this, I give you exhibit A: The Protestant Faith

The Protestant faith teaches the same things the apostles did. They don’t make up their own doctrines and practices. We follow the Scriptures…We have the truth to combat heresies with—the Scriptures. There is no other way, other than man’s way.

I can list many things the RCC does that can’t be found in Scripture but is an invention of man. Can you show me something done by Protestants that can’t be found in Scripture?

 

[NotWorthy]

You keep saying you don’t “separate His body and blood.” Does that mean you *don’t *partake of both?

When I receive what looks like the bread, I receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. When I receive what looks like the Wine from the Cup, I receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

You can not separate the Body from the Blood, because He is Risen!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Are you saying that the Sacrament of Communion, or Eucharist, is just a “practice”?

Not at all.

 

[Old_Scholar]

When I receive what looks like the bread, I receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. When I receive what looks like the Wine from the Cup, I receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

You can not separate the Body from the Blood, because He is Risen!

Yiou didn’t really answer my question—did you!

 

[NotWorthy]

So that’s just something else your church has changed???

Yes. Do we need to go over Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 again. I’m telling you, it’s Scriptural.

And those I said were not given the opportunity went to mass where they were not given the cup…

Which means they missed out on nothing that they didn’t get from what looks to be the bread.

 

[NotWorthy]

Are you saying that the Sacrament of Communion, or Eucharist, is just a “practice”?

The Sacrament is Dogma. The means of partaking is a practice.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

As for as the council of Jerusalem, the decision there was one of what to teach. The gospel Christ gave to Paul was not known to all and since this was the Church of God, albeit in its early days, it was necessary for all to teach the same gospel. That’s why Paul’s gospel was selected. It post-dated the gospel given Peter and the others.

Paul wrote a Gospel? In which Bible can I find that?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Protestant faith teaches the same things the apostles did. They don’t make up their own doctrines and practices. We follow the Scriptures…We have the truth to combat heresies with—the Scriptures. There is no other way, other than man’s way.

And yet you have 100’s and 1000’s of different churches?!?

I can list many things the RCC does that can’t be found in Scripture but is an invention of man. Can you show me something done by Protestants that can’t be found in Scripture?

You can start another thread, and we can prove that your words are groundless.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yes. Do we need to go over Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 again. I’m telling you, it’s Scriptural.

Which means they missed out on nothing that they didn’t get from what looks to be the bread.

Yep! Just as Augustine and most of the early leaders believed, it was the faith of Peter that Christ built His church upon and Christ is the cornerstone and head of the church. No one else…

But if they don’t get to do both, then they didn’t really participate, did they!

 

[NotWorthy]

Yiou didn’t really answer my question—did you!

No, I thought I was telling you that your question is groundless.

But to answer your groundless question, I partake of both species around 5-6 times a week. I know of no Church that denies the Cup and I attend about 15 throughout my diocese, and about 10 others around the country when my business takes me there - from Florida to California.

 

[Old_Scholar]

And yet you have 100’s and 1000’s of different churches?!?

You can start another thread, and we can prove that your words are groundless.

Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Churches are all agreed on everrything? What about the homosexual priests, women priests, those who accept abortion, etc…?

I have been trying to get this thread back on topic but haven’t been able to.

 

[Old_Scholar]

No, I thought I was telling you that your question is groundless.

But to answer your groundless question, I partake of both species around 5-6 times a week. I know of no Church that denies the Cup and I attend about 15 throughout my diocese, and about 10 others around the country when my business takes me there - from Florida to California.

That’s commendable and I am glad to consider us ‘brothers in Christ’ even though we disagree on many things.

Every Christmas and New Years, I watch the masses from Rome with the pope. However, they never offer the cup during those times. Are you aware of that? Is that a regular practice of Rome?