S
susanlo
Guest
Yes.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are correct in that it doesn’t mean that the Church is infallible, but it does mean that it’s the Church we look to, and NOT THE BIBLE, for the kerygma.
However, as a side note, if you don’t believe that the Church is infallible, do you believe she erred in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
And do you reserve it only for those who believe and have assented to your pastor’s teachings?
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching,”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Also, do you call it the “Eucharist”?
"And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both 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." - (First Apology, 66)
S
susanlo
Guest
No. The church I attend currently has open communion.
Usually we call it communion. Just a few weeks ago our pastor called it Eucharist (thanksgiving).
We could play this game all night if you think it will be productive:
Does your church only baptize (by immersion) those who believe?
Chapter 61: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.”
“…there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.”
Chapter 65: “…thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching…”
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
P
PRmerger
Guest
So NOT like Justin Martyr.
Interesting…
Is he permitted to do this? Who does he answer to?
Not sure why you call it a game? This is a forum with discussions among members.
We post. We respond to posts. We question. We respond to questions.
Yes, of course. Either in persona or by proxy.
J
jcrichton
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Susan!I don’t understand how this worship is more similar to a Catholic mass than the worship of any other church. It does describe liturgy in the sense that liturgy is a word for worship. However, I believe that today we believe liturgy or liturgical worship to be reading or reciting passages as a group in an organized fashion. I do not see evidence of this in Justin Martyr’s First Apology. I see a reader reading Scripture, a teacher/president teaching about the Scripture, communion and offering. It sounds just like my church!And 99% of Christian churches.!
…maybe I have it wrong–not much of a visitor–but I’ve noted that most congregations around here begin with shouts, loud music, dancing (not all), more shouts, more loud music, shouting of tiny Scriptural passages, more shouts, more loud music, and a call to group conversion… though they never forget to pass the plate/basket/bag for donations not all break bread (the ones that I have witnessed do so as a symbol–from time to time) don’t seem to be quite in accord with Justin Martyr’s description, does it?
…so your church holds the dogma (belief/tenet/principle) that the Holy Eucharist is not a symbolic gesture but the actual Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and you administer, through Deacons, the Body of Christ to those who are not able to attend Mass due to illness or disability?
…did you get the various levels: Gospels, Prophets, Psalms, Prayers, Homily, Body of Christ?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Susan!
…I understand your take on this… however, I don’t think that we must be linguists or some other form of scholars to get the meaning of Scriptures (that perquisite would, by default, make God’s Revelations through the Holy Spirit and elitist exercise)–take the various tidbits about Jesus:
He Calls Himself many things… one of which is that He is the Bread of Life–however He expressed this (Aramaic/Hebrew) it remains that He is the Bread of Life (it must compel us to view St. John 6 in this very vein); one day while listening/reading through something I picked up that Bethlehem means House of Bread (Beth, I knew meant house–from Beth-El: House of God); without a high knowledge of Hebrew I accepted that Bethlehem meant what was said to mean. Then I took that knowledge and added to Jesus’ Word for a better understanding of what transpired: Jesus, the Bread of Life comes to us from the House of Bread (food). *
…so when reading that the Church of God is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth…) I do not consider that “the learned ones” must translate/transliterate its meaning: the Church of the Living God*** is ***the Pillar and Ground of the Truth!
Seeking the Truth from every Marco, Columbus, Ponce, Cousteau or Armstrong would leave one half empty as they could only point to some truth but not the Truth–their search, you see, though valid, is basically that of the mundane.
Maran atha!
Angel*
P
PJM
Guest
Thank you, however what you celebrate is simply a memorial, a remembrance; we Catholics celebrate GOD, Jesus Himself in Person; GOD actually in our Midst:thumbsup:
THAT dear friend is a WOW! and a huge difference.
John 6:47-58
[47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
DOUAY BIBLE EXPLANATION
[54] Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
**
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed**. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] 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…"
how MY FRIEND COULD jESUS OR THE AUTHOR BE MORE SPECIFIC AND PRECISE?
God Bless you!
Patrick
S
susanlo
Guest
I don’t know what we can take as literal or figurative in this passage or any part of Revelation. I am hesitant to interpret Revelation, but I think if this sounds like anything it is the priesthood of all believers of 1 Peter 2:9 - 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
I don’t know that this is speaking of a group of ministerial priests as separate from the other Christian believers. But, Revelation is challenging and has many different “expert” explanations.
I still don’t think that any Christian called a church leader a hiereus before the 3rd century. That is what my initial point was. It is only significant if one views a Christian priest as one who mediates a sacrifice as opposed to one who is a wise elder/leader.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The Trinity, too, was not articulated before the 3rd century, susan.
S
susanlo
Guest
Some churches are more lively than others.
I guess they would cite Psalm 98 and Psalm 100 as reasons to shout to the Lord. There are many different styles of music and different energy/participation levels. But most churches read Scripture, have a sermon, pray and have an offering. Yes, some churches only have communion monthly or quarterly, but other than that the services resemble the rough outline in Justin Martyr’s First Apology.Some weeks we hear from various Old and New Testament books. Other times we concentrate on a specific area of the Bible. Even in Justin Martyr’s First Apology he states “and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits…” So I wouldn’t say it is absolutely necessary to do both if our ultimate goal is to match the First Apology. (Of course I don’t think that it is absolutely necessary to match, just a comparison to a historical example.)
Our church does believe that communion is a symbolic way to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and thank Him. We do not believe that transubstantiation occurs. Yes, communion is taken to those who are infirmed.
From Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:
“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”
newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind”
newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were,”
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm
I know that chapter 66 of the First Apology does sound like transubstantiation. The transmutation he refers to is the digestion or assimilation into the church members’ bodies, but he does call it the flesh and blood of Jesus. However even churches that believe in a symbolic communion call the elements body and blood because that is what they represent. I know that this passage in Chapter 66 of the First Apology is a common source used to defend transubstantiation. In light of all that Justin Martyr says about the Eucharist I am not so certain.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Susan!
…maybe I got it wrong and did not clarify enough…
On your previous post you suggested that the term “priest” was relegated to ancient times (Old Testament and pagans); that nowhere in Scripturest was it referred to Christians.
There are two distinct observances (which you’ve helped clarify): a kingdom made of royal (kings) priests; however, the priesthood is not relegated to ancient times since in Apocalypse (Revelation) these priests do have a function on earth: to serve God.
While it is true that all Christians, being coheirs with Christ, must be both kings and priests (as in the Communal Church), yet, not all serve God in the office of the Priesthood.
The Catholic Church understands this and though the term may not have entered till aft. the 3rd century AD, the fact remains that in the Church God gave to some (the hierarchy) to be servants officiating in the office of the Priesthood.
The Church is organic; terms are introduced to both define and improve the understanding of the activities in which the Church engages both the Believers and the world. I hinted at St. Justin Martyr’s definition of the Writings of the Apostles to which the Church referred to not only as the Gospels but the memoirs of the Apostles; yet, while some terms/titles may change, as they give way to a better more refined/encompassing term, the Liturgy remains, the Doctrine remains, the Faith remains.
When Church History is thrown out divergence and dissension step in.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Susan!Some churches are more lively than others.
Some weeks we hear from various Old and New Testament books. Other times we concentrate on a specific area of the Bible. Even in Justin Martyr’s First Apology he states “and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits…” So I wouldn’t say it is absolutely necessary to do both if our ultimate goal is to match the First Apology. (Of course I don’t think that it is absolutely necessary to match, just a comparison to a historical example.)
Our church does believe that communion is a symbolic way to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and thank Him. We do not believe that transubstantiation occurs. Yes, communion is taken to those who are infirmed.
From Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:
“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”
newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind”
newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were,”
newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm
I know that chapter 66 of the First Apology does sound like transubstantiation. The transmutation he refers to is the digestion or assimilation into the church members’ bodies, but he does call it the flesh and blood of Jesus. However even churches that believe in a symbolic communion call the elements body and blood because that is what they represent. I know that this passage in Chapter 66 of the First Apology is a common source used to defend transubstantiation. In light of all that Justin Martyr says about the Eucharist I am not so certain.
I cannot convict you of the Truth; it is the sole propriety of the Holy Spirit–what I can do is ask you to empty yourself of what you hold as “certainty” and allow the Holy Spirit to convict you: both St. Paul and St. Justin are speaking about the Body (Flesh) and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as a function Worship; not a symbol to commemorate His Incarnation, Death and Resurrection; but the actual Flesh (Body) and Blood of Jesus Christ.
The Jews who listened to Jesus expound that Believers must eat/chew/gnaw His Flesh and drink His Blood understood that He was demanding that they actually consume Him; promptly, they all left, save for the Twelve. Did Jesus call them back and rephrased His Teachings? Did He shout after them something to the effect: “please, brothers, understand, I was just speaking figuratively–'come on, don’t be like that… can’t you take a little dramatizing?”
Jesus insisted; what’s more? He turned to the Twelve and demanded their resolve! Peter, as always, jumps in: “…You have the Words of Eternal Life!”
The Church maintained this Faith as she celebrated Jesus’ Body (Flesh) and Blood every week (daily, if you accept Acts).
Maran atha!
Angel
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’d put it down to “rationalization”; we humans are really good at that. :sad_yes:Hi, Gorgias!
…what I find truly perplexing is how they would apply that passage to their “church” while, simultaneously, denying it to the Church (ditto with the “Inspiration of the Holy Spirit”).
Maran atha!
P
PJM
Guest
My friend I’m confused by what you share.
Because the bible was FULLY authored by the end of the 1st Century, or VERY early second Century; AND because today’s RCC was the ONLY "Christian Church /Faith to exist as a recognized “Church”; EVERY reference to “church” and or “priest” has too and does reference directly and exclusively today’s RCC.
The Great Easterner Schism of AD 1054 was the first notable existence of a competing "Christian: faith & church; and hence “priest”, so your reference of a 3td Century non-Catholic Priest seems impossible.
What my friend am I missing here?
God Bless you
Patrick
W
Wesrock
Guest
The use of elders is at least two-fold. First, it distinguished between the still existing (and later, recent) Levitical priesthood. Second, it harkened back to the idea of Patriarchs, fathers (hmmm?) ministering to their households, making offerings, passing on their blessings through the laying on of hands and such (though I digress). The Patriarchs did offer sacrifices to God, and sacrifices and offerings predated the Levitical priesthood. There is more to the use of “elders” than being wise leaders.
S
susanlo
Guest
So the New Testament and early church had presbyters (as well as bishops and deacons). This term presbyter/presbyteros was present in Judaism at the time and meant elder and wise leader. However, it seems you are saying that as soon as Christianity began the term presbyter actually meant someone who performed the role of what in Judaism was termed a hiereus or priest. Wouldn’t that have been confusing to people? The first Christians would have clearly known what a priest was and what an elder was. Why wouldn’t they use the term that accurately describes their role? What was the role of a 1st century presbyter?
- Status