S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Actually the rumor you’re pointing to is that Peter appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch (although he was also likely a disciple of John). At least this is according to the link you provided.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, did you see my post referencing St. Paul’s correction of the Church of Corinth?
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
no … I’ll go back and find it (I’m sort of interested in this topic now). I’m also reading some of Ignatius’ early writings (good stuff so far). I just need to get a snack … be back shortly.
S
SIA
Guest
We celebrate the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ every single Sunday and more during the week when we can. We celebrate the Communion of Saints, being confirmed by the bishop and a Sacremental Confession when necessary. We have vestments much like yours and we even have the same readings every Sunday as you do. We share the same Gregorian Kalender seasons as you do. We recite the Nicene Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and having a sharing of peace, just like in a Catholic mass. Our chalices are beautiful just as yours are because they hold the body and blood of our Lord and Savior.
A
adstrinity
Guest
This is where this arguement fails. Those who use this arguement say that it’s not one particular church but the body of believers who have accepted Jesus as one’s Saviour. The issue with this is these attacts are always directed at Catholics, who have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour & Redeemer. When this is pointed out to those who use the invisible church arguement, they stand firm on all believers, not one institution, yet, the one who proclaims this will not listen to the one who is saying to that person that they DO believe in Jesus Christ’s work on the cross. Those who use this arguement are so obnoxiously arrogant that they will say in theory that those in the Catholic Church ARE real Christians, but, attack the individual Christian for not being Christian enough for the attacker.
Here’s the logic the attacker is either missing or ignoring: If there are Christians in the Catholic Church, and you don’t know who they are, and it could be all of them, why are you so presumptuous to say that they are wrong when for all you know, they can be real Christians.
…Clearly the arguer in this situation doesn’t really believe that Catholics are Christians (I know, but, LaHaye Raptured some of them!), no matter how much they try to wiggle a response.
I’ve seen Chinese gymnasts who were more convincing saying they were of competing age than those who don’t believe Catholics to be part of the invisible church.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Could you clarify this a little more, ads? I didn’t quite get what you’re saying here. Maybe it’s me lol
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Well, we certainly have more in common than I had thought.
I’ll be honest with you SIA. I much rather try and find what we have in common and work from there. I believe a lot of differences are possibly misconceptions to some degree. I’ll be the first to admit, I cannot suppose myself to think like God and do not condemn anyone, at least I try not too.
S
SIA
Guest
I can agree with that. And yes, you are correct, we have much in common. The Communion of Saints being a huge similarity.Well, we certainly have more in common than I had thought.
I’ll be honest with you SIA. I much rather try and find what we have in common and work from there. I believe a lot of differences are possibly misconceptions to some degree. I’ll be the first to admit, I cannot suppose myself to think like God and do not condemn anyone, at least I try not too.
S
SIA
Guest
Amen!
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
I did read 1 Cor. 11 and considered your view. I also read a commentary by Matthew Henry, which explains the chapter well:
*In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord’s supper, which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the apostle here reprehends, concerning which observe,
Many of the wealthier Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord’s table, or at least at their Agapai, or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper. They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. This was profaning a sacred institution, and corrupting a divine ordinance, to the last degree. What was appointed to feed the soul was employed to feed their lusts and passions. What should have been a bond of mutual amity and affection was made an instrument of discord and disunion. The poor were deprived of the food prepared for them, and the rich turned a feast of charity into a debauch. This was scandalous irregularity.
The apostle lays the blame of this conduct closely on them, 1. By telling them that their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution: This is not to eat the Lord’s supper, Romans 11:20. It was coming to the Lord’s table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away. Thus to eat the outward elements was not to eat Christ’s body. Note, There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord’s supper which is as none at all; it will turn to no account, but to increase guilt. Such an eating was that of the Corinthians; their practices were a direct contradiction to the purposes of this sacred institution. 2. Their conduct carried in it a contempt of God’s house, or of the church, Romans 11:22. If they had a mind to feast, they might do it at home in their own houses; but to come to the Lord’s table, and cabal and quarrel, and keep the poor from their share of the provision there made for them as well as rich, was such an abuse of the ordinance, and such a contempt of the poorer members of the church more especially, as merited a very sharp rebuke. Such a behaviour tended much to the shame and discouragement of the poor, whose souls were as dear to Christ, and cost him as much, as those of the rich. Note, Common meals may be managed after a common manner, but religious feasts should be attended religiously. Note, also, It is a heinous evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord’s table. This is doing what they can to pour contempt on divine ordinances. And we should look carefully to it that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord’s table have the appearance of contemning so sacred an institution.*
I certainly see nothing supporting the idea of transubstantiation. Indeed we are to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner. It is an ordinance of grace that should be received often. There is a real bodily presence – but Jesus refers to the bread as both His body and bread. Jesus tells us to partake in this ordinance to commemorate Him, to remember His sacrifice, and in commemoration of the New Covenant (as Moses sprinkled the blood on the alter, signifying the blood of the covenant – see Exodus 24:6-8).
The Gospel of John (Chap. 6) has a wonderful discourse by Jesus:
41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, (BD) “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
Here Jesus draws an analogy to the Jews in the desert after their Exodus from Egypt when God sent down Manna from heaven. Then God filled their bodily needs – now Jesus seeks to fill our spiritual needs.
(verses 42 through 46 omitted)
47Truly, truly, I say to you,(BP) whoever believes has eternal life. 48(BQ) I am the bread of life. 49(BR) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and(BS) they died. 50(BT) This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it(BU) and not die. 51I am the living bread(BV) that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give(BW) for the life of the world is(BX) my flesh."
The bread Jesus is referring to here is faith.
*52The Jews then(BY) disputed among themselves, saying,(BZ) “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of(CA) the Son of Man and drink his blood, you(CB) have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood(CC) has eternal life, and(CD) I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood(CE) abides in me, and I in him. *
This entire discourse draws a distinction between faith and reliance on Jesus and serving our physical need for food and drink. Through faith Jesus fills our spiritual needs. By grace through faith we inherit internal life. Just as food keeps our bodies alive through Jesus we keep our souls alive.
57As(CF) the living Father(CG) sent me, and(CH) I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58(CI) This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[c] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59Jesus[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught(CJ) at Capernaum.
This affirms my view – when Jesus states “feeds on me” He refers to abiding in Him in faith.
The Words of Eternal Life
(verses 60-62 omitted)
63(CP) It is the Spirit who gives life;(CQ) the flesh is no help at all.(CR) The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Here Jesus affirms the Spiritual nature of His revelations.
*64But(CS) there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus(CT) knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and(CU) who it was who would betray him.) *
Again the same affirmation – this time identifying faith in Him as the vehicle of our salvation.
65And he said, “This is why I told you(CV) that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Again we see this theme invoked:
Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for(B) the food that endures to eternal life, which(C) the Son of Man will give to you. For on(D) him God the Father has(E) set his seal." (John 6:27)
Harping back to the message of Isaiah:
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
and delight yourselves in rich food. (Isaiah 55:2).
The bread of life is faith.
See also:
“Do not (A)work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to (B)eternal life, which (C)the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, (D)has set His seal.” (John 6:27)
The “seal” referred to here is the Holy Spirit received through faith.
In Him, you also, after listening to (A)the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were (B)sealed in Him with (C)the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13).
Calvin’s view is as follows:
*The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. …] I hold…that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things—the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs.[47]
Following a phrase of Augustine, the Calvinist view is that “no one bears away from this Sacrament more than is gathered with the vessel of faith.” “The flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God’s elect believers,” Calvin said. Faith, not a mere mental apprehension, and the work of the Holy Spirit, are necessary for the partaker to behold God incarnate, and in the same sense touch Christ with their hands; so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ’s actual presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.[47] The ‘experience’ of Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper, has traditionally been spoken of in the following way: the faithful believers are ‘lifted up’ by the power of the Holy Spirit to feast with Christ in heaven. The Lord’s Supper in this way is truly a ‘Spiritual’ experience as the Holy Spirit is directly involved in the action of ‘eucharist’.
The Calvinist/Reformed view also places great emphasis on the action of the community as the Body of Christ. As the faith community participates in the action of celebrating the Lord’s Supper they are ‘transformed’ into the Body of Christ, or ‘reformed’ into the Body of Christ each time they participate in this sacrament. In this sense it has been said that the term “transubstantiation” can be applied to the Faith Community (the Church) itself being transformed into the real Body and Blood of Christ truly present in the world.*
S
Sagefrakrobatik
Guest
This reminds me of the time I interview two Orthodox converts from evangelical churches. I was working on a project for sociology were i interviewed people who converted from one religion to another. Serendipitously i found two men who decided to join the Orthodox church. One of the men told me that just a few years ago over a thousand evangelicals converting to Orthodoxy. So I wonder what whe should make of that?
I didnt formally renounce Catholicism. I would consider myself a nominal catholic. I guess i would say I’m more agnostic then anything with catholic inclinations. There is a lot I never knew about the Catholic Church until i came to this forum, some of it I find to be absolutely beautiful, some of it I vehemently disagree with. If you were to come to my house you would see things that reflected my catholic upbrings, remnants of my catholic past; a picture and statue of Mary, a picture of the Pope, a cross with a string of beads attached to it, the Latin Vulgate etc. You would also find some things that were religious but not associated with Catholicism, such as church bulletins from other denominations, a pamphlet on Emanuel Sweedenborg’s interpretation of Genesis, a pamplet on Christian Science, Prahpuda’s Bhagavata Gita As it Is, Book of Mormon, Pearl of the Great, the Riyaheed US-Saleen etc. The way I see it, there is so much to learn about other religions why limit my self to what I was raised as. Now I dont want to open up a can of worms but I hope that provides you with enough information. I didnt start this thread to initiate a departure from the Catholic church, but just to see how Catholics reacted to criticism. I do this in other religious forms as well. In a Hindu form I posted a story about a guy who wrote a book called the Death of a Guru and his conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.
R
Roger_Wissinger
Guest
I think the best thing we can do is to pray for people who leave the church for what ever reason. I had my own reasons for leaving. Young and ignorant. But by the grace of God I came back to his church. If people really knew the Catholic faith, they wouldn’t leave the church.
P
PerryJ
Guest
I can to agree to the path you are following to an extent. As a Protestant I witnessed each new preacher with his individual beliefs concerning Christ. I saw if the laity was upset with the pastor, the pastor was voted out and a new one replaced him. Normally with the exact same Christian beliefs as the top couple of elders, this showed me the Churches I attended were man made. I went in search of the truth.
I have read a lot of philosophy and history. I believe if one reads a lot of history it becomes apparent that the Catholic Church is the true Church. People that refute the history of the Catholic Church normally haven’t read much history and do not understand the mass amount of historical evidence the faith has from secularist. If one does any reading about Rome one would clearly know that the Eucharist was practiced by the early Christians just as it is now.
Once I saw in history that the Catholic Church was connected to Christ I began to read the early Church Fathers. This is overwhelmingly Catholic. Do we have some dissenting opinions here and there we do; however, if one reads a lot of their thoughts they are Catholics in every sense of the word. Many of the areas refuted on this forum were supported by the early Church Fathers.
The early Church Father’s led me to understanding the Faith. The Catholic Faith is a complete theology. Many of the others are incomplete or are designed to make men feel better about themselves. I once heard Billy Graham asked why people suffer, why children die. His response was I don’t know. I believe Billy Graham was a great Christian; however, his theology was incomplete. A Catholic knows why there is suffering in the world.
Be careful with other religions. One does not wish to be at judgment day telling the Lord I just couldn’t make a decision. Also beware of these other religions. They are often feel good religions. Some will even give you a spiritual lift. It is a man made lift that is against Christ. I normally would request someone to not read another faith until their conscience is fully formed. People in faiths clearly understand mind control. Catholics have their own version of this with the Enneagram and Centering Prayer. Both are very dangerous for the uniformed. Be careful religions are very good at controlling ones thoughts with deceptive practices and writings.
S
Sagefrakrobatik
Guest
^^^ what you have just described about the Catholic church reminds me of what those two Orthodox gentlemen told me about their conversions. What they both told me was that one of the reasons why they converted was because they felt that the church described in the new testment is exactly like that of the Orthodox church. Dont worry I will eventually come to some decision preferably before I’m 40 LOL. While I’m not as skeptical of other religions as I’m of Christianity, I still find faults in all religions even atheism and feel that nothing that is consider to be the truth shouldnt undergo some form of scrutiny. This friend at school told me the same thing.We both met in a class that was about Islam. He is an atheist and founder of the Atheist club at my school.After running into someone who was trying to recruit him for a bible study group, he told him who he was and how he was the founder of the atheist group on campus. They exchanged emails and said they would coordinate different activities with each other.While my friend admits he is a rabid atheist he stills feel that any opinion is not worth having unless you have it tested. To have a view in isolation of other views that are critical of that opinion is worthless.
L
LSK
Guest
He is 24 and he is a baptized Catholic. I say this without sarcasm; if he thinks he ‘left’ Catholicism for ‘Christianity’ he is wrong. He left The Truth for Heresy.If he was 24 yrs old and Catholic, you would say it without the sarcasm. Most of you on here are pretty much the same and it’s sad. If you only knew the saving power of Christ. Heck, if you only knew the Scriptures you supposedly read!
We are not children of a book, we are Children of The Word. Because of that, we not only know the saving power of Jesus Christ, we know that to not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood will keep us from eternal life. We know not only Sacred Scripture, we know Sacred Tradition and we know that one may NOT read Sacred Scripture without proper interpretation…from the magisterium by which the Sacred Scripture was cannonized.
My prayers are with you, that you come to know the Truth…for only the Truth shall set you free.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I really don’t see how the commentator got a poor verses wealthy out of 1 Cor. chapter 11. St. Paul didn’t mention either in his correction. Verse 34 tells them if a man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you not come together in judgement…
It appears the word transubstantiation may be what causes some confusion as I see you say there is a real presence. I’ll admit that word is not there, but again the commentator you provided didn’t expound on verses 27 and 29 where St. Paul refers to the bread and chalice as the body and the blood.of the Lord. There was also no mention of St. Paul’s description of the Lord’s supper as was told by the Lord. Real Presence is a sacramental presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ Himself.
I know John chapter 6. I do find it confusing on what parts of the Bible some Protestants find literal and other parts symbolic.
**Joh 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
**
Of all the times He spoke in parables, He explained Himself afterwards, particularly to His Apostles. Those who couldn’t bare His words were not the ordinary citizens, they were disciples, students of His teachings. Yes He knew they didn’t believe, but He didn’t explain Himself to stop the apostasy that took place and make them believe. When they left, did He turn to the Apostles and explain a parable? No, ask them, “What about you, do you want to go away too?”
I disagree with your thoughts on John 6:63. Jesus was not speaking about His flesh availing nothing. 1 Cor. 2:14-16 explains what flesh meant.
**
1Co 2:14 The natural person has no room for the gifts of God’s Spirit; to him they are folly; he cannot recognise them, because their value can be assessed only in the Spirit.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person, on the other hand, can assess the value of everything, and that person’s value cannot be assessed by anybody else.
1Co 2:16 For: who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his adviser? But we are those who have the mind of Christ.**
I know you’re familiar with St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John and appointed by St. Peter. He learned the Lord’s supper directly from those who learned from the Lord.
**They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(44) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(45) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(46) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(47) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(48) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
**
Martin Luther, the leader of the reformation believed in the Real Presence.
**Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, but the other theologians believed God to be only symbolically present: Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus’s ability to be in more than one place at a time.
Luther stated:
For I do not want to deny in any way that God’s power is able to make a body be simultaneously in many places, even in a corporeal and circumscribed manner. For who wants to try to prove that God is unable to do that? Who has seen the limits of his power?**
I believe Martin Luther started the reformation for what he believed to be the right reasons. The problem I can see, because I have the luxury of hindsight which Martin Luther did not, is the watering down of traditions. As more and more theologians took it upon theirselves, through the belief of sola scriptura, they changed the teachings from what the earliest Church fathers believed. These were the beginnings of essential differences in Protestantism.
The poster, Reformed, claims an “invisible” Church which connects all Christians no matter the number of denominations. He professes that all Christians are affilated in the “essentials”. Some Protestants believe in infant baptism, some do not. Some believe abortions are a woman’s choice, some do not. Some believe divorce is ok, others do not. Some accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, others do not. Some believe in sola scriptura, some do not. Some believe in once saved always saved, others do not. The list can go on and on here.
Who gets to decide the “essentials”?
Catholics believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit protected Church Christ created, so we may be perfectly one as he prayed for to the Father. Christ promised to be with us until the consummation of the world.
Some Protestants say sola scriptura works through what the Holy Spirit tells them through scriptures, while others say the Holy Spirit alone works directly within them. With so many people telling us they received the truth from scriptures and/or the Holy Spirit, yet they tell us different teachings, how do we know which ones really received a message from the Holy Spirit?
Christ was the fullness of truth. If you have a part of the truth, is it still truth?
In my opinion, obedience to the Church Christ created is obedience to God. If a Church lacks the fullness of truth, is it obedience to God or possibly a compromise between one’s lifestyle choices and God?
With all the denominations in the world, which Church teaches to worship God the way he wants to be worshipped?
With all the denominations and the differences in each one, how can we become perfectly one as Christ desired?
2Co 11:4 Because any chance comer has only to preach a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you have only to receive a spirit different from the one you received, or a gospel different from the one you accepted – and you put up with that only too willingly.
P
PerryJ
Guest
Have you read St. Thomas Summa Theologica.
The concept of a first mover is hard to refute with regards to atheism. A simple concept; however, true. If you haven’t read him I would recommend him highly.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Thanks, never heard those expressions.
Continue reading *John 3
4
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of **God without being born of water and Spirit. [snip] 22
After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.
As in Church hierarchy? Peter being the foundation of His Church?
*
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.*
Not sure why you think your union with Christ is different from my union with Chist.
The Catholic church teaches and practicing Catholics believe everything you quoted. We are born in Adam - original sin, we die to sin in Christ’s salvific death on the cross. We are reborn in Christ through water Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus is our Lord and Savior. We believe we should spend our lives walking with Jesus and getting to know him better. We spend time talking and listening to him every day.
- Status