Cornerstone of our Catholic Faith: 2 Thess 2:15

[Porknpie]

Not quite a reflection of my position. But let’s apply it to yours; have you not also decided you are sufficiently qualified to declare what infallible guide to follow; namely the pope of Rome? Was your choice infallible? If not, you can have no more certainty than any Protestant. We simply arrive back at the starting point; one following scripture as their rule of faith (hence the term canon), the other following the magisterium. Sola scriptura, or sola ecclessia.

Kind regards

Lincs

Lincs -

The “starting point” is the establishment of Christ’s Church on earth and the oral tradition handed down from the disciples (not the bible). Christ is the groom, the Church is his bride. The canon was put together to have a collective set of readings to be used at Mass. Inspired? Yes. Infallible? Yes. The bible set above tradition? No. Where do you get that from scripture?

Peace Always!

 

[Lincoln7]

In servitude,

Perhaps I didn’t view your statements properly. I suppose that can happen.

Indeed. There would be nothing wrong with the source however.

Nope - I’m not sufficiently qualified to infallibly declare anything. Imagine if I was an illiterate rice farmer in some desperate economic conditions. In that situation, I would also struggle to be the infallible decider. But, given the idea that Protestants are left to their own devices, void of Sacred Tradition, looking at “internal and external evidence” for what is actually Sacred Scripture and what is infested by the author of lies, the picture looks nonsensical. You have avoided discussing the reality of spiritual warfare. Satan was busy in the Catholic Church trying to tear it down from the start - John 6 is a good reference for that.

So how do you know you chose the right infallible guide, if you’re not infallible?

You dismiss off hand any intrinsic quality to the books of scripture… How did the early church recognise them then, if it was not because in part the books possess an intrinsic quality that demonstrated them as God breathed? If your argument falls back to the standard “the church decided 400 years later, based on no intrinsic quality evident in the books, but because it is infallible.”… Well I would lament if I had that argument to bring to an unbeliever, with respect. I do not dismiss spriitual warfare. God’s word is my sword amongst it (Eph 6:17). How did a Christian prior to Trent have any infallible idea as to what was scripture, in your paradigm? If the answer is “tradition”; Is it the same tradition which gives the canon of scripture as which states the pope is infallible?

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs -

The “starting point” is the establishment of Christ’s Church on earth and the oral tradition handed down from the disciples (not the bible). Christ is the groom, the Church is his bride. The canon was put together to have a collective set of readings to be used at Mass. Inspired? Yes. Infallible? Yes. The bible set above tradition? No. Where do you get that from scripture?

Peace Always!

Indeed Christ established the holy catholic church, and indeed, it was governed initially by the oral word of the Apostles. Which tradition? Orthodoxy or Catholicism? Is it materially sufficient, or partim partim? I don’t think tradition is quite so clear cut.

But, as scripture is God breathed, as if God were heard giving utterance to it, it partakes of his authority, as such functions as the guide for the church.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Porknpie]

Indeed Christ established the holy Catholic church, and indeed, it was governed initially by the oral word of the Apostles. Which tradition? Orthodoxy or Catholicism? Is it materially sufficient, or partim partim? I don’t think tradition is quite so clear cut.

But, as scripture is God breathed, as if God were heard giving utterance to it, it partakes of his authority, as such functions as the guide for the church.

Regards

Lincs

Only one tradition for the first 1000 years. Still, what in the bible puts the bible over tradition? Jesus breathed on the disciples and gave them the Holy Spirit, to forgive sins and to help them in their preaching of the good news. This was ~350 years before their descendants canonized the new testament books…writings that were used for readings at the Mass but also profitable for teaching.

God Bless!

 

[Lincoln7]

Only one tradition for the first 1000 years. Still, what in the bible puts the bible over tradition? Jesus breathed on the disciples and gave them the Holy Spirit, to forgive sins and to help them in their preaching of the good news. This was ~350 years before their descendants canonized the new testament books…writings that were used for readings at the Mass but also profitable for teaching.

God Bless!

“Only one tradition for the first 1000 years” - Does it include papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory as temporal punishment for sins, indulgences? One may say; “it’s development of doctrine that produces these!” - What a far cry from the traditions Paul delivered, traditions he delivered in their entirity, to “hold” to, to “stand firm” in (2 Thess 2:15)… Once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) Not “develop and add”…

Indeed the Apostles, had the authority to declare one forgiven based upon a persons repentance, declaring that the blood of Christ had paid for the penitents sin upon the cross. As well as declaring that those who remained unrepentant were unforgiven. I wholly disagree with your view of canon development, postulating that the NT writings were recognised as scripture at a much earlier date. Even 2 Peter 3:16 gives ample evidence for this. Check out ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’ for this in more detail, specifically chapter 2.

But if you ask for a verse; "And he [Jesus] said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” (Mark 9:7 ESV). Clearly tradition must never overthrow or contradict the infallible word of God.

The verse in 2 Thessalonians 2:15; “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

Is that given orally here demonstrated as distinct from that given in written form? If it is distinct, let the host of traditions listed above be shown as universal from the earliest days of the church, would be my request.

Kind regards

Lincs.

1 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 70

 

[in_servitude]

Indeed. There would be nothing wrong with the source however.

Agreed!

So how do you know you chose the right infallible guide, if you’re not infallible?

I don’t know “infallibly” that I’m right. Only the person that is told directly by God what is right and what is wrong can know. From this comes two possibilities:
I’m Wrong: Then, the Catholic Church teaches error. Those that follow the teachings of the Church are led (at least somewhat) astray from God. Those people are not able to follow the commands given by Christ as well as those that have 100% truth. In my fight with the evil one, I’m more likely to fall into sin and to advance the cause of darkness because I’m using ineffective methods to fight evil.

But, every church would also teach error. For, the mechanisms that caused the error in the Catholic Church would be at work in all other churches, as not one single church would be able to withstand the onslaught of the evil one, Satan.

I’m Right: Then the Catholic Church teaches Truth. Those that follow the Catholic Church are led toward God. Those who choose to reject the Church teachings are led (at least a little bit) away. Satan is not able to corrupt the teachings of the Rock, and the teachings of the Rock are the singular source for uncorrupted teaching, save direct revelation by God.

You dismiss off hand any intrinsic quality to the books of scripture… How did the early church recognise them then, if it was not because in part the books possess an intrinsic quality that demonstrated them as God breathed? If your argument falls back to the standard “the church decided 400 years later, based on no intrinsic quality evident in the books, but because it is infallible.”… Well I would lament if I had that argument to bring to an unbeliever, with respect.

How do you account for the people going a different direction after receiving the gospel directly from Paul?

Galatians 1:6-7

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by [the] grace [of Christ] for a different gospel 7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Here are people getting 100 octane gospel - straight from Paul. And, according to Paul, they pervert it rapidly. The intrinsic quality of the gospel didn’t guide them. They were under attack by Satan just as the Church was from day 1. To say that people are able to discern the gospel without a visible guide doesn’t square - it doesn’t make sense.

I do not dismiss spriitual warfare. God’s word is my sword amongst it (Eph 6:17). How did a Christian prior to Trent have any infallible idea as to what was scripture, in your paradigm? If the answer is “tradition”; Is it the same tradition which gives the canon of scripture as which states the pope is infallible?

Hmmm… God’s word is your sword against Satan? Why wasn’t Paul able to do the same thing, then? Even Paul’s movement was hampered by Satan.

1 Thessalonians 2:18

18 We decided to go to you—I, Paul, not only once but more than once—yet Satan thwarted us.

Not only does Paul HAVE the “Word of God”, he’s actually WRITING it. And still, he’s unable to win some of the battles with Satan.

If anyone is going to proclaim to be void of error, they must have supernatural assistance. The only promise I see for this kind of supernatural assistance is Rock.

 

[Lincoln7]

In servitude,

I don’t know “infallibly” that I’m right. Only the person that is told directly by God what is right and what is wrong can know. From this comes two possibilities:

Indeed, so appeals to infallible authorities against Protestant private judgment don’t really work at all, for private judgement is where one has to go in order to discern which infallible guide to pick from the many that claim to be the one true church.

How do you account for the people going a different direction after receiving the gospel directly from Paul?

A sinful nature. People can run off and fall into error… But thankfully “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27 ESV). True sheep won’t wander off to the point of never returing. Plus, true sheep will know their Lords voice as it speaks to them in scripture.

Here are people getting 100 octane gospel - straight from Paul. And, according to Paul, they pervert it rapidly. The intrinsic quality of the gospel didn’t guide them. They were under attack by Satan just as the Church was from day 1. To say that people are able to discern the gospel without a visible guide doesn’t square - it doesn’t make sense.

Indeed, they wandered from the truth (Jam 5:19)… But again… The sheep know his voice and will return to it, some won’t wander from it.

I agree that the church was involved in the discernment process, I object however to your view where it’s the only thing that matters to canon development, (1) where as you keep showing; you deny in any way that scripture can authenticate itself. I’m arguing for a more balanced view. Which visible guide discerned that Rome was the true church for you?

Hmmm… God’s word is your sword against Satan? Why wasn’t Paul able to do the same thing, then? Even Paul’s movement was hampered by Satan.

Yessir it is. Just as Paul tells us it is to be; "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places… and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, (Eph 6:12-17 ESV). I follow the example of my Lord and Shepherd;

*And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, "It is written, “'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4 ESV)

Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” * (Matt 4:10)

I’m sure Paul did the very same thing… Does this mean sometimes we won’t be harassed and attacked? No. But it does clearly show us that the word is our Sword, and that Christ used it to utterly defeat the attacks of satan. Why would I not follow my Lord’s example?

Not only does Paul HAVE the “Word of God”, he’s actually WRITING it. And still, he’s unable to win some of the battles with Satan.

And this means im not to use it as my sword because…? I’m sure I will fail sometimes, I’m still going to use it, trusting in Christ to be my source of strength and to give me endurance in this war.

If anyone is going to proclaim to be void of error, they must have supernatural assistance. The only promise I see for this kind of supernatural assistance is Rock.

By rock do you mean the papacy? I don’t claim to be void of error, nor do I think Rome is.

The church is to hold fast to scripture, the unchanging and abiding apostolic testimony, the inspired words of God, “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130 ESV), that I may be competent and equipped for my walk and every good work.

Lincs

(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 36

 

[in_servitude]

Indeed, so appeals to infallible authorities against Protestant private judgment don’t really work at all, for private judgement is where one has to go in order to discern which infallible guide to pick from the many that claim to be the one true church.

I do not see people on this forum saying that Protestants are wrong, “because the infallible Pope said so.” As a result, we are not “appealing to the infallible authority against Protestant private judgement.” Also, I do not see people saying that “the infallible guide picks which church is the one true church.”

Followers of Christ through the Catholic Church believe that we can rely upon the dogma declared as reliable by the leader as installed by Christ. Thus, we are not “on our own” to discern every jot and tittle. Protestants, however, are on their own. For example, I rest comfortably knowing I can request the intersession of Mary and the Saints in Heaven. Protestants - maybe some will use this powerful assistance - maybe some will be led astray and have to fight without this assistance.

If a person had to be “infallible” to decide which church was the one true church, then one would not necessarily need an infallible and visible guide. However, looking at history, what the early church fathers taught, and the reality of spiritual warfare, a person can become fairly certain that they are in the one true Church as created by Christ.

I do occasionally wonder what the penalty will be for those that advertise falsehoods that lead people astray. That, of course, cuts both ways.

A sinful nature. People can run off and fall into error… But thankfully “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27 ESV). True sheep won’t wander off to the point of never returing. Plus, true sheep will know their Lords voice as it speaks to them in scripture.

Indeed, they wandered from the truth (Jam 5:19)… But again… The sheep know his voice and will return to it, some won’t wander from it.

Thus, people are thus infallible in their walk with the Lord - they need only listen to his voice, and there will be no effects from the lies of Satan, no errors, no problems. When I look at some of the basic teachings from some of the main-line Protestant churches, I have to wonder. For example, abortion is tolerated by some (United Methodist is one I think I recall properly). Christians that somehow miss the voice of the Lord while they rest comfortably propagating overt satanic errors. There is even a group called, “Catholics for Choice.” Of course, just because these people say that they are “Catholic” doesn’t mean they get it. The Church teachings do not yield to their view.

I agree that the church was involved in the discernment process, I object however to your view where it’s the only thing that matters to canon development, (1) where as you keep showing; you deny in any way that scripture can authenticate itself. I’m arguing for a more balanced view. Which visible guide discerned that Rome was the true church for you?

Yessir it is. Just as Paul tells us it is to be; "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places… and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, (Eph 6:12-17 ESV). I follow the example of my Lord and Shepherd;

*And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, "It is written, “'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4 ESV)

Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” * (Matt 4:10)

I’m sure Paul did the very same thing… Does this mean sometimes we won’t be harassed and attacked? No. But it does clearly show us that the word is our Sword, and that Christ used it to utterly defeat the attacks of satan. Why would I not follow my Lord’s example?

I do think the above abortion example above calls into question the notion that Satan’s efforts cannot have lasting effects.

And this means im not to use it as my sword because…? I’m sure I will fail sometimes, I’m still going to use it, trusting in Christ to be my source of strength and to give me endurance in this war.

By rock do you mean the papacy? I don’t claim to be void of error, nor do I think Rome is.

I don’t claim to be void of error either. But, we do disagree on Rome. One of us right about that, the other is advocating error.

The church is to hold fast to scripture, the unchanging and abiding apostolic testimony, the inspired words of God, “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130 ESV), that I may be competent and equipped for my walk and every good work.

The view pushed by many Protestants is that we have scripture - and that’s it. Isn’t it interesting that two people can’t look at the same scripture and come to the same conclusion about the proper interpretation? Thus, God’s Word is the sword that cuts in different directions based upon who is reading it.

 

[Porknpie]

"But if you ask for a verse; "And he [Jesus] said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” (Mark 9:7 ESV). Clearly tradition must never overthrow or contradict the infallible word of God.

The verse in 2 Thessalonians 2:15; “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

Is that given orally here demonstrated as distinct from that given in written form? If it is distinct, let the host of traditions listed above be shown as universal from the earliest days of the church, would be my request.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Links - the quote above is from Mark 7:9. It has nothing to do with holding the bible over tradition rather Christ was lecturing the pharisees on their purification practices which were external but their not having interior conversion. The Thessalonians quote is very Catholic. No fair in using a Catholic apologetics quote to try proving a Protestant viewpoint! We are to hold to Both scripture and tradition. All Catholics agree! :clapping: So far, no quote shown that places the bible over tradition.

 

[Crumpy]

Crumpy

Does the verse indicate the traditions are distinct from what is written by letter?

I hold to traditions, I simply place them under scripture and test them too it. They are not held as its equal, for it is God Breathed.

Which tradition do I accept? Orthodoxy or RC?

Regards

Lincs

Yes, that seems to be the essential distinction that Paul is making. The oral traditions are separate, different, and equal.

I don’t understand how you “put them under scripture” and “test” them? They are equal as Paul says and they are exactly God-breathed.

Orthodoxy have valid sacraments but it rejects Papal primacy and some decrees of the papacy.The Orthodox schism was a heresy against the unity of the Church, based on emotions. Bad move. Read chap 3 of 2nd Thess.

 

[Lincoln7]

In servitude,

Your post comes down to the classic argument; that Protestants can’t agree, some do very wrong things, thus sola scriptura is wrong.

Where is the connection here? Some communions do allow abortion yes, this makes sola scriptura wrong because? Rather they are not following the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Again, if you advocate I need the magisterium as my infallible guide for doctrine, then I must fallibly interpret history and scripture to reach that as my conclusion. The early church is hardly a unanimous testimony in favour of the CC, the whole private interpretation and disagreement argument I find to be lacking, as it simply pushes one back a step; they now have to pick the guide…

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Links - the quote above is from Mark 7:9. It has nothing to do with holding the bible over tradition rather Christ was lecturing the pharisees on their purification practices which were external but their not having interior conversion. The Thessalonians quote is very Catholic. No fair in using a Catholic apologetics quote to try proving a Protestant viewpoint! We are to hold to Both scripture and tradition. All Catholics agree! :clapping: So far, no quote shown that places the bible over tradition.

The verse is clear that if tradition contradicts scripture, it is to be jettisoned.

Well I’ve provided an exegisis of why I think the verse most certainly does not support the catholic view; it leaves open no idea of development, it tells people to hold to traditions already well known. If the Traditons I listed in my previous post are part of this tradition, let them be demonstrated as a universal Christian belief from the beginning.

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes, that seems to be the essential distinction that Paul is making. The oral traditions are separate, different, and equal.

I don’t understand how you “put them under scripture” and “test” them? They are equal as Paul says and they are exactly God-breathed.

Orthodoxy have valid sacraments but it rejects Papal primacy and some decrees of the papacy.The Orthodox schism was a heresy against the unity of the Church, based on emotions. Bad move. Read chap 3 of 2nd Thess.

If they are distinct then, partim partim, as I’ve stated, let the traditions I have listed be demonstrated as apostolic in origin, as clearly held to by the early church, if the cant be found in the earliest fathers, I hardly would view them as apostolic Traditons Paul has in mind.

By putting them under scripture, by testing them, I’m affirming that scripture as the surest witness to apostolic doctrine is the plum line to which any Traditon must be accountable to. My position is not “no Traditon”, rather that it is not an infallible source of doctrine not found in scripture.

Im sure the Orthodox would disagree here, which is right?

Lincs

 

[in_servitude]

Your post comes down to the classic argument; that Protestants can’t agree, some do very wrong things, thus sola scriptura is wrong.

I do wonder if there are any truly honest seekers of Christ coming to the conclusion that abortion is tolerable. If there are, then yes, that does give testimony that the Holy Spirit is not willing to forcibly prevent the error (or immediately correct the error) for each and every individual.

Now, if Christ were to come down and just make it so clear that there was not one single iota of ambiguity as to the authority he left for his Church, then the instant a person rejects his Church, they also instantly overtly reject Christ. The ambiguity allows us to consider all our choices before we pass into our judgement.

Where is the connection here? Some communions do allow abortion yes, this makes sola scriptura wrong because? Rather they are not following the clear teaching of scripture on this matter.

This would be one area where the Catholic Church is aligned with your thinking. But, just because you say it “contradicts scripture” doesn’t make it so. It’s just your opinion. Blah blah blah…

Again, if you advocate I need the magisterium as my infallible guide for doctrine, then I must fallibly interpret history and scripture to reach that as my conclusion. The early church is hardly a unanimous testimony in favour of the CC, the whole private interpretation and disagreement argument I find to be lacking, as it simply pushes one back a step; they now have to pick the guide…

As we’ve already covered - you and I are infested with error in our interpretation of scripture, the assessment of history, the analysis of current day events, and the understanding we have with the spiritual world.

So yes, the only hope of having an infallible guide for doctrine is the Magisterium. Of this, I think we agree. Where we are at odds is the validity of the Magisterium. I suppose it’s unfortunate that there isn’t any clear cut evidence that the Catholic dogma has run afoul of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Porknpie]

The verse is clear that if tradition contradicts scripture, it is to be jettisoned.

Well I’ve provided an exegisis of why I think the verse most certainly does not support the catholic view; it leaves open no idea of development, it tells people to hold to traditions already well known. If the Traditons I listed in my previous post are part of this tradition, let them be demonstrated as a universal Christian belief from the beginning.

Lincs

Hi Lincs, I’m still not understanding the relevance of Mark 7:9 as Jesus was speaking to Jewish purification practices verses the need for interior conversion. Agree that tradition does not contradict scripture but, scripture has to be interpreted correctly and tradition believed and followed correctly (also have to have all of scripture and not take out 7 books. ).

Perfect example is the belief in the Eucharist. This belief is not only in scripture but also clearly evident in tradition, since the very first writings of the ECF. Yet the majority of Protestant churches don’t believe it. Same is true for the authority of the church, confession, infant baptism, annointing of the sick etc. Protestants misinterpret the bible passages and dismiss the early church teachings (beginning of tradition). Also, the word you use “beginning” stretched over a long period of time. Christ told his disciples to go and preach the good news. The writing down part took a much longer and not everything was written down. The gospel tells us that there were not enough books in all the world to record what Christ did and taught. Hence the importance of the oral tradition handed down through the apostles.

There is no bible passage that puts the bible over tradition. Admittedly that’s kind of a trick question. :hypno: But if you find one, post it and lets talk about it. :hey_bud:

 

[Lincoln7]

In servitude,

I do wonder if there are any truly honest seekers of Christ coming to the conclusion that abortion is tolerable. If there are, then yes, that does give testimony that the Holy Spirit is not willing to forcibly prevent the error (or immediately correct the error) for each and every individual.

I don’t claim every individual will be free of error… I do claim the elect will persevere until the end however, not without rough patches though, check out the canons of dort on that one.

This would be one area where the Catholic Church is aligned with your thinking. But, just because you say it “contradicts scripture” doesn’t make it so. It’s just your opinion. Blah blah blah…

Do you think scripture is unclear on the fact that abortion is wrong? Some parts are hard to understand, but this hardly is one…

As we’ve already covered - you and I are infested with error in our interpretation of scripture, the assessment of history, the analysis of current day events, and the understanding we have with the spiritual world.

So yes, the only hope of having an infallible guide for doctrine is the Magisterium. Of this, I think we agree. Where we are at odds is the validity of the Magisterium. I suppose it’s unfortunate that there isn’t any clear cut evidence that the Catholic dogma has run afoul of Sacred Scripture.

I think one would be hard pressed to demonstrate exegeting an infallible magisterium in scripture… One could point to lots of places showing apostolic authority yes, but a papacy? Hmm. I would argue the magisterium has taught contrary to the scriptures in numerous areas; a denial of imputed righteousness by faith alone in Christ alone, The Eucharist as a propitiatory Sacrfice, purgatory…

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Porknpie,

Hi Lincs, I’m still not understanding the relevance of Mark 7:9 as Jesus was speaking to Jewish purification practices verses the need for interior conversion. Agree that tradition does not contradict scripture but, scripture has to be interpreted correctly and tradition believed and followed correctly (also have to have all of scripture and not take out 7 books.

I quote it simply to state what I stated in my last post; scripture must not be contradicted by tradition.

How often does the magisterium actually infallibly interpret scripture? On ye olde canon debate, I stand with Jerome, Cajetan, Athanasius…the Apostlles.

Perfect example is the belief in the Eucharist. This belief is not only in scripture but also clearly evident in tradition, since the very first writings of the ECF. Yet the majority of Protestant churches don’t believe it. Same is true for the authority of the church, confession, infant baptism, annointing of the sick etc. Protestants misinterpret the bible passages and dismiss the early church teachings (beginning of tradition). Also, the word you use “beginning” stretched over a long period of time. Christ told his disciples to go and preach the good news. The writing down part took a much longer and not everything was written down. The gospel tells us that there were not enough books in all the world to record what Christ did and taught. Hence the importance of the oral tradition handed down through the apostles.

No, I don’t believe in transubstantiation, a concept foreign to scripture and unheard of in the early church. A Lutheran would affirm the corporal presence in the Supper, a form of presence in the fathers must not automatically be seen as transubstantiation… I hold to Christs true presence in the Eucharist, to the faith of true believers, they feed on him really and indeed, but not in a corporal sense. So; presence does not denote simply that everyone holds the catholic view.

Indeed, when the scriptures were being written, apostolic oral preaching and teaching was the churches foundation. And indeed, not everything was written down. Can the CC bring any non recorded sayings of the Lord? And again, is the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, purgatory, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception part of this tradition? If so, why are they unheard of in the earliest church?

Regards

Lincs

 

[in_servitude]

No, I don’t believe in transubstantiation, a concept foreign to scripture and unheard of in the early church.

Not in scripture? I’m not so sure about that.

John 6:53-56

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Without transubstantiation, I do not see how it is possible to do what Jesus is plainly commanding.

Once we pass through the veil and we are judged, we will not be able to say that Jesus wasn’t clear on this one.

 

[Lincoln7]

Not in scripture? I’m not so sure about that.

John 6:53-56

Without transubstantiation, I do not see how it is possible to do what Jesus is plainly commanding.

Once we pass through the veil and we are judged, we will not be able to say that Jesus wasn’t clear on this one.

I also belive that true believers partake of the true body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, really and indeed. They truly eat his flesh and drink his blood… But i dont hold to transubstantiation. However, this passage to me seems much more to be taken in terms of believing, with eating and drinking also meaning believing in Christ.

See Calvin’s commentary here; m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xii.ix.html

 

[Porknpie]

Lincs, help me a understand your background more than Christian and Protestant. What church do you belong to? This would help the Catholic’s in our responses back to you.

Thank you.