Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

Strictly speaking, the whole of the Christian faith is based on Sacred Tradition. The doctrine of Christ was whole and entire when it was committed to the Church. The Church was not without any Truth for the first two decades when the books we now call the NT began to appear.

Now if only the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders could have had similar response to Christ when He used Writ to make contrary points to their traditions.

I mean how many centuries lapsed from Adam to Noah to Abraham before anything was put to Writ…so accordingly Judaism is based on Tradition, built on Tradition…?

Fine then and as His Jewish detractors circumvented Truth, claiming the core and heart of their tradition, Abraham and sonship to him (their form of apostolic succession), so do those in error today.

 

[mcq72]

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Can answer with tradition (father writing),
Barnabus:

“Let those knowledgable of the Lord’s precepts keep them, as many as are written”

Understandable to say hold on to oral tradition when that is what was obviously prevalent before and during writ formation.

They might say different later, if they had been alive after the fact of all writ finally being written…like Barnabus did who certainly dropped the “tradition” part once used by his ministry partner/apostle.

 

[guanophore]

I mean how many centuries lapsed from Adam to Noah to Abraham before anything was put to Writ…so accordingly Judaism is based on Tradition, built on Tradition…?

Yes. The Holy Spirit has preserved the Word of God in the community of faith from the beginning.

I often wonder.

The Pharisees held the views closest to what God had revealed. The reason Jesus was so hard on them is that they had received the Revelation of God, yet did not understand it. I suppose you are trying to say that this is what happened to the Catholic Church?

Fine then and as His Jewish detractors circumvented Truth, claiming the core and heart of their tradition, Abraham and sonship to him (their form of apostolic succession), so do those in error today.

I think you have determined that the Catholic Church is “in error today” based on what you have received of the Apostolic Tradition (Scripture). But there was never any attempt to commit the fullness of the faith to the New Testament. Rather, it is a collection of inspired, inerrant documents produced from the Sacred Tradition, from which it was never meant to be separated.

But I do understand why it seems the CC has somehow fallen into error. You are left with only a portion of the revelation that is contained in the NT, and you are left to interpret it without the lens through which it was written. Without the context (which is the Catholic Church), the contents of the NT will appear as different to the reader as there are belly buttons.

“Let those knowledgable of the Lord’s precepts keep them, as many as are written”

Yes, the early Church accepted the Septuagint as inspired, inerrant Word of God. This was the collection used by St. Paul, to which he referred as “the scriptures”.

Understandable to say hold on to oral tradition when that is what was obviously prevalent before and during writ formation.

If God was able to preserve His word “orally” from Adam to Moses, what would make you think He could not continue to do this?

 

[guanophore]

like Barnabus did who certainly dropped the “tradition” part once used by his ministry partner/apostle.

t

One of the reasons this theological treatise was not included in the canon is that it could not be ascertained that it was actually penned by the companion of Paul by that name. Barnabas refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, so it is assumed to have been written after 70 AD, but within the first century. At that time, which books belonged in the NT was still in a great state of flux.

Understandable to say hold on to oral tradition when that is what was obviously prevalent before and during writ formation.

Salvation is, according to Christ, 'of the Jews". God taught the Jews how to preserve oral tradition, and preserved His Word through the Holy Spirit. In the same way, God gave His Word to the Church (Jesus never wrote, nor instructed the Apostles to write). He preserves His Word where He has placed it. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates the Word of God placed in the Church (orally) became obsolete or erroneous, or that God would fail to preserve it.

 

[mcq72]

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates the Word of God placed in the Church (orally) became obsolete or erroneous, or that God would fail to preserve it.

Oral does not become obsolete by writ, rather becomes ruled by it,even preserved by it…why does man kick against the goads?

 

[Agathon]

why does man kick against the goads?

This thread wouldn’t exist if man didn’t.

 

[Wannano]

_Was Jesus hard on the Pharisees because they did not understand the Revelation of God or because they really did understand but did not want to accept it as it was given but rather using it for their own interest, power and privilege?

 

[Wannano]

This thread wouldn’t exist if man didn’t.

---

Neither would the internet itself.

 

[guanophore]

Oral does not become obsolete by writ, rather becomes ruled by it,even preserved by it…why does man kick against the goads?

The problem with Sacred tradition becoming “ruled by” what is written is that it is not so much what God has committed to writing as it is man’s perception of what God has written.

Man kicks against the goads because it is his nature:

2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings”

The reason the Scriptures must be interpreted within the One Faith that produced them is that human beings are prone to serve their own ego. Only the revelation and grace of God can save us from ourselves.

What you are proposing is that the Word of God be ruled by human perceptions.

Was Jesus hard on the Pharisees because they did not understand the Revelation of God or because they really did understand but did not want to accept it as it was given but rather using it for their own interest, power and privilege?

Clearly the Teaching of Jesus indicated both things are true.

I am not suggesting that the Word of God cannot be perverted. I am saying that the Holy Spirit is able to prevent this.

 

[Benadam]

It never was “enough” from the beginning. And you are right, unity was lost long before the term transubstantiation was coined. Unity was lost over the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, celebrating the Lord’s Day on Sunday rather than Sabbath, the date for Easter, and a number of other issues.

Unity is a result of adherence to the Truth. To the extent we all embrace the Truth, we have unity.

This reminded me of The passages in John’s Gospel discussed on this thread a few days ago.
That doctrinal test of faith in John 6. The fault then existed in those who turned away. I think that set a pattern for dividing the flock. A crescendo that will come to a head at the Parousia.

St. Peter, fulfilling his office, stated a primordial doctrine of faith. Controversial as it is…

John 6:68
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Guanapore reminds us of a profound truth

The Church founded by Christ is incarnational

That means a visible reality in the world. Eternity entered time and history. Changelessness entered time and history. Jesus entered time and history and God became a visible reality that anyone could see. As St John wrote "

We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— 3 we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

I isn’t reasonable or good theology to believe that the Church lost that quality of Incarnational Being…

 

[mcq72]

What you are proposing is that the Word of God be ruled by human perceptions.

What you (CC) propose is that the Word of God be ruled by that the Holy Spirit and that only thru Rome and by others but only when they concur with Rome, including any reform, and that only of practice, (due to infallible reception of doctrine, by Rome only).

 

[Benadam]

What you (CC) propose is that the Word of God be ruled by that the Holy Spirit and that only thru Rome and by others but only when they concur with Rome, including any reform, and that only of practice, (due to infallible reception of doctrine by Rome only).

I wonder if you would say that to St. Peter. It was true about the Church then. Why wouldn’t the Church look the same now?

 

[jcrichton]

How do you not distinguish between Jesus Word and St. John’s “Lamb of God?”

Jesus is not saying, ‘as my body and as my blood.’ That’s the construct of those who have determined that Jesus is only making a symbolic offering of His symbolic Body and His symbolic Blood.

The steadfastly hold that when Jesus states that, “My Body is food indeed,” and “My Blood is drink indeed,” He is merely using hyperbole. Even when the original text shows Jesus insisting that His Disciples (Followers) must eat/chew His Flesh and drink His Blood, and even when the Apostles practiced Braking of the Bread as the Real Body and Blood of Jesus not as a symbolic gathering and celebration, and even when the Jews and Romans understood their Celebration of the Lord’s Supper to be an activity performed by cannibals, as the Church was accused of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their leader (in time child sacrifice and consumption was added to their understanding). All of the facts demonstrate the Belief in the Real Presence.

While the “Lamb of God’s” narrative is based on the fact of Jesus Incarnation, Passion, and Crucifixion mixed in with elements that would be easily understood by Israel (escape goat, Sacrificial Offering of a Lamb, the transfer of guilt/wages of sin onto the Sacrificial Offering…); when St. John the Baptist Ushers in the Messiah he does not expect Christ to turn into an actual lamb nor does he expect that the sin of the world will actually be transferred to Him. He understand, from Israel’s practice of the Old Covenant, that Yahweh God will take away the wages of sin from Israel and accept the Sacrificial Offering as the currency conversion (Israel’s sin demand sacrifice as the purging element; escape goat/sacrificial offering takes place to secure Israel’s lifeline).

Jesus does not offer a symbolic narrative: “eat My Body and drink My Blood,” and “do this to Commemorate Me” (yeah a little paraphrasing license) can never translate to ‘have a symbolic gathering to symbolically remember me.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

When you have free will you make the law and you determine the validity of things; it is the reason why there are thousands of “Christians” holding such variation of beliefs, everyone of these with their own nuances and reasons for their existence; it is so bad that it has gotten to the point that these factions (divisions) are held by the narrow ties of the “union” definition–which they have borrowed (if they indeed came up with it first) from the Jehovah Witnesses’ ‘like mind.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is the crux, is it not? The Reformers developed doctrines in some cases opposite of what we received from the Apostles to the extent that we see the changes as a “different gospel”. Modern evangelicals are convinced that it is Catholic who have a “different gospel”. It boils down to each persons’ perceptions.

Actually not!

Jesus already warned about the claim of “having Christ” (he is here, no he is over there, no he is in the desert…); He warns that these claims would deceive/convince even the elect, if it were possible.

So why is it not possible? Because the elect have some sort of extrasensory perception or have advanced to a higher spiritual level than the rest of mankind?

Quite not!

Jesus tells the Church that in a little while He will be gone and none will see Him; that He will return promptly and that the world would not be able to see Him, only (the elect) His Disciples would–because the other Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, lives/resides/abides in with the Church and in the Church.

This is also the reason why St. Paul declares that the Church of the Living God holds the Deposit of Truth:

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. (1 Timothy 3)

So when man’s teachings counter Christ’s, we know that there is a different Gospel being taught.

But this is exactly why the Reformers developed their different gospels! They believed the CC had traded in the word of God for the word of man.

The problem with that is that you do not throw out the baby with the water–this is in effect what has been done in the name of “reformation.”

They traveled from error and perceived error in the Body of Christ to doctrines which promote error as sound doctrine.

Do you not see the difference?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Did the apostles teach dogmatically assembling on Sunday only, Easter celebration on one specific date, 73vs 66 books, IC and Assumption of Mary and mediatrix of ALL graces?

Of couse not.

Did the Apostles teach remaining in Temple worship and gathering in the synagogues?

Of course not, the Church, as the Truth Unfolded, changed to embrace the Full Truth.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

True but not for all, yet they communed in unity, not affording the luxury of such “deep” theology dogmatizing…not yet at least.

Not dogmatizing?

Have you ever read the New Covenant’s Writing? They are all about dogmatizing!

It is there that we find definition and purpose and, yes, anathematizing.

We also find the Church’s hierarchy–granted all these things exist within the narrows of the Church’s experience.

Look at what you are defending: one Pope-Church with errors vs. thousands (and more coming) popes-churches with doctrinal errors practiced and presented as sound doctrine.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rcwitness]

I believe He calls people to be separate from Catholicism period.

Well thats pretty extreme!

Do you believe the Catholic faith to be anti-Christian? That is what your comment implies.

 

[jcrichton]

This is the paradosis, the handing down of God’s Word. It is He who preserves it as immutable, not the people in which the Word dwells.

Exactly!

Protestantism, as well as others non-Christians, continue to believe that it is man who makes rule; it is understandable since that’s how they operate (enough get together and vote “wxyz” the norm or “zyxw” the anti-norm (next week it could be vice versa). So they continue to hold “intelligentsia” as the governing means.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

They might say different later, if they had been alive after the fact of all writ finally being written…like Barnabus did who certainly dropped the “tradition” part once used by his ministry partner/apostle.

Exactly!

But when you say you are Christ’s church and you get to determine doctrine and you get to speak for God it is not the same as following Tradition and error sipping in; you are actually teaching error as sound doctrine.

One Baptism – why is it that you teach that it is not necessary for salvation, that it is necessary, that it is symbolic, that it is external, that it is (let’s wait till the next group of definitions when they come out and become the flavor of the month/year).

One Church – why is it that you teach a visible church, a 1st, 2nd “xyz,” an invisible church, an universal invisible/visible church, a high/low/orthodox/nonorthodox/denominational and same but non-denominational…?

Why do you espouse Jesus Word ('two or three gathered in My Name) as His Delegation for any and all to claim/create another version of “My Body?”

Maran atha!

Angel