Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[jcrichton]

Hence the problem… we keep seeking the upper-hand… we cannot define “church” as whatever we want it to mean.

We cannot term Body of Christ as whatever we want it to be.

Either Christ Founded His Church of He did not.

If He did, then the Church must be in existence from the Foundation till the end of times (which is the time when Jesus will cease being with the Church).

Multiple organisms claiming to be the one true church cannot, in all sincerity, be what Christ Founded since the Apostle St. Paul clearly states (when this issue arose) that God is not a God of disorder but of Order.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve-b]

Here is what I posted again:

"That wasn’t my point. It is said so many times on here that “this was the belief since …(insert time period)…” So here we have a Pope who either did not believe it or and this is something to think about… it was never a universal belief and the Council of Rome didn’t do as so many think. Because the Pope failed to receive the memo of something as important as this. As Pope and if this was the belief and a conclusion of the council I would in the least expect a Pope to have been briefed on the basics…

I gave you an answer from a Catholic perspective, Fr Echert.
A pope can be in error on personal opinions. Pope Gregory didn’t change anything. The canon remained with 73 books.

MichaelP3:

Also the thing about his personal opinion can’t fly. And I am not even touching infallibility. For instance, do you think Pope Francis will survive if he wrote a piece (and state his personal opinion) that Contraception is actually not that bad. In that case a Pope wrote about the Canon and clearly contradicted current Catholic ideas. I for one give him the benifit of the doubt and rather think it hasn’t always been believed as claimed and the Council of Rome was less definite or clear as many more claim."

Re:The canon of scripture,
It hadn’t changed since 382. The Vulgate was Jerome’s translation of the bible into Latin. Prior to that there was no “bible”. Jerome had 73 books in his translation.

Reope Gregory, he didn’t change the canon decreed 200 years earlier… It’s the same canon as today.

Re: Pope Francis and speculations, I’d rather not speculate and deal with what actually happens.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Vulgate, Jerome’s translation in Latin, had all 73 books. Jerome followed Pope Damasus’ lead, and the canon that was wad his preface defined at the council of Rome 38

Correct but how did he “regard” them ? What was his preface to the nonhebrew books?

From the council

The Canon of Sacred Scripture

Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle, one epistle.

Names of OT books that read differently from what is expected, the translation here

For example “Osee” = Hosea

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In today’s legal vernacular, assuming Luther had council with him back then, his lawyer would most certainly have counseled him to keep his mouth shut regarding the following statement.

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”

Actually, i think he wrote those words at the behest of his lawyer and Counselor.

it is not all or nothing, either/or in regards to honoring ones foundation, and past, and predecessors.

The best in any of us gives honor to where honor is due, as graced to us by His discernment of all things

Actually, I think it’s a bit odd Luther made that acknowledgment given the style of his letters previously.

 

[rcwitness]

From Wiki, on the Tree of Life:

In Catholic Christianity, the Tree of Life represents the immaculate state of humanity free from corruption and Original Sin before the Fall. Pope Benedict XVI has said that “the Cross is the true tree of life.” [11] Saint Bonaventure taught that the medicinal fruit of the Tree of Life is Christ himself.[12] Saint Albert the Great taught that the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, is twhe Fruit of the Tree of Life.[13] Augustine of Hippo said that the tree of life is Christ: “All these things stood for something other than what they were, but all the same they were themselves bodily realities. And when the narrator mentioned them he was not employing figurative language, but giving an explicit account of things which had a forward reference that was figurative. So then the tree of life also was Christ… and indeed God did not wish the man to live in Paradise without the mysteries of spiritual things being presented to him in bodily form. So then in the other trees he was provided with nourishment, in this one with a sacrament… He is rightly called whatever came before him in order to signify him.”[14]

The tree first appeared in Genesis 2:9 and 3:22-24 as the source of eternal life in the Garden of Eden, from which access is revoked when man is driven from the garden. It then reappears in the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, and most predominantly in the last chapter of that book (Chapter 22) as a part of the new garden of paradise. Access is then no longer forbidden, for those who “wash their robes” (or as the textual variant in the King James Version has it, “they that do his commandments”) “have right to the tree of life” (v.14). A similar statement appears in Rev 2:7, where the tree of life is promised as a reward to those who overcome. Revelation 22 begins with a reference to the “pure river of water of life” which proceeds “out of the throne of God”. The river seems to feed two trees of life, one “on either side of the river” which “bear twelve manner of fruits” “and the leaves of the tree were for healing of the nations” (v.1-2).[15] Or this may indicate that the tree of life is a vine that grows on both sides of the river, as John 15:1 would hint at.

 

[MichaelP3]

I gave you an answer from a Catholic perspective, Fr Echert.

A pope can be in error on personal opinions. Pope Gregory didn’t change anything. The canon remained with 73 books.

So I did go through the link again but do not think it addressed my question.

It keeps talking about infallibility which (and that’s my mistake with the link I posted) is not what I intended.

The big question as always asked, was the 73 books as definite and “universaly” agreed upon as is thought since Damasus as Catholics like to state when triggered that it was closed at Trent. Here we have a Pope stating otherwise. Nothing about infallibility but “was it the universal belief” or did he miss that part in his briefing or that part was never part of his briefing? So was it as Universal and upheld as is the claim?

My question is not did they teach contrary, my question is did they teach that at all? Something as easy and IMPORTANT as “what is scripture” I would expect the Bishop of Rome to be aware of. Or then again as I asked " maybe it was never a thing in the first place".

Regards

 

[Gorgias]

What, Jesus speaking metaphorically, figuratively, symbolically? Are you sure you want to go there?

Yeah, I do.

If He was speaking literally, then (in accord with Catholic teaching), he did not partake of the Eucharist again until after He was raised.

So, yeah… He is consistent – that is, unless you think that the Last Supper wasn’t actually Eucharist.

 

[Gorgias]

those housekeeping notes" come from the same Church that decrees doctrine.

No, the housekeeping notes come from the sacristan, not from the Magisterium – that is, the teaching authority of the Church – which is who pronounces doctrine.

Conflating a magisterial teaching with a sacristan’s notes is a really weak argument. That’s like saying that the White House janitorial staff’s notes are written with the authority of the POTUS. C’mon… seriously?

 

[mcq72]

All I said was comes from"Church"…dont think sacristan is Buddhist or Muslim…of corse it is not magisterium, but Catholic non the less

Are you sure you want to compare them to those that possibly handle the Body and Blood of Jesus as janitors…I mean I would think the whole purpose of all the rules and regulations are due to the nature, substance of the elements…I just found it odd for them to still call them as per their senses.

 

[lanman87]

The big question as always asked, was the 73 books as definite and “universaly” agreed upon as is thought since Damasus as Catholics like to state when triggered that it was closed at Trent.

Michael, you ask a good question. It is one of the things I’ve noticed as well. Catholic Apologist use history to validate Catholic Orthodoxy. However, when someone points out that someone in history did not hold the “orthodox” position, be it on the Deuterocanonical books or the meaning of the Eucharist or any other matter of Catholic Dogma, and yet were considered to be “Orthodox” by the church then we get responses that it was their personal opinion or that they were in error (but yet were still orthodox).

If Pope Gregory didn’t hold that the Deuterocanical books belong in the Canon of Scripture then either he wasn’t orthodox or it was an acceptable belief and not something that made someone “orthodox” or not. I seriously doubt someone could rise to the position of Pope and yet hold a position on something as important as scripture if his position wasn’t acceptable to the church.

If nothing else, Pope Gregory’s position shows that the matter of the Deuterocanicals books was not yet settled. When Luther said those books didn’t belong in the Canon he wasn’t saying anything new. Many in the Catholic church had expressed the same belief, including Jerome and even Cardinal Cajetan.

 

[Gorgias]

of corse it is not magisterium, but Catholic non the less

So, from whom do you get your teaching, then? Those entrusted with the authority to teach, or just anyone?

I just found it odd for them to still call them as per their senses.

Yep. It sounds jarring to me, as well. I think that, if I were their boss, I might gently remind them, “it’s the ‘Precious Blood’, not ‘wine’, please”…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I gave you an answer from a Catholic perspective, Fr Echert.

A pope can be in error on personal opinions. Pope Gregory didn’t change anything. The canon remained with 73 books.

So I did go through the link again but do not think it addressed my question.

It keeps talking about infallibility which (and that’s my mistake with the link I posted) is not what I intended.

The big question as always asked, was the 73 books as definite and “universaly” agreed upon as is thought since Damasus as Catholics like to state when triggered that it was closed at Trent. Here we have a Pope stating otherwise. Nothing about infallibility but “was it the universal belief” or did he miss that part in his briefing or that part was never part of his briefing? So was it as Universal and upheld as is the claim?

My question is not did they teach contrary, my question is did they teach that at all? Something as easy and IMPORTANT as “what is scripture” I would expect the Bishop of Rome to be aware of. Or then again as I asked " maybe it was never a thing in the first place".

Regards

The canon hasn’t changed since 382. Same canon today as it was in 382. No changes +/-
The reason Trent is used, is because it addressed Luther’s issue about those 7 books. Let’s not forget, Luther wanted to remove 4 NT books as well.

1. Hebrews
2. Jude
3. James
4. Revelation

If you haven’t seen this article, you might find this interesting reading 5 myths about 7 books

 

[MichaelP3]

In all sincerity you are still missing my point.

Just saying it is like that and has always been like that is the very point I am making and questioning.

Rather refer to my post piont by point how you are addressing it as I have absolutely no idea what you are saying is relevant to my very original point at all.

I have seen that link before. It is not an answer to my question. I have not even touched any of those “myths”.

Regards

 

[Elizabeth3]

If nothing else, Pope Gregory’s position shows that the matter of the Deuterocanicals books was not yet settled. When Luther said those books didn’t belong in the Canon he wasn’t saying anything new. Many in the Catholic church had expressed the same belief, including Jerome and even Cardinal Cajetan.

So sorry to jump into this debate so late, especially since I admit to not being very educated on all the historical details but it’s my understanding that what “universally” agreed upon means is that despite some having misgivings about this or that book, it was still the common usage to include them and that was agreed upon during the various councils.

Also, didn’t Pope Gregory write his misgivings about certain books 10 years before he became Pope? Still that didn’t change what was being commonly or “universally” used at the time, in the West at least, IIRC.

 

[mcq72]

Actually, I think it’s a bit odd Luther made that acknowledgment given the style of his letters previously.

A time for everything, even for Luther…

 

[mcq72]

So, yeah… He is consistent – that is, unless you think that the Last Supper wasn’t actually Eucharist.

Actually did they give thanks that night for Calvary…was there thanksgiving and praise for the redemptive work which came to be known as “Eucharist” ?

And is Eucharist a noun or a verb, a title ascribed to a “ceremony”, an event, a doing, with Christ at Calvary as focus, or an object, even a Person. Don’t think I see it as both…don’t see consecrated elements as the Eucharist…but the praise to Him for what the elements bring to present by remembrance.

I do not think “Eucharist” to be a proprietary term to any one specific communion view, at least not in its historical understanding from whence came the term.

 

[rcwitness]

I think ive expressed this before, but I dont think the Council of 382 documents are very reliable…

I would stick with Hippo and Carthage, Florence and Trent.

Hippo and Carthage seemed to respect that their determination/decree was pending on ratification from “across the sea”.

If Rome (under pope St. Damasus) had already decreed a Canon, why would Hippo and Carthage be waiting for confirmation over their Canon?

And St Jerome debated the Dueteros with St Augustine after 382, right? He would have been fully aware of St Damusus’ decree.

 

[steve-b]

In all sincerity you are still missing my point.

Just saying it is like that and has always been like that is the very point I am making and questioning.

Rather refer to my post piont by point how you are addressing it as I have absolutely no idea what you are saying is relevant to my very original point at all.

I have seen that link before. It is not an answer to my question. I have not even touched any of those “myths”.

Regards

OK, then your turn

Show your sources that show from 382 till 2018, the canon was minus those 7 books in the Catholic Church.
Even the Churches in the East that later divided and went Orthodox, had those same 7 books NOT -7 those books.
In fact the Orthodox have those same 7 books + 1, (3 Macc).

 

[MichaelP3]

I really think you still miss the point. I am not saying or claiming what the canon was. Being with or without them. I am not saying any of that. I am asking how so many including a Pope got it wrong if it was in fact definite and “always believed”. And then asking a follow up whether it was in fact as definite as is claimed? Take note this is merely a post adding to what I already posted without an actual reply to what I asked Lanman added some very good additional points.

I do not need to prove something I never claimed.

Ps. I know the Catholic arguments quite well. I am really trying to phrase my post in a way to avoid the normal replying (infallibility etc.) that does not answer my post.

 

[lanman87]

FYI, according the the Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

Apparently the Roman Synod and the Synods of Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the entire church. If it was then the matter would have been settled. Instead, debate on the place of the Deuterocanonical books continued up to and including the Council of Trent. There was even a minority position at the Council of Trent, headed by Cardinal Seripando, opposed to making the Deutero books equal with the other book of the Old Testament.