Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[jcrichton]

…yet, there are those who oppose anything that is not taught by their own affiliation… tell a Jehovah Witness that Christ is God and you have a long unproductive argument using Scriptures as the “proof” that Jesus is not God.

…by your gauge: why did God make Scriptures so difficult to understand that there are Jehovah Witnesses and over 30,000 groups “discerning” different understanding of God’s Word? …shouldn’t God have provided a decoder?

…wait, He did!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Again, the best is to let this go.

Unlike you I’m not always able to access the forums.

…and I’m not the smartest pencil in the rack so I’m not able to give you the version of speak that you can fully assimilate…

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s see if I can clarify it for you… you claim “a” fits everywhere; I say “a” fits only where “a” fits…

…yeah, I can see how we cannot come to terms with each other.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

That is absurd. If the Church believed something that was contrary to the doctrine of Christ then it was wrong from the beginning.

Can the church believe something that has not been ruled on yet and is still being discerned, developed?

Were those Catholic monks who strongly opposed the Immaculate Conception heretics because the Church much later ruled on the matter?

Were certain monks in France heretics for arguing with other French monks about communion because much later (centuries) the Church made a final ruling?

 

[mcq72]

think I know what you’re saying

but could you clarify?

Your take that Reform (1500) must not be of God because that would be poor
HG guidance and leading into all truth, and letting the devil prevail, or that for 1500 years there was no voice of such need for reform, is a paradigm created out of opposition to another historical view, to the reform itself.

 

[mcq72]

Wait, so Jesus did not have the acumen or the strength to tell His followers, ‘hey, you got Me wrong, I’m not being literal… it’s all symbolic and spiritual; please, don’t leave, let me explain it to in terms that you can assimilate!’

No, He had the acumen and strength and wisdom NOT to tell them that, or to tell them that it was literal but in an unbloody manner.

Apparently Jesus wanted them to leave if they did not believe like Peter or the apostles, or if they were not following in response to the genuine call of God.

 

[mcq72]

Then how come Christ used it? (Septuagint)

For the same reason believers used Luthers bible and early KJV bible, they contained Holy Writ in its entirety, along with other Jewish religious writings, and could be read by those not literate in Hebrew.

 

[Agathon]

Have you read Psalm 40? There’s a significant difference between how it’s quoted in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews and how we read it today.

 

[mcq72]

When your teenage child rebels against your rule that curfew is strictly at 10pm, only they have the right to define the argument, so when they say “I’m gonna do what I want because my parents are stupid”, that’s the narrative that we must give assent to.

And Jesus said both teenagers and parents are worse than stupid if they are not like “little children”.

Jesus said He would be the stumbling block, rock of offense, between all relations.

Age should be superior in wisdom, according to the words of the youngster Elihu in the book of Job…but not always so, for God puts understanding in the heart of an individual, irrespective of age at times.

Read, “parents” can be “stupider” than their children at times.

One last tidbit…“out of the mouth of babes…comes wisdom…”…

 

[Agathon]

Age should be superior in wisdom, according to the words of the youngster Elihu in the book of Job…but not always so, for God puts understanding in the heart of an individual, irrespective of age at times.

This bites your argument in the butt, since it can be equally said that the Jews at Jamnia lacked divine wisdom when they rejected Tobit and the other deuteros even though Judaism was around longer than Christianity.

 

[mcq72]

This bites your argument in the butt, since it can be equally said that the Jews at Jamnia lacked divine wisdom when they rejected Tobit and the other deuteros even though Judaism was around longer than Christianity.

Yes agree , we, the Church, are the younger branch, now bearing fruit…too make the Jews jealous towards repentance, as Paul states,

and I suppose some might say the same shoe also fits for the younger reform churches and the older parent church.

But you are right also in saying it hurts my argument, that the teenager can be wrong in calling parent stupid with their rule, for it does apply here on our Jewish parents’ canon ruling.

 

[Agathon]

Were certain monks in France heretics for arguing with other French monks about communion because much later (centuries) the Church made a final ruling?

Were Arians wrong before or after the Council of Nicaea?

 

[mcq72]

Were Arians wrong before or after the Council of Nicaea?

I believe they were wrong but not necesarily heretics before they were “counseled”.

Being wrong and being heretic can be two different things.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RC. Arrogance is a very sad topic I feel close to. Yes a communion but maybe you have it the other way around. Communion has nothing to do with faith, IT IS GOD.

Im not sure im understanding you? How can we Commune over, in, with, by the Lord’s body and blood apart from faith? What is the most important principle of our faith?

And what did St. Paul stress when contending with divisions in the Church? The word of the cross! It is a message, and a revelation, and a participation!
1 Cor. 1
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?…
… For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…
… Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?..For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles…
And the Apostle begins to guide the Corinthians through various understandings of the Spirit and its relation to living the faith through our flesh…
… God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God…
… Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Connecting this relationship, the Apostle reveals the Sacraments:
…The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does
And appealing to walk by our conscience, yet causing no one else to stumble, he slips in some wisdom regarding our Communion:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation (greek communion) in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation (communion) in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
And then he addresses the Lord’s Supper, making sure the Corinthians realize the negative consequence of partaking at this table unworthily:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord
So our disposition in receiving is very relative to receiving grace or condemnation, but not whether we receive His body and blood.

 

[Benadam]

Can the church believe something that has not been ruled on yet and is still being discerned, developed?

Teachers can teach it as possible and still being discerned untill the Church rules that they can’t. Like certain evolution theories today. If the Church is discerning and developing a deeper understanding of what it believes does that mean what it believes is fallible?

Were those Catholic monks who strongly opposed the Immaculate Conception heretics because the Church much later ruled on the matter?

Not unless they began teaching that the Immaculate Conception was not true.

Were certain monks in France heretics for arguing with other French monks about communion because much later (centuries) the Church made a final ruling?

Arguing within the Church and teaching a rejected development are different things. One is development of understanding the faith the other is starting another faith. Authentic reform happens within the Church not separated from it.

 

[Benadam]

No, He had the acumen and strength and wisdom NOT to tell them that, or to tell them that it was literal but in an unbloody manner.

Apparently Jesus wanted them to leave if they did not believe like Peter or the apostles, or if they were not following in response to the genuine call of God.

Or, there was nothing more that could be said that would change their mind. Kind of like the unpardonable sin. What more can God do? Again, for if they don’t believe Moses they won’t believe even if someone came back from the dead

 

[Benadam]

Did the Church begin with a doctrine that was without error? Is that Doctrine preserved from error? If it was then you shouldn’t have a problem with what I wrote.

 

[Benadam]

Wannano:

Benadam:

Wannano:

Benadam:

mcq72:

Benadam:

Can truth march on if what is believed is part true and part not true?

Yes and no. Truth marches and so does some error sometimes…doesn’t negate the truth, unfortunately not the error also…else why would one need discernment, why would one need to knock, or seek with all of ones heart.

Truth can not be partly false, just as error can not be partly true. I think what you bring up is something different altogether, where truth and error can reside together.Isn’t that one of the aspects of the battle , the challenge, to indeed walk in the Spirit, to be petfect as the Father in heaven is perfect?

I was thinking of truth marching in a historical sense. I was wondering if you would agree that it began marching at Pentecost fully true, a faith that was all truth with nothing believed that was not true.

If we agree on that, then does it follow that faith that didn’t believe anything not true, at some point began believing things not true. Then that faith began believing more and more untrue things. Then if you would agree that since faith started out without believing in any untrue thing it isn’t reasonable to think that truth can march on to inform our faith until we are no longer believing untrue things.

I do believe that but don’t think it has been accomplished yet.

Then if you would agree that since faith started out without believing in any untrue thing it isn’t reasonable to think that truth can march on to inform our faith until we are no longer believing untrue things.

Wasn’t it accomplished at Pentecost?

No, it began marching at Pentecost. Then began assimilating things not true.

Sorry Benedam, I just realized I have been misreading your statement. You are saying “it isn’t reasonable” and I having been reading it as “isn’t it reasonable” and then agreeing. I read it wrong but actually do believe that is exactly what has happened.

It’s ok my wording was difficult.

Then you do believe it’s reasonable that a faith that was inerrant can become errant and continue to add error to error to this day and then become inerrant again? I would ask what was the purpose for it to be inerrant in the first place? How is it guided to all truth if it has to get back to where it started?

 

[guanophore]

Can the church believe something that has not been ruled on yet and is still being discerned, developed?

The doctrines of the faith were whole and entire when they were delivered to the Church, so nothing can be "ruled upon’ or “developed” that was not already present.

Were those Catholic monks who strongly opposed the Immaculate Conception heretics because the Church much later ruled on the matter?

I am not sure you are asking this just to be ornery, or not. Such a situation does not meet the definition of heresy. Besides that, not ever member of the Church will be persuaded on matters of doctrine, but the Truth is not defined by those who do not hold it. If this were the case, we would all be Arian!

Were certain monks in France heretics for arguing with other French monks about communion because much later (centuries) the Church made a final ruling?

I think you are just being obtuse here, because I have a hard time believing you are really ignorant of the definition of heresy.

The Church rules on matters specifically to PREVENT the faithful from falling into error.

Your take that Reform (1500) must not be of God because that would be poor HG guidance and leading into all truth, and letting the devil prevail,

We don’t take all “reform” this way. There were plenty of reformation voices that were obedient to the Church before, during, and after the rebellion. the Counter -Reformation is certainly considered to be the movement of the HS, as are the Councils prior to it.

There have been voices of opposition from the beginning. Those who denied the doctrines of the faith were considered heretics. The One Church cannot be successfully reformed working through heresy.

And Jesus said both teenagers and parents are worse than stupid if they are not like “little children”.

I agree, but a hostile attitude toward the authority He appointed is hardly docile to learning!

Age should be superior in wisdom, according to the words of the youngster Elihu in the book of Job…but not always so, for God puts understanding in the heart of an individual, irrespective of age at times.

Yes, but understanding, as Jesus had as a child, does not equate to disobedience. Rebellion and defiance is not wisdom.

and I suppose some might say the same shoe also fits for the younger reform churches and the older parent church.

Perhaps in some ways, yes, there is good fruit, but there is also the fruit of division, which is the fruit of the heresy that produced it. This fruit, born of a bad tree, continues to proliferate.

Being wrong and being heretic can be two different things.

So are you being trollish deliberately?

 

[Wannano]

Benadam:

Wannano:

Benadam:

mcq72:

Benadam:

Can truth march on if what is believed is part true and part not true?

Yes and no. Truth marches and so does some error sometimes…doesn’t negate the truth, unfortunately not the error also…else why would one need discernment, why would one need to knock, or seek with all of ones heart.

Truth can not be partly false, just as error can not be partly true. I think what you bring up is something different altogether, where truth and error can reside together.Isn’t that one of the aspects of the battle , the challenge, to indeed walk in the Spirit, to be petfect as the Father in heaven is perfect?

I was thinking of truth marching in a historical sense. I was wondering if you would agree that it began marching at Pentecost fully true, a faith that was all truth with nothing believed that was not true.

If we agree on that, then does it follow that faith that didn’t believe anything not true, at some point began believing things not true. Then that faith began believing more and more untrue things. Then if you would agree that since faith started out without believing in any untrue thing it isn’t reasonable to think that truth can march on to inform our faith until we are no longer believing untrue things.

I do believe that but don’t think it has been accomplished yet.

Then if you would agree that since faith started out without believing in any untrue thing it isn’t reasonable to think that truth can march on to inform our faith until we are no longer believing untrue things.

Wasn’t it accomplished at

It’s ok my wording was difficult.

Then you do believe it’s reasonable that a faith that was inerrant can become errant and continue to add error to error to this day and then become inerrant again? I would ask what was the purpose for it to be inerrant in the first place? How is it guided to all truth if it has to get back to where it started?

I would not choose the word reasonable, for it seems unreasonable. But man is in so many ways unreasonable. A faith can add man’s interpretations and reasoning and cause it to error. The purpose of it being inerrant in the first place is that it is Truth meant to be shared for the benefit of mankind. How is it guided to all truth if it has to get back to where it started? Ultimately in the case of Christianity it is guided by the Holy Spirit sometimes gently other times not so gentle.