Does scripture interpret scripture?

[pablope]

Then you have to acknowledge that there was no Trinity prior to the 4th century.

And no NT prior to the 4th century.

Which is it, Rob?

Hi, PR…in case you missed my post 509: Rob’s reading is a miscontruing what Fr. Brown actually wrote:

Here is the quote from Fr. Brown that you provided in another thread…I think you have a misreading of what Fr. Brown said:

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

What Fr. Brown is saying…there was a selection/ordination process already in place…but the practice varied from place to place…until the Church “developed a regularized pattern”…that after the 3rd century…the manner of selection was the same all through out…after the Church promulgated the pattern to be followed by all.

So, how can the Church develop and regularize a pattern if none existed before?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PR…in case you missed my post 509: Rob’s reading is a miscontruing what Fr. Brown actually wrote.

Right, right–I understand that Rob is misconstruing what Fr. Brown wrote. That’s what I’m trying to show, too.

It can’t be that ordination just popped up in the 3rd century. Just that it was formalized then.

Just like the Trinity didn’t just pop up in the 4th century. It was just formalized at a council.

And the Bible didn’t just pop up in the 4th century. It was only formalized at a council (by Catholic bishops, BTW, Rob!) then.

 

[guanophore]

My church claims no less succession from the apostles than yours. Our bishops and pastors have taken on the tasks of the apostles no less validly.

Rob

This is the difference between ecclesial communities that descended from the Reformers and Apostolic Churches. Churches formed by Apostles never had any ministers that took on tasks by themselves. They were all called, and ordained by the Church. They did not send themselves, they were sent.

 

[guanophore]

PR,

I have seen it. No time to do all that. In fact I often find differences of opinon on these issues among Catholics. Not a big deal to me however since protestants vary a lot sometimes.

Rob

This is the wrong place for you to make claims that you don’t have “time” to support. You lose a lot of credibility doing that. I too, would like to meet these “many Catholics” on CAF who do not believe in the Real Presence. I have met a few over the years, but in every case, we have been able to pursuade them to change their affiliation, since they do not hold Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

mack,

I see no reason why not Catholic bishops are no less valid than those of my church… It depends on if they take on the tasks of the apostles and I presume they do just as the bishops of my church. I have great admiration for some of your bishops.

I am not sure what your comment on presbyter-bishops means. I think that they were leaders of a christian gathering according to the historians I have read.
They also took on the tasks of the apostles in leading their christian congregation. But historians teach they were not formal clergy as we think of today, since there was no separation of layman and clergy until near the 3rd century.

Rob

That is precisely what separated them, Rob. They took on the tasks of the Apostles. Their whole focus was on feeding and caring for the flock.

 

[PRmerger]

I go by your CCC which does not teach othewise than spritual.

This is a curious position for you to offer. Do you think that there is any knowledgeable non-Catholic who would answer “False” to this question:

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus is present only spiritually in the Eucharist. T or F.

There is not a single informed Christian who does not know what the Catholic Church proclaims regarding the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact he specifies a spritual presence, So I can agree with the desciptions given.

Regarding those miracles, please excuse me for having my doubts.

Rob

What would you say to a Muslim, Rob, who tells you:

You Christians do not believe Jesus is God. Your greatest evangelist says as much here, when he says, specifically, that Jesus is a MAN.

For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the** one man, Jesus Christ, **abound to the many.

How would you respond?

 

[guanophore]

PR,

Here is his quote again.

“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statments have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

That sounds to me like ALL statements. But I cannot read minds. All I can do is provide his quote.

Rob

The fact that they were declared in the changeable conceptions of a given epoch does not make them wrong. The Church declares the Truth that has been revealed to her, as she understands the infallible Sacred Tradition that has been passed down from the Apostles. As human beings, we learn as we go, and new discoveries in science and other fields help the declarations to be more clear. The doctrine does not change, but our understanding and application of it does.

 

[pablope]

PR,

My church claims no less succession from the apostles than yours. Our bishops and pastors have taken on the tasks of the apostles no less validly.

Rob

Let me give you the example of St. Paul…and show me if your pastors follow the same path:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Following the example of St. Paul and In accordance with this passage…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

To whom have the teachings of your denomination been submitted to? Can you provide the name of that person, with authority from an apostle…who has approved your denoms teachings as free from error?

How have you fulfilled that passage from 1John4?

Now…

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Citing Paul’s example again… from Acts 13…1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

So…as per the Romans 10 passage, and following the example of Paul…who ordained and who sent your pastors to preach?

 

[Lochias]

lochias,

I go by your CCC which does not teach othewise than spritual. All its adjectives are consistent with spritual presence and do not specify a physical or literal presence.
Neither does the pope in his book Introduction to Christianity. In fact he specifies a spritual presence, So I can agree with the desciptions given.

Regarding those miracles, please excuse me for having my doubts.

Rob

Rob,

As others have pointed out, you appear to be having some issues with determining what the CCC is actually saying, whether deliberately or accidentally. Either way, you are going against the very Scripture you claim to espouse when you deny a physical presence in the Eucharist. Many of Jesus’ followers left him whenever he insisted that they must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood…he did not go back to clarify the point as actually only meaning the spiritual. His followers left him because they could not understand how Jesus was going to be physically present in the Eucharist. They thought that they would be eating his actual flesh.

It it curious to me that you would be ok with the idea of a mere Spiritual presence, actually. You admit that you have no problem with how the RCC treats the Eucharist based on your premise of a spiritual-only presence…are you utterly outraged, then, at how other denominations treat their communion suppers? The Methodist church I went to at one point would sometimes use the leftover bread to feed ducks. Do you feel that the RCC is doing something right, and other denominations are doing something wrong?

If the Eucharist has only a spiritual presence, as you claim (and not Catholics, whom you have seriously misunderstood), why it is treated differently across the board by different Protestant churches and denominations?

Also…you are perfectly welcome to your doubts. The scientists who investigated some of the Eucharistic miracles had those doubts, too…until they could not find any other answer to explain what happened. “Blessed is he who believes without seeing.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does Scripture interpret Scripture? No. It just so happen it was the Catholics who preserve many of those manuscripts both OT/NT text.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Succession of the Apostles is documented in the Catholic Church sacred Tradition.

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession&sa=U&ei=pjfTT4vxC4Wc9gTq9qm4Aw&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=VZafWMFlnBfcZnJ-6dY_AA&usg=AFQjCNHeulTEQQ3HeMbaF5t0I43z4LdhNg

St Ignatius came to mind also. Bishops were appointed very eary on, a title as mentioned above most Protestant congregations do no even use. St Irenaeus wrote his 5-works and covers this indepth. Though limited to a quote below.

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm&sa=U&ei=AjnTT62SJJKm8gT7yoywAw&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=UMwm-jRMZcrUrD2MSpp62A&usg=AFQjCNHgyIPS1HAKLisvcL13ZWzBObpYdQ

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is a curious position for you to offer. Do you think that there is any knowledgeable non-Catholic who would answer “False” to this question:

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus is present only spiritually in the Eucharist. T or F.

There is not a single informed Christian who does not know what the Catholic Church proclaims regarding the Eucharist.

IMHO this entire concept is built on cherry picking from various sources to build a preposterous arguement.

I’m sorry at the risk of sounding rude after upteen pages I can see it no other way.

GT

 

[PRmerger]

IMHO this entire concept is built on cherry picking from various sources to build a preposterous arguement.

I’m sorry at the risk of sounding rude after upteen pages I can see it no other way.

GT

Yes.

(Yes to the concept built on cherry-picking. Not yes to my agreeing that you are sounding rude. You are not rude at all, Gary.)

I think it would be a good means of apologia if every time Rob offers an excerpt from a Catholic priest or from the Magisterium purportedly proclaiming something clearly NOT Catholic…

a Scripture verse that purportedly proclaims something clearly NOT Christian is proffered in return. That is, a verse that says that Jesus is a MAN.*

It serves the point that, just like Rob believes some things are both/and (Christ is man AND Christ is God), Catholicism proclaims some things that are both/and (Jesus is present spiritually in the Eucharist AND Jesus is truly and substantially present–Body and Blood!)

*NB: I absolutely understand that it is a Christian precept to proclaim that Jesus is a MAN. We just don’t proclaim that Jesus is a man ONLY.

 

[submariner2]

Could you please provide the post where I did this?

Thanks.

(Or is this another example of your making a claim that cannot be backed up?)

To wit:

Note to new readers: this claim was asked to be substantiated and submariner2 was not able to provide even 10 different Catholics on this forum making the claim that the Eucharist was not a physical* presence of Christ.

Take “physical” to mean: truly and substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

PR,

That was how I took it. Not trying to make an argument. I was merely expressing my opinion based on the words I read.

I understand your point of view on the euchairst. I would not interpret the words the same however.

Have a nice day.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

This is the difference between ecclesial communities that descended from the Reformers and Apostolic Churches. Churches formed by Apostles never had any ministers that took on tasks by themselves. They were all called, and ordained by the Church. They did not send themselves, they were sent.

guanophore,

I just go by the history books I read and the bible experts who tell me there was no oridination until near the 3rd century. Paul plainly says that no man sent him except Jesus himself. Gal 1.1. I understand your point of view but I respectfully disagree.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

This. Either one trusts God to do what God says He will do, or one doesn’t.

Lochias,

I agree. My policy is to trust.

Rob

 

[JonNC]

lochias,

I go by your CCC which does not teach othewise than spritual. All its adjectives are consistent with spritual presence and do not specify a physical or literal presence.
Neither does the pope in his book Introduction to Christianity. In fact he specifies a spritual presence, So I can agree with the desciptions given.

Regarding those miracles, please excuse me for having my doubts.

Rob

Rob,
Just curious, would your communion agree or disagree with the Lutheran confessions regarding the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
From the confessions:

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

In the Formula of Concord, under the heading Contrary, condemned doctrines of the Sacramentarians

[We reject] “That in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is not received orally with the bread; but that with the mouth only bread and wine are received,** the body of Christ, however, only spiritually by faith.”**

Jon

 

[submariner2]

Let me give you the example of St. Paul…and show me if your pastors follow the same path:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Following the example of St. Paul and In accordance with this passage…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

To whom have the teachings of your denomination been submitted to? Can you provide the name of that person, with authority from an apostle…who has approved your denoms teachings as free from error?

How have you fulfilled that passage from 1John4?

pablope,

it is clear that Paul did not stick to those agreements in Jerusalem. He plainly ruled out any regulations as to diet in his letters. Neither did he claim any appointment or ordination for his preaching by anyone. See Gal 1.1.

Regarding my church, our pastors and bishops were called by God as was Paul. They have taken on the tasks of the Apostles as did Paul.

Citing Paul’s example again… from Acts 13…1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

So…as per the Romans 10 passage, and following the example of Paul…who ordained and who sent your pastors to preach?

Laying on of hands was not any kind of ordination in the NT. It was simply a blessiing for a mission. There was no separation of laymen and clergy in the NT.

Bishops of my church ordain the pastors.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

What you mean, Rob, is that the “separation” was not **formalized **until the 3rd century. That it existed from the time of Christ to his Apostles is apparent.

You can’t argue that and then argue that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles at the same time, Rob.

For the dogma of the Trinity was not** formalized** until the 4th century.

Of course, you and I and every other Christian proclaim that the dogma of the Trinity was in existence from the moment of Jesus’ kerygma.

We just know that when something is formalized is not a testament to its incipience.

PR,

I think I know what I mean. There were no clergy in the NT as in a separate class of Christians. This is what the historians teach that I read. There were leaders of course but bishops and presbyters and deacons were informal leaders and not clergy as we think of them today. Same terms were used in Jewish gatherings and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. No christians there at all. Those terms were simply borrowed for the informal leaders in the churches.

There was no ordination. Layng on of hands was simply a blessing for a special mission and not an ordination.

It appears to me that the elements of the Trinity were already in the NT.

Rob