For Non-Catholics who believe in the Real Presence...

[TriuneUnity]

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. The Church upholds it or support it.

The Bible itself is not the pillar and bulwark of truth. The Bible is the written Word of God but Christianity is not based on the Bible alone. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ, the Word in incarnate.

Second, it was not the Bible who died on the Church. Jesus died on the cross.

Scripture as theopneustos carries the same authority as God Himself since it proceeds from Him. Therefore, the truth of Scripture is the same truth of Christ Himself.

The Church is not theopneustos.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Scripture as theopneustos carries the same authority as God Himself since it proceeds from Him. Therefore, the truth of Scripture is the same truth of Christ Himself.

The Church is not theopneustos.

Scripture does have authority but it is not just Scripture. It’s both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which make up the Word of God. God is the author of Scripture.

The transmission of the Word of God is not only in Sacred Scripture. It is founded in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition. The Church affirms that both Tradition and Scripture is the Word of God. The Church itself is the only authority who interprets both. You cannot separate one from the other.

Fr. Corapi put it best. "Where there is Sacred Scripture, there also you will find Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. Where there is Magisterial Teaching, there you will also find Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Where there is Sacred Tradition, there you will find Sacred Scripture, and Magisterial Teaching.

It is not either or. The complete Scripture itself was form out of the Church authority in the Fourth Century.

St. Augustine said it best:

**St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6, AD 397.

If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.**

It was the Catholic Church in the fourth Century in the African Synods that affirm the 27 NT as Canonical. As you know there were other Gospels floating around, so the Bishops had synods that canonize Scripture. The Council of Rome, Council of Carthage, and Council of Hippo. All 46 OT and 27 NT are all consider inspired Scripture by the Church.

The Church came before the Bible in it complete form. The Church received its authority from the Lord himself, Jesus Christ. He also send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church to know all truth. Of course, we all know that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[adrift]

Scripture as theopneustos carries the same authority as God Himself since it proceeds from Him. Therefore, the truth of Scripture is the same truth of Christ Himself.

The Church is not theopneustos.

The Church is not inspired? Jesus founded the Church and gave her authority and promised He would be with her always.

 

[JonNC]

Christ is the Church and His Church and the word of God has told us to do these things.

Exodus 25:8-9 “ And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I have shown thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.”

Psalm 95:6 - O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!
Matthew 8:2 - …and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean”.
Matthew 15:25 - But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me”.
Matthew 17:14-15 - And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus and kneeling before him said “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic…”
Mark 10:17 - And as he [Jesus] was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life”

Romans 14:11 - for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God”.
Philippians 2:10 - at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth

I’ve already dealt with the issue of kneeling. These scriptures, while not related directly to the Eucharist, certainly teach us reverence to the Lord. Even so, they do not speak to the issue of
adoration, nor do the scriptural accounts of the institution. They may (or may not) be good pious acts, but they are not called for by Christ in is words of institution, and therefore should not be what guides us in determining who does or doesn’t have the real presence. That is for Christ alone to determine.

Jon

 

[nt1_25_31_46]

How can sacraments confer grace without apostolic succession?

How can Communion be practiced as Christ instituted it without apostolic succession?

It seems to me you are saying that all anyone would have to do is follow a formula and voila! Real Presence. I don’t think that’s what you believe, so I hope you will expound! Otherwise, I am left to guess.

For some answer to that question, one must look to Luke 9:49-50

In this section, we see reference to a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’s name. The Apostles tried to stop that man because he wasn’t one of them — i.e., didn’t have Apostolic Succession. What did Jesus say? To not stop him! Because whoever is not against you is for you.

Granted, this person wasn’t confecting the eucharist — but he still, nonetheless, was doing something that the Apostles thought Jesus had only authorized them to do. And this verse may be seen as rather thin for being the whole basis of Holy Orders outside of Apostolic Succession - and one is very right in saying that one shouldn’t take something in scripture and interpret it however you want. However – there is more.

Let’s take the most extreme case. Let’s suppose there is a boat full of people who grew up in a church which has a priest validly ordained with Apostolic Succession. (I know there are people here of different denominations — so as to the question of “Which denomination are they from?”, for the sake of argument, I’ll say “It’s from one of the denominations who’s Holy Orders you see as valid”).

Now, this boat crashes, and there are only five survivors — and among the survivors not a single bishop, not a single priest, not even a single deacon. These five survivors wash up on a remote island and there is no hope of them ever being rescued.

Is one to suppose that God is so faithless as to withhold sacraments from these five people just because they can’t ever recovery Apostolic Succession? Considering all God has done, I’d say He deserves more credit than that!

You may say they can be faithful Catholics - just no sacraments. Then what if one of them at one point commits a mortal sin, and ten minutes later sincerely repents of it ---- but (since the island is priestless) he is unable to go to confession for the rest of his ten remaining years. Does that mean he’s going to hell for that? You may say that in this instance, I’m being overly-mechanistic in my view of God’s grace. Then why does the condemnation of such mechanistic view start here, covering this person’s mortal sins, yet not apply to such an extremely strict interpretation of Apostolic Succession? (And if you say that this guy is going to hell for that mortal sin that he never is able to confess — then, once again, you are accusing God of being faithless.)

Granted, again, I’m talking about confession, not about the eucharist. However, if one believes (as I do) that the eucharist really is the body and blood of Jesus (which I believe) do you really think that just saying a Communion Prayer for the last so many years of your life is a substitute for Jesus’s very real body and blood?

In short ---- many good arguments can be made for the strong desirability of Apostolic Succession (and I agree that it is very preferable for the minister who confects the eucharist to have Apostolic Succession) ----- but, in my opinion, and the opinions of many others as well, to say that it is 100% completely necessary (or even that it must totally trump any other issue with regard to where one should go to receive communion) is to de-value God’s love, God’s grace, God’s mercy — and above all, God’s faithfulness.

I know there is a trend in this tread to expect people to say what denomination they are from — and I will now do so to the best of my ability — though I am difficult to categorize.

I consider myself to be Independent Catholic — though many in the Independent Catholic movement would disown me due to precisely my belief regarding Apostolic Succession ---- there are many also who would not disown me over that belief.

I consider myself Catholic, not Protestant (though obviously Independent Catholic rather than Roman Catholic) ----- there are differences between Protestants and Catholics other than the big question of Apostolic Succession.

Though I know I am not the only one who identifies as Catholic that shares my belief on Apostolic Succession, I am the only one I know of who practices that belief ---- though I am sure there are others out there. For where I go to Church – I visit various Churches to stay in touch with other Christians. I receive communion at home. I know it is real — and I know so by the same gift of discernment that showed me that it is real in Roman Catholic parishes. This gift of discernment, as a matter of fact, is a major part of what led me to come to faith in Christ in the first place!!!