Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

[Trebor135]

Part 2 of 2

In the light of such reflection and conclusion the particular question, ‘Did the first Christians worship Jesus?’, can be seen to be much less relevant, less important and potentially misleading. It can be answered simply, or simplistically, even dismissively, with a mainly negative answer. No, by and large the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such. Worship language and practice at times do appear in the New Testament in reference to Christ. But on the whole, there is more reserve on the subject. Christ is the subject of praise and hymn-singing, the content of early Christian worship, more than the one to whom the worship and praise is offered. More typical is the sense that the most (only?) effective worship, the most effective prayer is expressed in Christ and through Christ. That is also to say that we find a clear and variously articulated sense that Jesus enables worship - that Jesus is in a profound way the place and means of worship. Equally, it has become clear that for the first Christians Jesus was seen to be not only the one by whom believers come to God, but also the one by whom God has come to believers. The same sense of divine immanence in Spirit, Wisdom and Word was experienced also and more fully in and through Christ. He brought the divine presence into human experience more fully than had ever been the case before.

So our central question can indeed be answered negatively, and perhaps it should be. But not if the result is a far less adequate worship of God. For the worship that really constitutes Christianity and forms its distinctive contribution to the dialogue of the religions, is the worship of God as enabled by Jesus, the worship of God as revealed in and through Jesus. Christianity remains a monotheistic faith. The only one to be worshipped is the one God. But how can Christians fail to honour the one through whom it believes the only God has most fully revealed himself, the one through whom the only God has come closest to the condition of humankind? Jesus cannot fail to feature in their worship, their hymns of praise, their petitions to God. But such worship is always, should always be offered to the glory of God the Father. Such worship is always, should always be offered in the recognition that God is all in all, and that the majesty of the Lord Jesus in the end of the day expresses and affirms the majesty of the one God more clearly than anything else in the world.

I will now cite part of the “Doctrine” section of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Arianism (hyperlinks omitted):

[The doctrine’s adherents] described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind.

Dunn seems to be arguing that (1) the first Christians resembled Arians or semi-Arians much more than they did modern-day Christians, and (2) the true view of the person of Christ has been nearly lost over the past two thousand years. You regard the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of the real presence as a corruption of the faith of the apostles; should we reject the definitions of christology proclaimed by the Council of Nicea in 325 for being similarly novel?

 

[Radical]

Do you argue that a Zwinglian or semi-Zwinglian theology of communion existed in orthodox Christianity over a thousand years before the sixteenth century?

I am not sure what you mean by this question

Arius went from “Christ is fully God–he was always uncreated, from the beginning of time” …

you know this how? I thought Arius started with: Christ is divine, however, he was begotten. There is only one God and the Father is God. In other words, the Trinitarians and the Arians shared the same scriptural passages and it was as they expanded their understandings that the two diverged and that the conflict arose.

But for Catholics/Orthodox over the centuries to go from “The communion elements provide partakers with grace or undergo some kind of transformation” to “The communion elements undergo transformation into the body and blood of Christ” does not involve a reversal of the doctrine.

right…it was a process that saw incremental additions being made so that the end product bore little resemblance to initial supper. From what I have seen, folks are more receptive wrt assertions that attribute more to what they value (as opposed to detracting from what they value)

If this expansion/deepening of the knowledge of a teaching constitutes a corruption as you argue,…

if the deepening/expansion isn’t inspired, then it is a corruption (or a really lucky guess)

…which of its early proponents were condemned, Marcion- or Arius-style, as heretics?.. A heresy as severe as the “real bodily presence”–if it were an error of such magnitude–should have received the angry attention of at least a few informed parties when it was first emerging.

hmm, the standard argument from silence. An argument from silence is only as good as its underlying assumptions…and then it is still an argument from silence. So lay it out for me as to why an eruption of anger would be unavoidable. In other words, the NT came together gradually w/o a (surviving, recorded) blow up over whether Revelation should be included or not…why couldn’t the corruption of the Lord’s Supper occur in increments influenced by pious imagination and Greek philosophy? That seems to be the tale of the evidence. The chief difference is that the conservative Catholics label it a development (as opposed to innovation) and see the change as being lesser in degree.,but the difference is there to see. For example, we have the Corinthians celebrating the Lord’s Supper with a full blown meal where the rich eat enough to be full and drink enough to be drunk. Paul’s complaint was the disparity between the rich and the poor. Where was his concern that the drunk ones were spilling crumbs of bread on the floor?..if he believed as modern Catholics do, that those crumbs were actually the body of Christ. As stated, the real somatic presence got its start in the 4th century Antiochene school. Sometime after that, we still have a Pope (Gelasius) stating that the substance of the bread and wine remain. It seems that the ECFs were suggesting various possibilities to explain the ever more grandiose claims that they had made wrt the Eucharist.

A heresy as severe as the “real bodily presence”–if it were an error of such magnitude–should have received the angry attention of at least a few informed parties when it was first emerging.

well, it is denied by a Pope and others…but it would seem that the ECFs realized that the Church was all over the map in describing what Christ meant and what actually happened…in face of such a hodgepodge, no one was legitimately positioned to say that his view was the consensus or that his view was what was taught by the apostles.

 

[Trebor135]

I am not sure what you mean by this question

I’ll restate the question: what do you regard the uncorrupted doctrine of communion to be?

you know this how? I thought Arius started with: Christ is divine, however, he was begotten. There is only one God and the Father is God. In other words, the Trinitarians and the Arians shared the same scriptural passages and it was as they expanded their understandings that the two diverged and that the conflict arose.

What I meant was that Arius negated the Trinitarian notion that Christ was uncreated. Do you believe that members of the body of Christ in good standing may be either Arian or Trinitarian?

right…it was a process that saw incremental additions being made so that the end product bore little resemblance to initial supper. From what I have seen, folks are more receptive wrt assertions that attribute more to what they value (as opposed to detracting from what they value)

I understand. Do the three churches you attend follow what you see as the pure doctrine/practice of communion?

if the deepening/expansion isn’t inspired, then it is a corruption (or a really lucky guess)

Sure.

hmm, the standard argument from silence. An argument from silence is only as good as its underlying assumptions…and then it is still an argument from silence. So lay it out for me as to why an eruption of anger would be unavoidable. In other words, the NT came together gradually w/o a (surviving, recorded) blow up over whether Revelation should be included or not…why couldn’t the corruption of the Lord’s Supper occur in increments influenced by pious imagination and Greek philosophy? That seems to be the tale of the evidence.

And this is what Muslims/JW’s might argue about the trinity.

The chief difference is that the conservative Catholics label it a development (as opposed to innovation) and see the change as being lesser in degree.,but the difference is there to see.

Do you believe in regenerative/symbolic, infant/adult baptism?

For example, we have the Corinthians celebrating the Lord’s Supper with a full blown meal where the rich eat enough to be full and drink enough to be drunk. Paul’s complaint was the disparity between the rich and the poor. Where was his concern that the drunk ones were spilling crumbs of bread on the floor?..if he believed as modern Catholics do, that those crumbs were actually the body of Christ. As stated, the real somatic presence got its start in the 4th century Antiochene school.

Private judgment and invisible church came about in the sixteenth century, yet do you not accept those doctrines?

Sometime after that, we still have a Pope (Gelasius) stating that the substance of the bread and wine remain.

I have not really looked into this matter so am not in a position to comment.

It seems that the ECFs were suggesting various possibilities to explain the ever more grandiose claims that they had made wrt the Eucharist.

But did they believe that laymen like Radical and Trebor135 were supposed to be the ones to settle the question of what communion is and does?

well, it is denied by a Pope and others…but it would seem that the ECFs realized that the Church was all over the map in describing what Christ meant and what actually happened…in face of such a hodgepodge, no one was legitimately positioned to say that his view was the consensus or that his view was what was taught by the apostles.

From “Arianism” (hyperlinks omitted):

Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circumincession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term “Son,” and the period of His “generation” (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like “the second God,” concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church — this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, “subordinate” to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

 

[onemangang]

I don’t have any… I avoid those sites…one can easily obtain evidence and arguments to refute Catholic claims from the works of renowned scholars…looking at those sites would be a waste of time.

Maybe you should use some of these “renowned scholars” because each argument you make, in each thread, seems to fall short of refuting Catholic truth.

Further, if one even looks at something such as “separated brethren”, although “brethren” is conciliatory, “separated” can be easily seen as a slur.

Separated Brethren is a truth claim, and is not to be meant as a slur.

SEPARATED BRETHREN
All Christians who are baptized and believe in Christ but are not professed Catholics.

I find this to be an odd way of looking at the matter…those claiming apostolic authority can be the grossest sinners imaginable, but as long as they still have authority, then evil has not prevailed (or is not prevailing)…and conversely, if the men of the Church are righteous but are w/o an infallible teaching authority, then evil is prevailing****. That seems far too contrived to me.

I think you mistyped when you typed Church with a big C there, but anyways, authority relies on the words and actions of Christ, not on the words and actions of men!

So, are you a Donatist? Just wondering, because a lot of your post suggest that since men were not holy, and righteous, then their office is somehow suspect!

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.

Again, Grace is administered by the grace of God, not the holiness of men.

 

[Radical]

Maybe you should use some of these “renowned scholars” because each argument you make, in each thread, seems to fall short of refuting Catholic truth.

from over here I seem to be doing quite well…I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think you mistyped when you typed Church with a big C there,…

could be…it isn’t as if I am infallible…but then again, it wouldn’t count anyway, b/c it wasn’t an official teaching of mine

So, are you a Donatist?

not even close…but hey, it is good to see that you are trying to figure things out.

Just wondering, because a lot of your post suggest that since men were not holy, and righteous, then their office is somehow suspect!

no it’s that their ability to shepherd is negated. Someone might ask, if they can’t run their own household properly or keep themselves in line, then how can one expect that they would be able to run God’s household or keep God’s children in line?

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.

IMHO a minister (aka priest and/or bishop) ain’t needed at all for a valid baptism or valid Lord’s Supper…Now, does that sound like a Donatist position to you?

Again, Grace is administered by the grace of God, not the holiness of men.

agreed, men aren’t needed at all

 

[onemangang]

from over here I seem to be doing quite well…I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Clearly

could be…it isn’t as if I am infallible…but then again, it wouldn’t count anyway,** b/c it wasn’t an official teaching of mine **

Can you recognize infallibility? Or an infallible teaching? When you disagree with Catholic dogma, are you not giving your own private teaching by saying things contrary to the Dogma?

not even close…but hey, it is good to see that you are trying to figure things out.
no it’s that their ability to shepherd is negated. Someone might ask, if they can’t run their own household properly or keep themselves in line, then how can one expect that they would be able to run God’s household or keep God’s children in line?

So you recognize that the sinning Catholic Bishop’s have been entrusted in running God’s household then, good

If only the holiest of men can be entrusted to truth, then where must one go? To some pious guy with no authority? There are some very pious Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. There are also some pious trinitarian Christians that teach all sorts of nonsense as well, do we follow them? They have the Scriptures, The Holy Spirit, and they are pious, so why not follow a guy like Joel Olsteen, or Greg Laurie? They seem pious to me!

IMHO a minister (aka priest and/or bishop) ain’t needed at all for a valid baptism or valid Lord’s Supper…Now, does that sound like a Donatist position to you?

agreed, men aren’t needed at all

Sure, I agree with the baptism part in regards to a priest or bishop, but the Eucharist, no, I disagree. I would not go as far to say that men are not needed, why would Christ have disciples baptize, or do anything, if men are not part of His plan? Is each man his own Island in the household of God? So why not let people baptize themselves, or administer the Eucharist to themselves? If the Eucharist is just reduced to a meal with bread and wine to remember Christ passion, then how is it any different than saying grace before a meal. I do that when I’m with a couple of friends, or if I’m alone. Is there any required words to read from when commemorating the Lords supper? Why, can’t we just remember Him in our own way? Just me and Jesus!

Maybe you can point us Catholics towards some pious guy that has a bible, and is full of the Holy Spirit, because it seems many of us Catholics fall short of your standard if piety!

 

[Radical]

Can you recognize infallibility?

only fallibly

When you disagree with Catholic dogma, are you not giving your own private teaching by saying things contrary to the Dogma?

possibly…though at times my view is the majority view w/i Christianity…so it would seem inappropriate to call it my private teaching

So you recognize that the sinning Catholic Bishop’s have been entrusted in running God’s household then, good :

a portion of it, yes…but did God do the entrusting?..did he condone something in blatant violation of his requirements?

If only the holiest of men can be entrusted to truth, then where must one go? To some pious guy with no authority?

give the pious guy the authority…take it from the unrighteous

There are some very pious Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. There are also some pious trinitarian Christians that teach all sorts of nonsense as well, do we follow them?

are things that bad w/i the CC that you would have to go outside the CC to find a pious fellow?

They have the Scriptures, The Holy Spirit, and they are pious, so why not follow a guy like Joel Olsteen, or Greg Laurie? They seem pious to me!

are they w/i your congregation? 1 Tim and Titus clearly contemplate appointing someone from w/i the local congregation…that should be do-able.

Sure, I agree with the baptism part in regards to a priest or bishop, but the Eucharist, no, I disagree. I would not go as far to say that men are not needed, why would Christ have disciples baptize, or do anything, if men are not part of His plan?

b/c it pleases him to allow men to contribute.

Is each man his own Island in the household of God?

nope

So why not let people baptize themselves, or administer the Eucharist to themselves?

such could be done…but it is called communion for a reason

If the Eucharist is just reduced to a meal with bread and wine to remember Christ passion, then how is it any different than saying grace before a meal. I do that when I’m with a couple of friends, or if I’m alone.

b/c it is a special sort of remembrance

Is there any required words to read from when commemorating the Lords supper?

no formula is required, but utilizing the words of Christ can only help.

Maybe you can point us Catholics towards some pious guy that has a bible, and is full of the Holy Spirit, because it seems many of us Catholics fall short of your standard if piety!

the standard that I have pointed to is the standard set out in 1 Tim and Titus…it isn’t my standard. Why do you struggle with submitting to that standard?

 

[Radical]

I’ll restate the question: what do you regard the uncorrupted doctrine of communion to be?

Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in…the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

What I meant was that Arius negated the Trinitarian notion that Christ was uncreated. Do you believe that members of the body of Christ in good standing may be either Arian or Trinitarian?

it is a possibility that I wouldn’t deny

I understand. Do the three churches you attend follow what you see as the pure doctrine/practice of communion?

no, they have taken much away from it.

And this is what Muslims/JW’s might argue about the trinity.

and?

Do you believe in regenerative/symbolic, infant/adult baptism?

infant - no

Private judgment and invisible church came about in the sixteenth century, yet do you not accept those doctrines?

private judgement has always existed…it is part of our human nature. WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement

 

[Sufjon]

I’m shocked to see an incredible ignorance and confusion among some “Christian” groups who claim to “love” Catholics yet set up websites that are only promoting hatred and anger towards anything Catholic.

Has anyone seen the website by an ex-priest by last name Bennett? I understand that he has two sites dedicated to ministering to Catholics. One of these websites even carries the misleading title something like “What All Catholics Need to Know.”

Normally, I would avoid giving publicity to these types of websites, but I’m wondering why there are people out there who seemingly mean well yet are really creating more division among Christians.

In and of itself, pride cannot exist without ignorance. To be proud is a sign that one is ignorant of the nature of our being.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[onemangang]

only fallibly

Ok, I think that this would be a long discussion on how infallibility is recognized and would spiral out into epistemology.

How revealed truth has been revealed to men, is where we differ, I guess.

A Catholic would say **an infallible religious authority,like all authority operating in the human sphere, had to manifest itself through a visible social order to be effective in the world. Christ intentionally chose a visible social order rather than a text to mediate His infallible authority to the world. **

If Christ appointed a Church to preserve and communicate His revelation, that Church must be infallible, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

A Protestant response (Charles Hodge) would be Scripture confronts each person. “It is the experience of true Christians in all ages and nations that their faith is founded on the spiritual apprehension and experience of the power of the truth.” They believe Scriptures to be the Word of God because of "the witness in themselves."

possibly…though at times my view is the majority view w/i Christianity…so it would seem inappropriate to call it my private teaching

Are your views the majority view within Christianity on infant baptism?

Most Christians practice infant baptism The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, the Anglican churches,** Lutherans**,** Presbyterians**,** Methodists**, some Church of the Nazarene, the Reformed Church in America,** the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Continental Reformed.**

Lets see who doesn’t
Groups within the Protestant tradition that reject infant baptism include the Baptists, Apostolic Christians, Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, most Pentecostals, Mennonites, Amish, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-day Adventists, and most non-denominational churches. Infant baptism is also excluded by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Latter Day Saints.

a portion of it, yes…but did God do the entrusting?..did he condone something in blatant violation of his requirements?

I don’t understand what you mean by a portion and did God do the entrusting?
I would say yes God did the entrusting, but hasn’t left the Church to herself. He guides Her.

Did he condone or allow something in violation to his requirements? Well, can God use a sinner to accomplish a goal. I would say He can, that doesn’t mean that He’s condoning the sin. So only, non-sinners can shepherd a flock, are your pastors sinnless?

give the pious guy the authority…take it from the unrighteous

Hypothetically speaking, lets say two of the most pious people are a Buddhist, the other a J.W., so we give them authority? First of all we don’t have the right to bestow or grant Authority, that is God ordained.

Protestants lack a ministerial priesthood role of authority given by God, the only authority a protestant pastor has as a “shepherd overseeing a flock” is secular, it is the consent of the willing to be governed. Each baptized person shares in the same authority as the pastor through their baptism, in the priesthood of all believers.

are things that bad w/i the CC that you would have to go outside the CC to find a pious fellow?

Being that I don’t think the authority of the bishop is contingent on his piousness, but on the words of Christ, and His ability, it doesn’t matter where I go. I don’t have Authority to elect who I think should be a shepherd. That’s a protestant notion.

are they w/i your congregation? 1 Tim and Titus clearly contemplate appointing someone from w/i the local congregation…that should be do-able.

Again I don’t have the authority to appoint, but are those, that are members of my congregation, entrusted by divine mandate to shepherd the flock. Yes, I’m Catholic, the entire Church is One, and all, that are Catholic, are part of my congregation, or Ekklesia. So a member of the Catholic Church will receive Holy Orders, through Apostolic authority!

such could be done…but it is called communion for a reason

Communion with who? We have communion with Christ who is truly present body, blood soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, do you?

b/c it is a special sort of remembrance

Oh, just not substantial, in a real, and tangible way, rather than imaginary kind of way.

no formula is required, but utilizing the words of Christ can only help.

The entire Liturgy throughout the history of Christianity, revolved around the Eucharist, and it has been reduced to nothing more than an elevated saying of grace before a meal. Bravo Protestantism, you’ve come a long way baby.

From the truth of Transubstantiation, to the Lutheran Consubstantiation, to the Presbyterian Receptionism, down to Memorialism, which seems like nothing more than a head nod of acknowledgement

the standard that I have pointed to is the standard set out in 1 Tim and Titus…it isn’t my standard. Why do you struggle with submitting to that standard?

I don’t struggle with it. On the whole, throughout History there have been a small number of people, that were blatant sinners. I understand the Catholic teaching on Infallibility, which does not mean the impeccability of the person.

I think that it demonstrates Christ abillity to keep his Church from error and shows the Promise He made, by having sinful men, shepherd Her. That only bears witness to Him.

How was authority given and to whom?

I don’t have the time or space to write it out so here is a link

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

 

[malu2u]

Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in…the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

Interesting that you mention the Passover. I think that God took very seriously the Passover and its consequent observance. In fact, the Jewish people to this day observe it precisely because it was mandated by God to be celebrated, observed, and experienced by every single generation. Didn’t Paul say that Jesus is our Paschal lamb; therefore, let us keep the feast? Forgive me if I misquoted his words, but he said something like that in reference to Jesus’ sacrifice being our new Passover. And, the fact that the Last Supper was during the Passover meal and his discourse on his body being real food tells us that he elevated the truth of the Passover into the “new and everlasting covenant.”

The passages in the Bible don’t “prooftext” what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, but taking the entire Scriptures into consideration and the teachings of the Apostles it squares nicely with what the early Christians believed and what we still today believe as Catholic Christians.

As a Protestant Christian you might not want to believe in the Eucharist, but that doesn’t make it any less true for us. So, when this is for you “a hard saying… who can believe it?” remember that you are not alone. Even some of Jesus’ disciples left him when he made the claim. Read John 6:66 .

 

[rinnie]

Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in…the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

it is a possibility that I wouldn’t deny

no, they have taken much away from it.

and?

infant - no

private judgement has always existed…it is part of our human nature. WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement

Really? The Passover was only Symbols? I must have missed that part. Could you show me where Christ said this is a SYMBOL of my Body which will be given up for you, This is a SYMBOL of my blood which will be given up for you.

Then comes to the hanging and death of the Cross. Was that also just a SYMBOL then? Because Christ said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He said he body was the true temple.

Funny how if he meant SYMBOL why he did not say that. And more ironic is when he said it and MANY waked away when he stated QUITE clear may I add, that unless you eat the flesh of Man and Drink his blood you have not life in you.

Remember that Part? Why was it many walked away and said he was MAD!! Crazy, Why did Christ not say, Hold on guys, I mean the bread and wine are just SYMBOLS not actual.

Or could it be the Church is correct and Christ meant what he said!!

 

[rinnie]

Radical, I also have another question for you, If Jesus did not mean what he said why did the Apostles teach it the EXACT same way. Are you trying to say the Apostles got it WRONG also?

Another thing Christ said unless you eat and drink you have not eternal life in you. Are you trying to say Christ put something impossible for us to live up to. If you are correct and Christ and his Church and Apostles are wrong we cannot possibly have any life in us then.

How do you explan this?

I am going to be out for the next day or so, but will check in around late Wed or Thurs. I am quite anxious to hear what you have to say about all of this.

 

[rinnie]

Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in…the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

it is a possibility that I wouldn’t deny

no, they have taken much away from it.

and?

infant - no

private judgement has always existed…it is part of our human nature. WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement

While I am on a roll Where is it said that Infants cannot be baptised? Why did it say after Peter made his speech ALL were baptised that day?

Why does it not say all Adults were Baptised that day? And also why does Christ say do not hinder the Children let them come to me? How if they cannot be baptised in his name? How can Children come to him if not in baptism.

Would not be denying them Baptism be hindering them?

 

[Radical]

I am going to be out for the next day or so, but will check in around late Wed or Thurs. I am quite anxious to hear what you have to say about all of this.

and I won’t have time to answer until Thursday or Friday at the soonest

 

[mangy_dog]

Pride mixed with pretty much anything is bad enough.

Pride and ignorance is not so bad as far as pride goes.

However, to have knowledge and pride is many times more dangerous to self and others.

 

[Radical]

Really? The Passover was only Symbols?

as Everett Ferguson described it:
The Passover meal commemorated the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the deliverance of the Israelites (Ex 12:14). More than that, it was a reliving in the present of those events, a bringing of them into the present so that those participating could think of themselves as experiencing the exodus. As the Mishnah put it, “In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt (Pesahim 10.5). I consider Jesus’ words, “This is my body” (Mark 14:22), in the same way. The bread brings the body into the present. The presence is real, but not literal. The meaning of the event is made present once more. Similarly, the remembrance (anamnesis) of 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, according to the Jewish background, was neither simply mental recollection nor the actual repetition of something but the celebration of a past event in order to live in its experience and to participate in its redemptive qualities. The historical deliverance is unrepeatable, but its effects are reaffirmed.
It is not as if the soldiers of the Egyptian army manifested with a real bodily presence and then died in the Red Sea (with the waters of Red Sea also having become substantially present at the Passover). The meaning was made present through the symbols, but the symbols remained symbols. It seems that Catholics around here think that, if the symbols are not just mere symbols, but serve to make the event present (meaningfully not literally), then they are free to assert that the ancients also believed in a real bodily presence akin to the current Catholic belief. (It is as if they can only envision two possible options: mere symbolism and a real bodily presence….and with mere symbolism ruled out, then a real bodily presence is the only possibility left.)

I must have missed that part. Could you show me where Christ said this is a SYMBOL of my Body which will be given up for you, This is a SYMBOL of my blood which will be given up for you.

perhaps your Bible reads that Christ said, “This bread has now been changed into the substance of my body”….but mine doesn’t. It was wine before and it was still wine after and that is how Christ described it.

Then comes to the hanging and death of the Cross. Was that also just a SYMBOL then?

you have no idea as to how symbols work, do you?

Because Christ said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He said he body was the true temple.

so are you saying that the substance of the flesh ceased to exist and that it was replaced with the substance of stone blocks? …that would be, after all, the proper counterpart to what you think happens at your Eucharist.

Funny how if he meant SYMBOL why he did not say that.

b/c it is so obvious that anyone should be able to understand it as a symbol (especially given the Jewish position on drinking blood )….OTOH, if he was performing a miracle and changing the substance of the bread into the substance of his body (a thing entirely foreign to Jewish thought and not discernible by observation), then that would have demanded an explanation

And more ironic is when he said it and MANY waked away when he stated QUITE clear may I add, that unless you eat the flesh of Man and Drink his blood you have not life in you.

If you read that passage carefully, then you would note that:

a) the grumbling actually started with Jesus’ claim to have came down from heaven;

b) the reference to a hard saying and some disciples leaving follows another reference to Jesus coming down from heaven; and

c) Peter’s correct answer at the end of the passage ties better to the matter of Christ coming from heaven than it does to eating his flesh

Remember that Part? Why was it many walked away and said he was MAD!! Crazy, Why did Christ not say, Hold on guys, I mean the bread and wine are just SYMBOLS not actual.

the Eucharist wasn’t even contemplated that day

Or could it be the Church is correct and Christ meant what he said!!

if your Church merely asserted that Christ meant what he said, then no error would be involved…it is in the explanation of what was meant that your Church has erred.

 

[Radical]

Radical, I also have another question for you, If Jesus did not mean what he said why did the Apostles teach it the EXACT same way. Are you trying to say the Apostles got it WRONG also?

no, I am saying that you and your Church have got it wrong wrt what Christ meant, wrt what the Apostles actually taught and wrt what a good many of the ECFs actually taught.

Another thing Christ said unless you eat and drink you have not eternal life in you. Are you trying to say Christ put something impossible for us to live up to.

here is a news flash for you…you don’t actually eat his flesh and drink his blood…if you actually did that, then it would be a cannibalistic act….and you and yours deny that cannibalism is involved.

If you are correct and Christ and his Church and Apostles are wrong we cannot possibly have any life in us then.

If I am (and the majority of Christians are) right then Christ, his Church and the Apostles would also be right ….and it would be you and your Church’s hierarchy and about half of your Church’s membership that would be wrong.

How do you explan this?

very easily…I don’t need assistance from Greek philosophy and I don’t need to disregard my senses

While I am on a roll Where is it said that Infants cannot be baptised?

is it Catholic doctrine to allow anything and everything that is not expressly prohibited in scripture?

Why did it say after Peter made his speech ALL were baptised that day?

b/c all those who believed were baptized…did you think all of the people of Jerusalem were baptized that day?

Why does it not say all Adults were Baptised that day?

could a newborn believe? You were talking about Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, right?

And also why does Christ say do not hinder the Children let them come to me? How if they cannot be baptised in his name? How can Children come to him if not in baptism.

have you read that passage? How were kids coming to him on that day? It wasn’t through baptism…it isn’t mentioned. They came to him w/o baptism on that day.

Would not be denying them Baptism be hindering them?

again, “hindering” occurred on that day (before Jesus intervened) and denying baptism to infants had nothing to do with it.

 

[Trebor135]

So I’m finally getting round to replying. I apologize for the lengthy delay.

Like the Passover, it was a full fellowship meal. The bread and the wine were symbols through which the reality (of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice) of the body and blood of Jesus were made present for the participants to share in…the body and blood did not become any more present than did Egypt become present at the Passover

Interesting. I shall have to look into this issue further.

it is a possibility that I wouldn’t deny

Do you believe that any theological lines in the sand exist delineating “Christian” from “non-Christian”? How would you regard the status of a Muslim, who considers Jesus to be a human prophet?

no, they have taken much away from it.

Have you considered founding your own church? If all other Christians are in error to one degree or another, it would seem incumbent upon someone with the truth to correct them.

and?

I believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim that the doctrine of the trinity is a man-made innovation from the fourth century. I’ve heard one Muslim apologist, in a debate on the trinity, call for the discarding of Greek philosophy as a hindrance to attaining the truth. The same principles by which you go after one doctrine have the potential to undermine another.

After all, Matthew and Luke could have made Jesus into a demigod figure between the date of the resurrection and the time of writing, for which the textbook for a course on the New Testament I took last year essentially argued. The hypostatic union could be an innovation, but we just don’t have documentary evidence showing the true original teaching.

infant - no

How come?

private judgement has always existed…it is part of our human nature.

I was employing the term with a specific definition: “reading Scripture to come up with the true faith on one’s own (or with the aid of commentaries)”.

WRT invisible Church, you should tell your assertion to the author of 2nd Clement

Why do you suggest this?

 

[Metamorphoo]

Catholics don’t set up organizations actively seeking to convert Protestants, but rather to explain their faith to all comers. QUOTE]

I don’t know whether Catholics have organizations that actively seek to convert Protestants. But I do know that Catholics and the RCC ROUTINELY make it their mission to convert people to the Catholic Church. This is a source of great consternation to me personally. I understand evangelizing people who are not Christians–or are Christians in name only–but the focus among Protestants (at least evangelicals) is is upon leading that person to Christ Himself, not on membership within a particular Christian group. Yet if a person is living for Christ but is not a Catholic, Catholics still try to get them to convert to Catholicism.

Although I understand that certain segments of the Protestant world are rapidly anti-Catholic in their perspective, proselytization efforts cut both ways. It’s not just some Protestant groups that are trying to get Catholics out of the RCC; the RCC tries to pull Protestants away from their faith and into the RCC.