S
sandusky
Guest
Back atcha, love.Oh dear, dealing with Protestants is so tiring…
They just don’t get it.
- Status
M
MariaG
Guest
For the lurkers.
To see that even if you don’t agree with Catholic interpretation, the Real Presence if from Scripture.
To show that the 1st century Christians agree with the Catholic interpretation.
To remind and continually ask for historical writings that show communion was ONLY viewed sybolically, (though we have yet to recieve an answer). Writings we have shown have showed a very literal view, EAT MY FLESH. Pretty literal even if there is not the word transubstan…
For the lurkers.
God Bless,
Maria
C
CindyGia
Guest
Oh, one other thing…regarding the above post by bene7:
JUST WANTED TO THROW IN MY TWO CENTS AGAIN.
M
Mickey
Guest
Why are you so embarrased to say which reformer has influenced you most. Your theology, (whether you admit it or not), has been framed by one or more of the founders of the reformation. Care to take another stab?
N
ncgolf
Guest
My point being that scripture being interpreted in the light of one individual is useless. I know my interpretation was off base, but I looked and found a piece of scripture. Sandusky’s quote of scripture was off base also … he said the the works and signs of apostles are revealed when the scripture said were revealed … a big difference. Sandusky got that wrong and was using a piece of scripture that was not there to refute me. If he is wrong one place … why not another.
I have no doubt you and Sandusky are educated in Scripture but you make mistakes and your interpretation of scripture is not error proof. I have faith and trust that the Catholic Church’s dogma is biblically based and the truth as Christ revealed it. My job on earth is to find Christ, live Christ and the best place this has been is the Catholic Church … for we have him body, blood, soul and divinity … every day if you can make it!
W
wpr
Guest
Hello Sandusky,
It seems to me you reject any lineage at all. To say that the ECF were your lineage and then turn and reject what they say as irrelevant is mind boggling.
I agree with Philthy, you cannot claim to trace your roots back to the Apostles. Your claim is to jump over and reject all who came before you unless they agree with the Scriptures as you interpret them.
Face the fact, you would disagree with St. Ignatius, not just on the True Presence, but also on the Authority of the Bishop. From his letter to the Smyrnaeans " You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles." (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, #65)
Do you find that offensive? You must! But consider, that the Smyrnaeans did not have the complete writings as you know them. Who did have the complete faith? The Bishop!
Then, my good brother, please jump forward to see what St Irenaeus has to say on that matter. He gives you some good advice. “If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apotles had not in fact left writings [the 4 Gospels] to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? There is such certainty surrounding the Gospels that the heretics themselves bear witness to them; and starting from the Gospels, each of them attempt to establish his own doctrine.”
But you have the completed NT Canon right? So you have no use for The Church or the Bishop. The irony of which I suspect you will fail to see in your self rightiousness. The same Fathers you reject protected the very writings you cherish. It is from them and men such as them that the Apostolic writings are saved.
“Indeed, Marcion, by what right to chop in my forest. By whose permission Valentine, do you divert my streams? By what authority, Apellas, do you move my boundry markers?” (Tertullian AD 200, Jurgens, #298)
So how is it you think you respect your lineage? By what claim do you make the ECF yours? For many, there sincerity is witnessed in their blood; spilled for the sake of the Gospel. That is witness enough for me.
I put not my lot with men as you accuse. I put my lot with the Jesus who promised the Apostles he would be with them until the end of the age.
It seems to me you reject any lineage at all. To say that the ECF were your lineage and then turn and reject what they say as irrelevant is mind boggling.
I agree with Philthy, you cannot claim to trace your roots back to the Apostles. Your claim is to jump over and reject all who came before you unless they agree with the Scriptures as you interpret them.
Face the fact, you would disagree with St. Ignatius, not just on the True Presence, but also on the Authority of the Bishop. From his letter to the Smyrnaeans " You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles." (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, #65)
Do you find that offensive? You must! But consider, that the Smyrnaeans did not have the complete writings as you know them. Who did have the complete faith? The Bishop!
Then, my good brother, please jump forward to see what St Irenaeus has to say on that matter. He gives you some good advice. “If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apotles had not in fact left writings [the 4 Gospels] to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? There is such certainty surrounding the Gospels that the heretics themselves bear witness to them; and starting from the Gospels, each of them attempt to establish his own doctrine.”
But you have the completed NT Canon right? So you have no use for The Church or the Bishop. The irony of which I suspect you will fail to see in your self rightiousness. The same Fathers you reject protected the very writings you cherish. It is from them and men such as them that the Apostolic writings are saved.
“Indeed, Marcion, by what right to chop in my forest. By whose permission Valentine, do you divert my streams? By what authority, Apellas, do you move my boundry markers?” (Tertullian AD 200, Jurgens, #298)
So how is it you think you respect your lineage? By what claim do you make the ECF yours? For many, there sincerity is witnessed in their blood; spilled for the sake of the Gospel. That is witness enough for me.
I put not my lot with men as you accuse. I put my lot with the Jesus who promised the Apostles he would be with them until the end of the age.
M
Mickey
Guest
Thank you so much Jim. I am humbled.
I learn so much from all the devout practicing Catholics on this forum. We are all blessed to be able to learn from eachother. Heck, I’ve even learned a thing or two from my protestant brothers and sisters.
God bless you and your family also. May the love and peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you always!
It is time for me to leave this thread. All is said, that needed to be said.
img403.imageshack.us/img403/6845/3barcross4hz.gif
S
sandusky
Guest
This is a wonderful quote. Who said it?
The Church has given the additional concept of change; that is the point that bene7 and I have been stating all along. It adds to what is said in the Last Supper discourses; the reason being, that the meaning as set forth in the Eucharist today, is not in the discourse; it has been added, as the writer says.
You understand what we are saying when a Catholic says it, but you do not understand it when we say it.
I agree. Without this explanation, the sacrament falls apart. IOW, the sacrament is an outgrowth of the Eucharist. Again, bene7 and I do understand your position.
To whom was this “divinely revealed?"
S
sandusky
Guest
You are right Mickey, and if I state who, you will hold me to a strict adherence. My strict allegiance is to God, and His Savior, and Mine.Why are you so embarrased to say which reformer has influenced you most. Your theology, (whether you admit it or not), has been framed by one or more of the founders of the reformation. Care to take another stab?
M
Mickey
Guest
It’s okay my friend. You don’t have to answer it. Hope to see you on another thread.
Many blessings to you and your family during this holy week as we prepare to celebrate the Nativity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May the light of Christ shine upon you now and ever and forever. Amen.
img384.imageshack.us/img384/7572/nativity3st.th.jpg
B
bene7
Guest
(1) The Bible is a “stand-alone” Book. No other writing presently or historically is theopnueustos (inspired, God-breathed). It not only stands alone, it stands above any other writings ever produced in this world system. (2) It is grossly erroneous to say “the Church” produced the Bible. The Holy Spirit came upon specific men through whom He worked to generate the written Word of God. In fact, none of the O.T. writers were even part of the Church Christ is building today (the topic of another thread). The rest of what you say regarding the so-called “living magisterium of the body of Christ” is pure Roman Catholic-ism.
Paul wrote his letters to various churches in various parts of the empire (except a personal letter to Philemon and Timothy). Peter addressed Jews who were scattered in various places, James to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad, Jude to all those who are “called beloved of God, and kept for Jesus Christ.” Inherently their letters were not ever meant to be “interpreted” or filtered through some “infallible Magisterium” which neither they nor such a concept existed in their day (another much later development). Nor did Paul address his Roman letter this “living Magisterium” in Rome. He didn’t even address it to be interpreted by Peter for the people who, according to your tradition, was presiding there as Pope at the time.
When Jesus confronted the Jews He didn’t ask them what their Pharisees taught, but what did Moses teach? He appealed to the Scriptures themselves and their own responsibility to interpret them correctly.
Actually, I see it quite differently. It is the Scriptures, especially the Epistles, that shine light on the faith, and those early writers are to be tested in light of what God had already written and revelaed concerning the faith through His chosen human authors. You’re actually placing the writings of the “ECFs” in a position of higher authority than God’s Word, making it (God’s Word) subordinate to the writings of non-inspired men. Interesting how you stress the “ambiguities of Scripture” compared to the clarion writings of the “ECFs.” Nice commentary on the work of the Holy Spirit there, Mercygate. I’m sure He appreciates it. Good thing the “ECFs” came along to help Him out, right? Especially with words like “real presence.”
Blessings,
Bene
B
bene7
Guest
But not exercised “to their fullest” at all times. That’s the whole point of the Incarnation. I concentrate on Christ’s humanity as much as the Scriptures do, as much as the Apostle Paul does. The N.T. Scriptures certainly reveal His Divinity but do not elaborate on it, but instead His humanity and He coming into this world as a true Man, even a human “bond-servant” of God.
My whole point was that He took on true humanity, a true human, material body in which He died and rose again - bodily. By the nature of what it is, His human body cannot be omnipresent (which the doctrine of transubstantiation demands) or it is no longer truly human, no longer material. Hence, the destruction of the whole doctrine of the Incarnation; the Son becoming one of us through the virgin birth. Please address this obvious conundrum based on your doctrine of transubstantiation, which, if true, violates the true humanity of Christ. In other words, He did not truly become one of us.
Blessings,
Bene
P.S. Catholicism has swung so far over to the other side of the pendulum that it scarcely recognizes the doctrinal importance of Christ’s true humanity. For this reason the doctrine of transubsantiation flouishes in it and can remain virtually unchallenged.
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Bene:
To say that the CC has forgotten Christ’s humanity is ignorance of history. Check out the early heresies in which the humanity of Christ was defended by the church at great cost from the monophysites.
in XT.
To say that the CC has forgotten Christ’s humanity is ignorance of history. Check out the early heresies in which the humanity of Christ was defended by the church at great cost from the monophysites.
in XT.
C
CindyGia
Guest
Hi! I cannot keep to these post because I am at work and cannot interrupt my work to join in on these threads. I have to “sneak” a few moments now and then. I do not have a computer at home. But in regard to all your questions and comments, here is where I got the above information you comment on and question:
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9611frs.asp
Have a wonderful peaceful and Merry Christmas and a Joyfilled New Year!
Cindy
W
wpr
Guest
CindyGia,
Sandusky most likely understands transubstantiation by now. He is just less than charitable in that he attacks only what he sees as weakness.
I knew what you meant in your explanation and thought it gracious. The Church changed nothing in the discourse of the Last Supper, nor did they change what happens to the bread and wine for us. We all know that.
As for me, I’m waiting to hear Sandusky’s explanation for why he considers the NT Sciptures God-breathed. He’ll have to do it using only Scripture of course. He would not want to be accused of adding anything himself.
I wonder if real history will be “in” or “out”. Afterall, we certainly could not rely on the ECF to help us in the matter. In doing so we might just stumble and use one who disagrees with us on one matter or the other. And we surely would not want to be held to strict adherance to that measure either.
Merry Christmas
Sandusky most likely understands transubstantiation by now. He is just less than charitable in that he attacks only what he sees as weakness.
I knew what you meant in your explanation and thought it gracious. The Church changed nothing in the discourse of the Last Supper, nor did they change what happens to the bread and wine for us. We all know that.
As for me, I’m waiting to hear Sandusky’s explanation for why he considers the NT Sciptures God-breathed. He’ll have to do it using only Scripture of course. He would not want to be accused of adding anything himself.
I wonder if real history will be “in” or “out”. Afterall, we certainly could not rely on the ECF to help us in the matter. In doing so we might just stumble and use one who disagrees with us on one matter or the other. And we surely would not want to be held to strict adherance to that measure either.
Merry Christmas
C
CindyGia
Guest
Oh, and I forgot this link as well regarding Transubstantiation…:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501clas.asp
C
CindyGia
Guest
“This is MY Body, This is MY Blood!” (Mathew 26:28)
Divinely revealed enough - No?
Merry Christmas
M
mercygate
Guest
quote=bene7 The Bible is a “stand-alone” Book. No other writing presently or historically is theopnueustos (inspired, God-breathed). It not only stands alone, it stands above any other writings ever produced in this world system. (2) It is grossly erroneous to say “the Church” produced the Bible. The Holy Spirit came upon specific men through whom He worked to generate the written Word of God. In fact, none of the O.T. writers were even part of the Church Christ is building today (the topic of another thread). The rest of what you say regarding the so-called “living magisterium of the body of Christ” is pure Roman Catholic-ism.
Paul wrote his letters to various churches in various parts of the empire (except a personal letter to Philemon and Timothy). Peter addressed Jews who were scattered in various places, James to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad, Jude to all those who are “called beloved of God, and kept for Jesus Christ.” Inherently their letters were not ever meant to be “interpreted” or filtered through some “infallible Magisterium” which neither they nor such a concept existed in their day (another much later development). Nor did Paul address his Roman letter this “living Magisterium” in Rome. He didn’t even address it to be interpreted by Peter for the people who, according to your tradition, was presiding there as Pope at the time.
When Jesus confronted the Jews He didn’t ask them what their Pharisees taught, but what did Moses teach? He appealed to the Scriptures themselves and their own responsibility to interpret them correctly.Actually, I see it quite differently. It is the Scriptures, especially the Epistles, that shine light on the faith, and those early writers are to be tested in light of what God had already written and revelaed concerning the faith through His chosen human authors. You’re actually placing the writings of the “ECFs” in a position of higher authority than God’s Word, making it (God’s Word) subordinate to the writings of non-inspired men. Interesting how you stress the “ambiguities of Scripture” compared to the clarion writings of the “ECFs.” Nice commentary on the work of the Holy Spirit there, Mercygate. I’m sure He appreciates it. Good thing the “ECFs” came along to help Him out, right? Especially with words like “real presence.”
Blessings,
Bene
[/quote]
For Catholics, of course, the Holy Spirit did not stop breathing when the last New Testament author put down his quill. The Word of God is not limited to the written word. If God is the God of history, whose Holy Spirit is sent to “guide us into all the truth,” then we accept that he will do that in a consistent way, working through and in the Church that Christ has promised to build. So the Scriptures, to be fully understood, to the Catholic mind, must be seen in the matrix of their origin. Although much can be understood outside the context of the Church, clearly, as you are a living witness, much escapes the outsider.
I am reminded of Hilaire Belloc’s illustration that to those who are not inside it, the Catholic Church is like the stained glass windows of Chartres Cathedral would appear to people trying to look at them by the light of a single match on a dark night. They could not possibly imagine why people think they are so extraordinary.
Paul wrote his letters to various churches in various parts of the empire (except a personal letter to Philemon and Timothy). Peter addressed Jews who were scattered in various places, James to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad, Jude to all those who are “called beloved of God, and kept for Jesus Christ.” Inherently their letters were not ever meant to be “interpreted” or filtered through some “infallible Magisterium” which neither they nor such a concept existed in their day (another much later development). Nor did Paul address his Roman letter this “living Magisterium” in Rome. He didn’t even address it to be interpreted by Peter for the people who, according to your tradition, was presiding there as Pope at the time.
When Jesus confronted the Jews He didn’t ask them what their Pharisees taught, but what did Moses teach? He appealed to the Scriptures themselves and their own responsibility to interpret them correctly.Actually, I see it quite differently. It is the Scriptures, especially the Epistles, that shine light on the faith, and those early writers are to be tested in light of what God had already written and revelaed concerning the faith through His chosen human authors. You’re actually placing the writings of the “ECFs” in a position of higher authority than God’s Word, making it (God’s Word) subordinate to the writings of non-inspired men. Interesting how you stress the “ambiguities of Scripture” compared to the clarion writings of the “ECFs.” Nice commentary on the work of the Holy Spirit there, Mercygate. I’m sure He appreciates it. Good thing the “ECFs” came along to help Him out, right? Especially with words like “real presence.”
Blessings,
Bene
[/quote]
For Catholics, of course, the Holy Spirit did not stop breathing when the last New Testament author put down his quill. The Word of God is not limited to the written word. If God is the God of history, whose Holy Spirit is sent to “guide us into all the truth,” then we accept that he will do that in a consistent way, working through and in the Church that Christ has promised to build. So the Scriptures, to be fully understood, to the Catholic mind, must be seen in the matrix of their origin. Although much can be understood outside the context of the Church, clearly, as you are a living witness, much escapes the outsider.
I am reminded of Hilaire Belloc’s illustration that to those who are not inside it, the Catholic Church is like the stained glass windows of Chartres Cathedral would appear to people trying to look at them by the light of a single match on a dark night. They could not possibly imagine why people think they are so extraordinary.
N
ncgolf
Guest
Why the mention of Judas as a betrayer at the end of John 6. John writes all about the eating and drinking and faith but ends it with saying Judas is a devil. That does not seem to fit into the context of the main theme of John 6.
In all the discussion that last little bit about Judas is never mentioned, what are some of your thoughts on this last little bit of Chapter 6.
In all the discussion that last little bit about Judas is never mentioned, what are some of your thoughts on this last little bit of Chapter 6.
M
mercygate
Guest
Catholic theology believes that the entire world was created for the Body of Christ; we believe that the Old Testament writers are truly saints of the Church and are venerated as such. They, too, are redeemed by the blood of the cross.
Thank you. If it were not, I would be writing drivel.
OK
Inherently?
Why is it a problem for you that doctrine should become clear as concepts are challenged by time and experience?
Could you refine that thought? It does not track.
Although the faithful had a reasonably clear idea of what would eventually become “scripture,” elements of the canon remained undecided for nearly 400 years. It makes perfect sense to weigh any ambiguity of scripture against the practical, explanatory, pastoral writings of the early Church.
Excuse me? Is that the best you can do? Let me rephrase that for you:
“Well mercygate, I may never come to accept that the ECF’s have anything to offer toward understanding the faith of the early Church, but I do see why you value them according to your view of the Church and its place in history.”
- Status