Literal or Symbolic?...

[JonNC]

Beyond responding point by point, Cory, let me addtionally respond in a general way by saying that I hold out a much more optimistic outlook on Catholic/Lutheran unity. Alas, perhaps I read Centro Pro Unione too much.
prounione.urbe.it/pdf/prounione_bulletin_n76_fall2009.pdf

But in it I see over the last 60 years, not compromise, which of course would lead to failure, but instead a desire toward convergence. From the bulletin:

This deep, painful, tragic Lutheran-Catholic division with its wide social, political, cultural, and mental implications has marked the European nations and peoples until the 20th century and was exported through migration and mission to other parts
of the world. This radical split has during the last centuries been considered by individual Catholics and Lutherans as a contradiction of God’s gift and will of unity. But it was only in the 20th century that many Lutherans and Catholics and their churches have begun to consider overcoming this division as a primary historical commitment and challenge for the two churches. This history-changing reversal of Christian relationships occurred
only a few decades ago! We have to keep this dark background in mind of the long and tragic history of Catholic-Lutheran division, in order to come to an adequate evaluation of the exceptional course and results of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue and rapprochement during the last forty years. Only in this horizon can we avoid present superficial negative evaluations of ecumenical progress.

And on the Eucharist:

The degree of remarkable agreement and convergence in this report on the Eucharist is complemented by the reports of national Catholic-Lutheran dialogues on that topic. Thus, when we take these reports all together and read them in the light of
reactions to them as well as in view of the 1982 World Council of Churches/Faith and Order document on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry we may speak of a far-reaching Lutheran-Roman Catholic agreement on the doctrine and practice of the Eucharist.

The remaining differences in theological interpretation and liturgical expression are generally regarded as no longer being divisive. It is obvious that there are no fixed criteria for discerning that which is church dividing and what is not. Such criteria
exist neither within the churches nor as mutually agreed ones between them. In this slightly floating matter we have to rely on the sum of reactions to dialogue reports and to forms of official reception by the churches. But within this framework of moving towards discernment of consensus, convergence, and acceptable differences we can speak of a far-reaching agreement on the doctrine and practice of the Eucharist.

No where did I find (though I may have missed) the term compromise. Instead one sees concensus, convergence, and acceptable differences (which you yourself mentioned regarding the differences between Rome and the EO on th matter). The Holy Spirit is clearly working though these discussions, in a way that the former approach - “you are wrong, confess!!” - has not worked.

 

[david_ruiz]

True, but the Eucharist is MORE than just another passover. The Eucharist was instituted by the God who became man.

The lamb did not say this is my body.

Well ,both passovers were instituted by God, by Jehovah, by Jesus. The lamb was the lamb, and the bread was the bread, and the wine, wine in the first passover. The Lamb said He was the lamb, and to remember it with the bread and wine in the new “passover”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, indeed there was a time when there was much corruption. But as time has proved she is indeed the Church of Christ because whenever she hits a crisis there always follows a time of renewal. Christ raises saints suitable for the occasion.

Yes, and her reformers were Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Savonarola, Calvin, Zwingli etc

With that statement alone, you have acknowledged that your interpretation is wrong because earlier on you said that to find out what Christ meant one must find out what the apostles believed. Since you agree that the Church is apostolic, therefore her belief is apostolic

Yes, I remember that logic. My word “trace” was insufficient to show inaccuracies, or conflict of interest, political correctness. For in tracing you are drawing something from the past (original) onto something new (paper-hopefully thin, to see the original beneath) in the present. In your apostolic tracing , things were said of scripture that were not said in the original, early church .I am referring to the political use of the Peter /rock discourse to show primacy of bishop of Rome in the 2-3rd century, that were never said earlier.
There is only one Church, but I would say different congregations( even CC says this) and there is where any truth therein is Divine .Much like the good, bad, ugly in 7 Revelation congregations

But unfortunately for you, your Church was not founded by Christ. Therefore it is not divine. It is totally human. How can a church started by a human being be divine? Only a Church built by Christ - because He is God - can be Divine.

Yes ,this is history for a Catholic believer ,and even by some worldly scholars. But again, I would say God was guiding Luther and Wycliffe and Tyndale and Calvin and … These men did not achieve spiritual endeavors by “human powers”.Christ WAS behind them,as much as He was behind an imperfect Peter or Thomas etc.

None of the Scriptures you have quoted proved your point. They actually disproved your point.

Again, we give evidences that must be spiritually reccieved/perceived/believed.

You may want to console yourself with that error but it doesn’t work. Because Christ established a Church.

There is no error in my heavenly view with none of these earthly denominational names. Indeed you are much about Church, your church, at the expense of the body . We are one body, with Christ as the head .You esteem your church disproportionately , but others esteem the head properly.You hide behind this church ,as if we all don’t know about His Church. What, you think during the bridal procession the Roman Catholics will be leading, then the Orthodox, then with Protestants, and of course your tables will be closer etc .Sounds like a Corinthian problem, with respecter of persons/congregations… Oh please .The apostles are every Christian’s foundation .They were not Roman Catholic.They were known as Christians first in Antioch .Then the people of the “way”. Finally Catholic (years after the apostles) came into being to show their universalism .

Logically yes, because that is what the Holy Spirit is all about. Otherwise you are saying that the Holy Spirit makes mistakes.

I wonder if any of the other denominations, including the Orthodox , see themselves as infallible , without a single doctrinal/faith error like CC does

So I suppose that the Ark of the Covenant is made of gold is an invention.

I think God told them to use gold .I think .I know for sure He did not command utensils of Gold to hold His Body and Blood .

It takes a lot of faith to believe that Christ can do what He promised - give us His flesh and Blood. Those of little faith will not be able to grasp that. .

It is a sign of little faith when you require a priest to ask/pray that Jesus keep His promise, as if he would withhold any good thing otherwise.

I said 'around" 1100. Would 1047 be more to your liking?

So Ratranmus (850) was in perfect harmony with CC RP and his communion tract were not blacklisted per se ?

It was anathema then as well.

Just isn’t written .

As you have already confirmed, the Church is apostolic therefore her belief is apostolic.

You have selective reading .First part(former) is true but the second(latter) is conditional

 

[benedictus2]

Never ever compromise! Seek instead convergence, viewing each topic in light of the Gospel, the ancient Church, and how we express our beliefs.

That is true only where there is convergence. Where there is no convergence one side gives in. And it will not be the Catholic Church.

Agreed, for both sides of our deivide.

Which is exactly my point. That is why I think this convergence you speak of will not happen. Communion will happen only when Lutherans become Catholic.

You are probably right. On the other side, there are those Catholics who condemn recent popes for even their efforts in ecumenism. There is a status-quo element in both communions.

But that is not the point here and not one of my points either.

Yet not all of Anglicanism. And they came to that acceptance through dialogue and convergence.

Which is exactly my point. Not of all Anglicanism. Only the TAC. That is why this convergence you speak of is truly pie in the sky. The reason the TAC was accepted was because they proposed union “without conditions”. They did not demand what the Lutherans now insist on. They accepted Catholic teaching and even signed the Catechism.
That is the main difference. Can the Lutherans do that? Can the LCMS do that? Sign the Catechism and desire union “without conditions”?

It is. It also is for the LCMS with those Lutherans who have female clergy.

Exactly my point again. Even within Lutheranism they can’t agree so how can they - wholesale - expect to find convergence with the Catholic Church when they can’t find convergence even among themselves.

Let me put it this way, how would you within Lutheranism solve the priestesses problem? Would those oppose to it accept it as common doctrine? Would those pro-priestesses accept that they will have to let that go? There is no middle ground here.

To be quite honest, I don’t believe this fairly or accurately represents the approach of Lutherans in dialogue. We expect and insist that the CC express its POV, just as we do. Both sides must then listen and talk.

We can express our POV till the second coming and that is where will remain - expressing and talking. Because at the heart of the matter are differing theologies which demand and “either/or” and not and “and”.

Let me simplify this. Lutheran’s believe in consubstantiation. Catholics believe in transubstantiation. If Lutherans insist on their POV do you think the Catholic Church will cave in and say it’s okay if that is what you believe? How much talking do you need to do to make that issue disappear?

.

And this has been not to successful an approach for 500 years. Perhaps the post VII approach will be more successful.

Because there was too much misinformation floating about. Now every one can asses each theological point on its merit or lack thereof.

Neuhaus saw the light and decided that there is no time to waste.

Study your beliefs and study that along side the Catholic belief. You cannot expect the Lutheran communion to make that decision for you.

Recriminations over the events 500 years ago will not solve our schism. Prayerful dialogue has a much better chance, with the help of the Spirit.

continued

The reformation is over Jon. It’s long over. All those things that Luther fought against it’s over and done with.

So what is your excuse for staying away from Christ’s Church considering you don’t even hold to the Lutheran belief when it comes to the Eucharist?

 

[benedictus2]

And on the Eucharist:

No where did I find (though I may have missed) the term compromise. Instead one sees concensus, convergence, and acceptable differences (which you yourself mentioned regarding the differences between Rome and the EO on th matter). The Holy Spirit is clearly working though these discussions, in a way that the former approach - “you are wrong, confess!!” - has not worked.

Let me just zero in on the Eucharist.

You say there is convergence.

If there is convergence, do the Lutherans accept transubstantiation? If they dont’ how can you said there is convergence? Do you think the Catholic Church will accept consubstantiation? They cannot both be true. This is a case of either /or. Do you think continued talking about it will make the issue go away.

The only way for converge to happen is for the Lutherans to accept the Catholic POV or for the Catholic to accept the Lutheran POV.

 

[benedictus2]

Well ,both passovers were instituted by God, by Jehovah, by Jesus. The lamb was the lamb, and the bread was the bread, and the wine, wine in the first passover. The Lamb said He was the lamb, and to remember it with the bread and wine in the new "passover".

Exactly! Jesus was the Lamb so He could command and make it happen as he commanded.

The lamb at the first passover was not Christ.

I saw your other post but it is late so I will reply to it tomorrow.

Peace!

 

[wmscott]

Exactly! Jesus was the Lamb so He could command and make it happen as he commanded.

The lamb at the first passover was not Christ.

I saw your other post but it is late so I will reply to it tomorrow.

Peace!

benedictus2, so could we then summarize as follows: Christ was the Pascal Lamb and a Passover dinner is not complete until the Lamb is eaten. As cited in the last supper Christ took the bread and said that “this is My body which will be given up for you”. The Pascal Lamb, His body, the Bread (His body). The wine is His blood, the same blood that was shed from the lamb and placed over the doors during Passover. The angel of death knew what real blood was and do you think that TAOD would have passed over a house that symbolically places blood over the door. The wine is the blood from the Pascal Lamb shed on the cross, and it wasn’t until Christ finally accepted wine given to him on a hyssop reed that the 4th cup of the Passover was completed that He died and the Passover was complete.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8545978]That is true only where there is convergence. Where there is no convergence one side gives in. And it will not be the Catholic Church.

Why do you believe that convergence cannot come in other areas to, perhaps even to the point of full reconciliation?

Which is exactly my point. That is why I think this convergence you speak of will not happen. Communion will happen only when Lutherans become Catholic.

We would say we already are, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But we and seeking ways for that to return again.

Which is exactly my point. Not of all Anglicanism. Only the TAC. That is why this convergence you speak of is truly pie in the sky. The reason the TAC was accepted was because they proposed union “without conditions”. They did not demand what the Lutherans now insist on. They accepted Catholic teaching and even signed the Catechism.

Tell me what you think we insist on.

That is the main difference. Can the Lutherans do that? Can the LCMS do that? Sign the Catechism and desire union “without conditions”?

It depends on the nature of ecumenical discussions.

Exactly my point again. Even within Lutheranism they can’t agree so how can they - wholesale - expect to find convergence with the Catholic Church when they can’t find convergence even among themselves.

Good point. Perhaps it will be different synods at different times. I cannot see Rome ever accepting a female clergy, nor does the LCMS.

Let me put it this way, how would you within Lutheranism solve the priestesses problem? Would those oppose to it accept it as common doctrine? Would those pro-priestesses accept that they will have to let that go? There is no middle ground here.

Preaching to the chior. It satnds outside scripture, the confessions, and the ancient Church. I can no more defend it than you can those Catholics who call for it.

We can express our POV till the second coming and that is where will remain - expressing and talking. Because at the heart of the matter are differing theologies which demand and “either/or” and not and “and”.

You see no progress, Cory, in the last 60 years.

Let me simplify this. Lutheran’s believe in consubstantiation. Catholics believe in transubstantiation. If Lutherans insist on their POV do you think the Catholic Church will cave in and say it’s okay if that is what you believe? How much talking do you need to do to make that issue disappear?

No, Cory, we don’t. This post from a Lutheran pastor.

=gcnuss;8534086]Lutheran theology does not use either consubstantiation or transubstantiation as an explanation of the Real Presence. We say that when we receive that which, to our human senses (taste, touch, smell), is bread and wine, we are in fact receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. How this happens remains a mystery. We believe our Lord’s words “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.”/

.

So what is your excuse for staying away from Christ’s Church considering you don’t even hold to the Lutheran belief when it comes to the Eucharist?

Would you say the same about Pastor Gary above?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Let me just zero in on the Eucharist.

You say there is convergence.

If there is convergence, do the Lutherans accept transubstantiation? If they dont’ how can you said there is convergence? Do you think the Catholic Church will accept consubstantiation? They cannot both be true. This is a case of either /or. Do you think continued talking about it will make the issue go away.

The only way for converge to happen is for the Lutherans to accept the Catholic POV or for the Catholic to accept the Lutheran POV.

Or, they recognize that, in fact the different expressions point to the same truth.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

The Joint Roman Catholic/Lutheran Commission **established by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity **and the Lutheran World Federation has completed its work on a document concerning the Lord’s Supper. Following its unanimous passage by commission members, the document is now presented for discussion. Agreement has been reached on significant points. In large measure it has been possible to make a common witness. Thus we are confident that those questions which remain open will be clarified mutually. We hope that the following document will further full community in faith and, thus, that community at the Lord’s Table for which we yearn.

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.**36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

Exactly! Jesus was the Lamb so He could command and make it happen as he commanded.

The lamb at the first passover was not Christ.

I saw your other post but it is late so I will reply to it tomorrow.

Peace!

Late ? I thought it was early for you when I saw 6:17 A.M., you know, just getting up .Maybe you are west coaster -3:am. Yes, that is late. Been there.

 

[david_ruiz]

benedictus2, so could we then summarize as follows: Christ was the Pascal Lamb and a Passover dinner is not complete until the Lamb is eaten. As cited in the last supper Christ took the bread and said that “this is My body which will be given up for you”. The Pascal Lamb, His body, the Bread (His body). The wine is His blood, the same blood that was shed from the lamb and placed over the doors during Passover. The angel of death knew what real blood was and do you think that TAOD would have passed over a house that symbolically places blood over the door. The wine is the blood from the Pascal Lamb shed on the cross, and it wasn’t until Christ finally accepted wine given to him on a hyssop reed that the 4th cup of the Passover was completed that He died and the Passover was complete.

Howdy WMSCOTT. While Benedictus rests maybe we can chat . Apart from RP , I have stated before curiosity as to why Christ did not refer to the lamb as Himself , instead of the bread. I believe at least three elements of Passover had symbolic Christological meaning ;lamb ,bread, wine. At the last supper they ate/drank all three, yet only two “carry” His essence (body ,spirit etc) .I could see that He was the Lamb , hence no lamb needed. But He was also the unleavened bread (perfect ,without sin) , and wine (blood). From my understanding, the unleavened bread stood for purity (of God) and Israel’s goal to be as holy .Also "grace’ was said after the eating the lamb , not before. The “Passover” often refers to sacrifice while “Feast of Unleavened Bread” refers to the feast following sacrifice. Perhaps the significance in choosing bread is that it symbolized “feast” as opposed to sacrifice, which Christ finished one time. So , communion is remembrance of His sacrifice, but celebrated also as the “bread feasting” of the OT passover. Maybe that is why early church coined “eucharist” -thanksgiving and had “love feasts”. It all represents "rest ’ also .Christ ended sacrifices ,ended man’s quest for perfect purity ,which Israel aspired to under old covenant but could never achieve. Also the covenant is one way , from God to us ,and not mutual except in our acceptance or rejection of it. Your thought of fourth cup is interesting, though the 4th cup was usually the same evening. Thank-you for bringing (name removed by moderator)ut on the Passover.

 

[benedictus2]

This is just a quick lunchtime post so will just address a few key points.

Why do you believe that convergence cannot come in other areas to, perhaps even to the point of full reconciliation?

If the other areas where there is no convergence are major areas, then there will be no reconciliation.

This is why I have always re-iterated that had Luther not manufactured his own theology, reconciliation would have been easily achieved.

We would say we already are, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But we and seeking ways for that to return again.

I am sorry but that is not quite true. You are not in communion with Rome precisely because your beliefs are not Catholic.

Tell me what you think we insist on.

I honestly don’t know. But if there is nothing that you insist on which would be against Catholic teaching then we would already be in communion. Just like the TAC.

It depends on the nature of ecumenical discussions.

I suppose so since doctrine is at the heart of it.

Good point. Perhaps it will be different synods at different times. I cannot see Rome ever accepting a female clergy, nor does the LCMS.

So at least the LCMS and the Catholic Church have that in common.

Preaching to the chior. It satnds outside scripture, the confessions, and the ancient Church. I can no more defend it than you can those Catholics who call for it.

My point here is that there are points of view that cannot be reconciled such that the only way for communion is for one side giving in to the other.

you see no progress, Cory, in the last 60 years.

There has been progress in terms of dialogie (i.e. we are talking). But other than that…

As I said before, after agreeing on some points, we are left with those crucial points where only a bowing of one side to the other will create communion.

No, Cory, we don’t. This post from a Lutheran pastor.

That may be what gcnuss believes, but based on what Luther himself expressed, you believe in consubstantiation. You cited it yourself a few posts back: Luther said Christ is in, with, under the bread. Phrased liked that, that is not in accord with what GCNuss has written. That phrasing means 'consubstantiation" - Christ presence is with the bread but Christ is NOT the bread. It would be like Christ saying " In this bread is my body" not " This is my body".

Would you say the same about Pastor Gary above?

I probably would if I have been in conversation with him as I have with you. I don’t really know much about what he believes.

 

[benedictus2]

Late ? I thought it was early for you when I saw 6:17 A.M., you know, just getting up .Maybe you are west coaster -3:am. Yes, that is late. Been there.

I am on the different planet. We have a 35hour day

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, and her reformers were Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Savonarola, Calvin, Zwingli etc

Wrong again. Luther et all were the DEformers. If they were really reformers they would have reformed the Church. What they did is they set up their own churches which has absolutely no mandate from Christ.

However, as I have mentioned Christ raises saints for the ocassion. These truly were reformers : St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Berllarmine, St Charles Borropmeo, St Francis de Sales.

These were truly saints. These saints led people to the Truth and not away form Him. The Deformers led people away from the Truth because they watered down the truth.

The fact that there are now over 30,000 protestant sects attest to the kind of inspiration that was guiding the deformers. Christ is the gatherer, the Di-abolos is the scatterer.

Yes, I remember that logic. My word “trace” was insufficient to show inaccuracies, or conflict of interest, political correctness. For in tracing you are drawing something from the past (original) onto something new (paper-hopefully thin, to see the original beneath) in the present. In your apostolic tracing , things were said of scripture that were not said in the original, early church .I am referring to the political use of the Peter /rock discourse to show primacy of bishop of Rome in the 2-3rd century, that were never said earlier.

Wrong again. when you say you can trace your lineage, that means you can work back and show where you came from.

And no, the primacy of Peter is not a political use. It is divine use because it was God the Father and God the Son who gave him that primacy. The Church merely follows what the the Father and The Son have already confirmed. We are just obeying the will of God.

There is only one Church, but I would say different congregations( even CC says this) and there is where any truth therein is Divine .Much like the good, bad, ugly in 7 Revelation congregations

There is only one Catholic Church and 33000 (and counting) protestant Churches. The Protestant and Catholic Churches are not one Church and neither is there such a thing as one Protestant Church. That alone should alert you to the spirit that inspired protestantism.

Yes ,this is history for a Catholic believer ,and even by some worldly scholars.

No, this is historical fact! Yes, that grates doesn’t it

But again, I would say God was guiding Luther and Wycliffe and Tyndale and Calvin and …

Really? After praying for unity He then goes and demolishes his Church? You make God sound idiotic and a liar.

These men did not achieve spiritual endeavors by “human powers”.Christ WAS behind them

And ain’t that the truth! Instead of Christ being before them and leading them, Christ was behind them! They were doing the leading and making Christ follow their will! They left Christ behinid and went ahead on their own!

,as much as He was behind an imperfect Peter or Thomas etc.

Remember what He said to Peter when Peter insisted on His own will? Get behind me Satan. Because instead of following Christ and being behind Christ, he wanted Christ to follow him. Exactly what the deformers did.

But because Christ chose Peter, the imperfect Peter He made perfect by the Holy Spirit such that Peter in the end truly followed Christ - He was before Peter and because of this Peter was able to die for Him.

Again, we give evidences that must be spiritually reccieved/perceived/believed.

You didn’t. You gave insupportable conjecture.

There is no error in my heavenly view with none of these earthly denominational names.

Yes, there is. You just don’t see it yet. Or more likely, refuse to see it.

Indeed you are much about Church, your church, at the expense of the body

Huh?

. We are one body, with Christ as the head .

Christ’s Church is. But you are only imperfectly a member of His Church. You are away from His Sacraments.

You esteem your church disproportionately , but others esteem the head properly.

Of course I esteem my Church because she is the Body of Christ. Since I worship the head then it follows that I must esteem and love the Body.

You hide behind this church ,as if we all don’t know about His Church.

Hide? Since when? Obviously you don’t really know about His Church or you would also be her member.

What, you think during the bridal procession the Roman Catholics will be leading, then the Orthodox, then with Protestants, and of course your tables will be closer etc .

You really have a strange view of ecclesiology and eschatalogy

Sounds like a Corinthian problem, with respecter of persons/congregations… Oh please .

I respect persons who respect Christ and His Church for His Church is an expression of His will.

 

[benedictus2]

The apostles are every Christian’s foundation .They were not Roman Catholic.They were known as Christians first in Antioch .

Yes to an extent every Christian, if they are truly Christian is founded on the Apostles. And there’s the catch. Somewhere along the way aroudn 1500 they eschewed some of the teachings of the apostles and decided to go their own way.
And while they were called Christians at Antioch, there never was a reference to a Christian Church. This body of Christians, of the followers of Jesus Christ was never called a Christian Church but rather the Catholic Church.

Then the people of the “way”.

And the people of the way belonged to the Catholic Church because there was only one Church then.

Finally Catholic (years after the apostles) came into being to show their universalism .

Naah! It was always Catholic once they branched out of Jerusalem becaues that is what the Lord commanded them. From the beginning there was only one Church as Christ intended.
The Christians at Antioch, the people of the Way - they all belonged to the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not the Church that came 1500 years later.

I wonder if any of the other denominations, including the Orthodox , see themselves as infallible , without a single doctrinal/faith error like CC does

You know what is interesting, once they seperated from the Church they never came up with a new doctrine.
You see, prior to the separation the Eastern Church was besset by heresies. So my theory is that they realized how easily they could err, so in fear of making further errors they stopped seeking reason for their faith. They can’t anyway because doctrines have to be signed by the Pope. So they are wise to not come up with their own doctrines.

I think God told them to use gold .I think .I know for sure He did not command utensils of Gold to hold His Body and Blood .

So you think to encase the Body and Blood of The Lord of Heaven and Earth in gold is far too much? Perhaps we should use that cheap tin foil. Obviously you think gold is far too extravagant to be used to honor God.

It is a sign of little faith when you require a priest to ask/pray that Jesus keep His promise, as if he would withhold any good thing otherwise.

No it is a sign of great faith that you believe Christ and what He said. It is a sign of little faith when you don’t believe what Christ said and what Christ promised.

So Ratranmus (850) was in perfect harmony with CC RP and his communion tract were not blacklisted per se ?

No but not quite as disharmonious as you try to portray which is why the blacklist was lifted. The first major challenge to the Real Presence was that of Berengarius.

Just isn’t written .

Considering that the RP is what has always been believed by Christians form the beginning, then it is anathema.

You have selective reading .First part(former) is true but the second(latter) is conditional

Not at all. You said the Catholic Church is Apostolic and you said that it comes with baggage for having been around for so long. I affirmed both.

 

[benedictus2]

Beyond responding point by point, Cory, let me addtionally respond in a general way by saying that I hold out a much more optimistic outlook on Catholic/Lutheran unity. Alas, perhaps I read Centro Pro Unione too much.
prounione.urbe.it/pdf/prounione_bulletin_n76_fall2009.pdf
But in it I see over the last 60 years, not compromise, which of course would lead to failure, but instead a desire toward convergence.

I do not doubt that there are points of convergence, but there will always be some points where there is no convergence. When we get to that point (which it seems we have that is why the dialogie has gone flat) then we are left with either we go your way or you come our way.

This would be a like a married couple trying to save their marriage. They find much that they agree on. But then the husband says, he wants to see other women but still want to remain married to her, while the wife finds even the thought of of it abominable. If both stick to their guns, then there is no convergence. For them to remain one of them have to give up their position and accept the other’s.

The text you cited use the phrased : acceptable differences. Acceptable differences is not convergence. That is like saying we will tolerate your belief on that.

But the problem is, when we start passing on the teaching, then confusion arises. What do we teach? Transubstantiation of consubstantiation? Is it really Christ or is Christ dwelling in the bread?

Unity of faith is important.

You said this has been going on for 60 years and you hope that there will be resolution. But if you live for just another 20 and this goes on for another 60 still, then you will have missed the opportunity to be in communion with the Church that Christ founded while you wait for others to make the decision for you.

Follow Neuhaus. Don’t wait for something that may or may not happen because God is giving you the opportunity to make it happen in your own life, right now. You cannot abdicate your responsibility to seek after Truth and follow where it leads.

 

[benedictus2]

Howdy WMSCOTT. While Benedictus rests maybe we can chat . Apart from RP , I have stated before curiosity as to why Christ did not refer to the lamb as Himself , instead of the bread. I believe at least three elements of Passover had symbolic Christological meaning ;lamb ,bread, wine.

Because if you read all last supper accounts, there was no mention of a lamb. If you go by John’s Gospel, Christ was crucified at the time that they were slaughtering the passover lamb. Therefore this would have happened before the legal passover so there would not have been lamb at the table at the last supper.

Which is what makes the last supper truly amazing. There was no lamb because in eating the bread, the apostles were in fact eating the Lamb of God, the Lamb that was to be sacrificed the following day. It is as if the Last Supper was somehow outside of time and yet in time.

And this is the same thng that happens at every Mass - heaven and earth meet at the altar, time and eternity converge.

At the last supper they ate/drank all three, yet only two “carry” His essence (body ,spirit etc) .I could see that He was the Lamb , hence no lamb needed. But He was also the unleavened bread (perfect ,without sin) , and wine (blood). From my understanding, the unleavened bread stood for purity (of God) and Israel’s goal to be as holy .Also "grace’ was said after the eating the lamb , not before. The “Passover” often refers to sacrifice while “Feast of Unleavened Bread” refers to the feast following sacrifice. Perhaps the significance in choosing bread is that it symbolized “feast” as opposed to sacrifice, which Christ finished one time.

Christ made the sacrifice once but it continues. We have a priest in heaven in Christ? What does a priest do? Offer sacrifice, the same sacrifice that He offered on earth - once only but unending.

To make the point, I am reminded of the joke where a man was told by his doctor that in order to lose weight he must eat only once a day. When the doctor checked up on him after a week, he put on even more weight. He ate only once a day but he never stopped.

So , communion is remembrance of His sacrifice, but celebrated also as the “bread feasting” of the OT passover.

The Eucharist is both communion and sacrifice. The table is also an altar.

Maybe that is why early church coined “eucharist” -thanksgiving and had “love feasts”.

It is Eucharist because it is a Todah. Todah is one of the many sacrifices of Israel. There is an old rabbinical saying that all sacrifices will cease except the Todah. Todah is hebrew for “Thanksgiving”. The Todah is a Thanksgiving Sacrifice.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2, so could we then summarize as follows: Christ was the Pascal Lamb and a Passover dinner is not complete until the Lamb is eaten. As cited in the last supper Christ took the bread and said that “this is My body which will be given up for you”. The Pascal Lamb, His body, the Bread (His body). The wine is His blood, the same blood that was shed from the lamb and placed over the doors during Passover. The angel of death knew what real blood was and do you think that TAOD would have passed over a house that symbolically places blood over the door. The wine is the blood from the Pascal Lamb shed on the cross, and it wasn’t until Christ finally accepted wine given to him on a hyssop reed that the 4th cup of the Passover was completed that He died and the Passover was complete.

Very well put!

 

[benedictus2]

Yes ,this is history for a Catholic believer ,and even by some worldly scholars. But again, I would say God was guiding Luther and Wycliffe and Tyndale and Calvin and … These men did not achieve spiritual endeavors by “human powers”.Christ WAS behind them,as much as He was behind an imperfect Peter or Thomas etc.

Just a question, if these spiritual endeavours were not from “human powers” what sort of “spiritual powers” were going before them and leading them . What kind of spiritual powers were they following?

 

[benedictus2]

But in it I see over the last 60 years, not compromise, which of course would lead to failure, but instead a desire toward convergence.

Just another thing that I meant to say earlier but forgot.

If you are so convinced of this convergence and desire this convergence, then you obviously you believe that it is a moral and divine imperative to unite. Otherwise, why work towards it?

If it is so important, why would you set your timetable for unity by this dialogue? If after much study and prayer, you have found that you can accept the teaching of the Church (after all you said convergence is possible), why would you depend on a group to make your decision for you? Why would you wait for them when time is of the essence. We know not how long God will give us to linger on this earth. The time for acting is now.

Once you become convicted of the truth, then as Scott Hahn said - to delay is to disobey.