Literal or Symbolic?...

[Nicea325]

Quote:
the apostles had an office and as such there is a successor

.

David Ruiz:

This is only hearsay ? Tradition. It is not directly scriptural.You would think a biblical record would be given of the actual “succession” , but there is none.

Hearsay? Wrong again! Read Acts and why would Judas need to be replaced,if it is only hearsay? By the way where is the Biblical account of the 12 Apostles exact whereabouts throughout their daily lives? Their daily doings? Sorry David,but the Bible is a book of faith,not a personal diary or score keeper.

 

[david_ruiz]

mistake

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, but it also makes heretics where perhaps there were none before . I count about 3 to 4 Real Presence explanations that seem close and not deserving the title of heretical. A lot of “…stantiations”.

]The Church is a teacher and she has to live up to that call by Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

.

Hearsay? Wrong again! Read Acts and why would Judas need to be replaced,if it is only hearsay? By the way where is the Biblical account of the 12 Apostles exact whereabouts throughout their daily lives? Their daily doings? Sorry David,but the Bible is a book of faith,not a personal diary or score keeper.

Well, I have never heard that one , that appointing a replacement of Judas is text proof of Petrine succession. While we are at it, is the replacement (Matthias) one of the twelve foundations in Rev 21: 14, or was it another taught by Christ himself, possibly for three years in the desert, an apostle named Paul ? Anyways, thank-you for acknowledging that there is no biblical record of the 4 successive popes to Peter, even though they were so during “biblical times”. For my part I will acknowledge that the NT is not a “diary” of the 12 church foundations.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes,by all means I want to read those very words from a primary source. As for his supporters? Sorry David,but that is not the same as saying an actual pope said it himself. I too can say a bunch of stuff about the President of the U.S. but does not mean he said it himself.

History is not presented in such a manner.

Yes, posted ,thread 869

 

[Nicea325]

Well, I have never heard that one , that appointing a replacement of Judas is text proof of Petrine succession. While we are at it, is the replacement (Matthias) one of the twelve foundations in Rev 21: 14, or was it another taught by Christ himself, possibly for three years in the desert, an apostle named Paul ? Anyways, thank-you for acknowledging that there is no biblical record of the 4 successive popes to Peter, even though they were so during “biblical times”. For my part I will acknowledge that the NT is not a “diary” of the 12 church foundations.

Proof-text? Really? Would you call the first deacons as “proof-text” by the Apostles since Jesus NEVER set the office in place?

Acknowledging WHAT? On the contrary,thanks for admitting your deep ignorance that NO WHERE does God teach EVERYTHING has to be said and RECORDED in the Bible!

BTW: Where is the BIBLICAL RECORD to COMPILE a one volume Bible-David? Got a Biblical answer?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, posted ,thread 869

The Papacy" by Paul Johnson. May not be Catholic . Is a British historian .Quote is:"Pope Stephen (254-257) was the first pope to use Matt: 16:18-19 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” ) to justify his sees authority.

Again,you provided a SECONDARY SOURCE. Second,where does Stephen say the words you asserted? Where David?

Yet neither Carthage nor the major sees in the east were prepared to accept papal jurisdiction"…"Cyprian held an African council of bishops because of popes excommunicating for improper baptismal creeds etc…

Primary sources…please!

Cyprian, “It remains that each of us declare his opinion, judging no one,nor depriving anyone of the right of communion if he differs from us .For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops”.

LOL! Was he referring to primacy here? Please provide more information from Cyprian to see what he really meant.

Though Stephen was not mentioned directly here, Firmilian, Bishop of Cappadocia (232-272), wrote to Cyprian that Stephen had claimed Petrine authority to excommunicate others, but had succeeded in only excommunicating himself"…I’d be happy to read any earlier documents using Matt. 18. Again the issue was accepting baptisms from other rites/churches. By the way, Stephen in this decision claimed that baptism is for forgiveness of sins and does NOT transmit the Spirit, hence accepted all “Christian” baptisms, as CC does today.

:yawn: Same ole Protestant classics of slicing and dicing ECF works to present a smoking gun. Try again.

 

[sallybutler]

Christ had previously been known as the “rock”. It is not so simple, especially when two Greek words are used for “rock”, in the same sentence( one for Peter ,one for Christ). I know CC has it’s “explanations” for this, but not held up by all Greek scholars.

You are aware that Jesus didn’t preach in Greek. And the language he used has only one word for rock. Sort of like English.

 

[joe370]

Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?

Well, scripture never mentions Jesus’ symbolic flesh, and Paul seems to believe in a literal interpretation. Of course Jesus did mention that His words were spirit and life, “And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life”:

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.”

The need to discern the Body of Christ seems very clear to me.

 

[joe370]

david ruiz;8566642]" The Papacy" by Paul Johnson. May not be Catholic . Is a British historian .Quote is:“Pope Stephen (254-257) was the first pope to use Matt: 16:18-19 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” ) to justify his sees authority.Yet neither Carthage nor the major sees in the east were prepared to accept papal jurisdiction”…"

What about the council of Chalcedon?

 

[benedictus2]

How so, Cory? You say it must be transubstantiated in a way that Christ chooses not to explain. You say it must be this way, that the Holy Spirit must do it this way.

No one (as far as I know) think of transubstantiation when they are at Mass. All they think of is that Christ is there. That the bread is now the Body and Blood of Christ. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree with the doctrine but I don’t think transubstantiation when I am before the Real Presence.

The only time I think about it is when I am in a forum and and have the need to defend the doctrine. Same thing with the Trinity and the Hypostic Union. You are just there, present before the mystery.

And I think the more present and given over one is to the mystery, the more the doctrine makes sense. Because I know is now longer bread but truly Christ that I can defend the doctrine.

How does that yield to a mystery, when you claim the mystery must be “this way”?

We say the mystery is this way as opposed to that way which is a heretical proposition.
We yield to the mystery of the Trinity and the Htypostatic union and yet explain them in metaphysical terms.

We are intellectual beings. At some point in time we ask quesitons. We know that we can never pierce the Divine Mysteries to its fullness but the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can say what is and is not a proper understanding of this mystery.

A person may not be up to advanced math but one can still say that 1 + 1 is 2 and not 3.

If we truly trust the Holy Spirit and if we truly trust in the promise of Christ, then we know that in matters of doctrine, He will guide His church.

 

[benedictus2]

Ironically, Anna, I have told Cory the same thing. If I had to choose between the metaphysical constructs of Transubstantiation and consubstantiation, if these were the only two choices, I would side with Transubstantiation.

Brilliant! Metaphysically speaking, these are the only two choices.

 

[benedictus2]

I would also choose transubstantiation over consubstantiation.

Excellent!

Agreed. Christ did not explain the metaphysics.

Christ did not explain the Trinity either and yet our formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine is metaphysical.

At one point or another, there arises a necessity to define doctrines or we will all just muddle along in heresy.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes. The pope is nothing more than the successor of Peter. Pope does not detract from the fact that from the beginning, This is only hearsay ? Tradition. It is not directly scriptural.

Oh David. You are so utterly clueless as to what Tradition and Scripture is all about. BEFORE there ever was the NT, there was only Tradition. The New Testament was never part of Holy Scripture until the Catholic Church said so. I hope you will read that twice and remember that.

You would think a biblical record would be given of the actual “succession” , but there is none.

Well duh, It was not necessary because people knew then who it was. There was no such thing as a protestant church who queried its legitimacy.

 

[benedictus2]

.I would suggest however that the name came to be, evolved, as did the ramifications of the office, indeed the office itself.

What do you mean by this?

You know some people don’t think Peter got to Rome .However, Iraneus’s list of Rome’s bishops (and two other cities) , had Peter and Paul as equal founders.

While Paul did eventually get to Rome, Paul was not the founder of the community there. The foundation was already laid when Paul got there.

No,silly would be it dies after 100ad ,about the time of the last holy scripture writing by an aging John.So with 70 years of "church " and several successors (maybe 4) to Peter, and you have zilch in error free historical data (scriptural) of such succession.

Error free historial data (scriptural) ?Do you even know that the Church was the one who came up with New Testament?

Yes, I am well aware of CC basis for papacy - plenty of threads on it. Fact is no such interpretation took hold until 3-4 th century.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

How do you know that there is no such understanding before Clement of Alexandria in AD200?

Please show that prior to the 200AD they believed differently and that Clement invented a non-existent understanding.

Christ had previously been known as the “rock”. It is not so simple, especially when two Greek words are used for “rock”, in the same sentence( one for Peter ,one for Christ). I know CC has it’s “explanations” for this, but not held up by all Greek scholars.

True, Christ is Rock and guess what. This Rock made Peter the Rock. God the Father and God the Son made Peter the Rock. You are arguing aginst the God who declared it so.

In any group dynamic you have a leader, but I would not call it an office,

Christ’s Church happens to be NOT JUST any group dynamic. Christ Church is product of the Divine Will.

If you are saying that the Church is nothing more than a human institution, then you are saying that Christ is only man not God because He is the one who established it.

nor do I think the Lord designated one either, for He said those are the ways of men.

Then sorry to say this but you think wrong.

Furthermore, twice after the rock discourse , where CC claims Peter is head honcho , you have quarreling apostles as to who would be greater, or sit at His right. Didn’t they understand Papacy dogma ?

You are descending to painfull silliness David.

What Papacy Dogma and what has that got to do with the dispute between the apostles?

Further James is “president” of the first council at Jerusalem …

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem but he was not president of the council. You are reading Acts wrong.

.Peter is first among equals .He was a leader indeed, beloved and most known, as with Paul.

But Peter, not Paul was the Rock upon which Christ built His Church.
[qutoe] Scripture gives him no deference otherwise as noted in Revelations where all twelve apostles lay equal foundation to the “church”.
Then you must be ignorant of Scripture if you can say that. And the sad thing is you prefer to remain ignorant. You are so by choice.

Yes, but not in scripture, where she is known geographically, as congregations of cities, all under Christ.

No she was not referred to as congregations of cities. You are inventing things again.

She was simply referred to as the Church in this or that state or country because all these belong to the same Catholic Church.

The church here had “universal” qualities.

The Church did not have universal qualities. The church was universal. There is no such thing as having “universal” qualities. Being universal is the “quality”.

She later became known by the “catholic” name (evolving from an adjective to a noun). Catholic is Greek for universal

She was called Catholic becuase she was and always is one.

 

[benedictus2]

No, I take it up with you and CC’s interpretation of what Christ said, which originated in 3-4th century, as I am sure you are well aware of the pope that made that interpretational claim.

Sorry but the interpretation you speak of is completely grounded on Scripture. Scripture which happens to be a Catholic book. And the claim is so plainly supported there that only those who have ulterior motives would read it otherwise.

Revelations quite clearly says the twelve apostles are foundation.The twelve apostles had same keys , for in fact Christ had them, as shown in Revelations.Yes, Peter used them first.

The apostles are the foundation of the Church as well but you cannot get away from Scriptural data that says Christ singled out Peter and told him that His Church will be built upon him. That is very plain to see.

He prayed for many things besides unity.

Yes, but he did not pray for disunity which the deformers effected. Disunity can only ever be the will of the evil one. Christ gathers, the devil scatters and those who listen to the devil scatters as well.

Alas, you hold on to unity as the speck in our eye but fail to see the…Well, sin separates, and shame on us all.

Exactly. Sin separates us all which means our seperation is brought about by sin. Therefore the “reformation” cannot be anything but born of sin, born of a lie.

 

[joe370]

David Ruiz, you said:

the apostles had an office and as such there is a successor.
This is only hearsay ? Tradition. It is not directly scriptural.

So it is your belief that unless a teaching or a practice is found directly in scripture it is not to be believed?

You would think a biblical record would be given of the actual “succession” , but there is none.

The apostolic age closed around the turn of the 1st century with the death of saint John. How could one expect there to be a record of Petrine succession in one of the books of the NT?

You mean something like this in one of the books in the NT?

“For, if the order of succession of Bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus, Evaristus…etc etc…” (Letters, No 53) Augustine

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, but it also makes heretics where perhaps there were none before .

Huh? How is that supposed to make sense?

I count about 3 to 4 Real Presence explanations that seem close and not deserving the title of heretical. A lot of “…stantiations”.

Once the Church has declared what is the true interpretation, then the rest are heretical.

Could this be possibly false ?

No.

The Church is the Body of Christ .In it are many members .Some are teachers,

The Church is herarchical just as Jesus intended. The church is both matter and magistra - our mother and our teacher.

and yet scripture says in the days of the Holy Spirit ,“every neighbor will teach his neighbor”.

Which chapter and verse are you referring to? Are you referring to Jer 31/Heb 8? Because if so, you have completely misquoted it.

very member is a reflection of truth , a pillar of truth.

What??!! Every man is a pillar of truth? Are you into manufacturing your own scripture now? Your interpretation is getting worse and worse.

If not the Body , then who ?

The Church. The magisterium of the Church.

I have wondered how something explained is still a mystery. Mystery is defined as, “any truth that is unknowable except by divine revelation”.

And how does transubstantiation destroy the mystery of how it is possible that the bread is no longer bread but Christ? If anything, it affirms the mystery. We say touch, see, taste says bread, but it really is Christ becuase the substance has now changed.

Do you believe the Trinity is a mystery? Did the doctrine regarding the Trinity make it any less a mystery. Did saying that Christ is consubstantial with the Father somehow made it no longer a mystery?

Hence the gospel is a mystery.

How? Which gospel are you talking about? Which part of the Gospel?
Are you talking about the Incarnation?

So is God’s will, grafting of gentiles ( Christ in us), the wisdom of God, two becoming one as Christ and the church are one, God and the Father and Christ, faith, godliness, iniquity etc. are all mysteries .That is, divine revelation opens the knowledge and discernment of those things

So? What is your point here?

Was the hypostatic union given by divine revelation? Was the Trinity?

. No where does it say this revelation will be given to a magisterium only.

Tell me, did every single Christian come up with the definition of the Tritnity? Of the Hypostatic Union? Or did that come to us through the magisterium?

Remember, Christ had many followers but He only chose 12.

These are common mysteries capable of every member of the body having some knowledge thereof , according to His giftings etc. One of those giftings is the desire in ones heart to apprehend them. By definition ,our position claims divine revelation to the knowledge, unlocking the “mystery”.

So you are claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit in your and every one else’s understandng? Since we disagree, therefore it seems the Holy Spirit does not every really know the truth because He tells you one thing and tells others another.

That is right .Some things are not meant to be kept a secret, a mystery .The Holy Spirit will illumine whom He will, and whom ever searches Him out.

And the illumination of the Holy Spirit was given to His Church not to every Tom, Dick and Harry who claims to be so enlightened. If you claim otherwise then you are claiming that David Koresh and every cultic suicidal nut must be so guided as well.

 

[benedictus2]

Not me. I’m just saying Christ didn’t say, regarding metaphysics.

And neither did He regarding the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. So should we eschew these doctrines because they are metaphysical pronouncements that did not come from His mouth?

My intention is not to take this as condescending. Our history of friendly and cordial dialogue won’t allow me to do so.

And neither did He regarding the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. So should we eschew these doctrines because they are metaphysical pronouncements that did not come from His mouth?

What did Christ say? Held held BREAD, and said, “This IS my body”. Prior to consecration it is mere bread. By the power of the Holy Spirit when the words of consecration are spoken, it is the body of Christ.

Exactly. It IS the Body of Christ. Christ’s Body is not In, With, Under the Bread. Instead the Bread IS His Body. IS- being. Not location. The being of the bread is the being of Christ.

Our senses perceive the form of bread, yet it is the body of Christ. And since we do not, cannot know (Christ chooses not to tell us) how this miracle happens, we receive the true body of Christ in, with, and under what our senses perceive as bread.

If the Body is IWU then it is not IS. If you receive the Body of Christ In, the Bread, With the Bread then the Bread IS NOT the Body of Christ.
This is what you fail to grasp. IWU and IS are mutually exclusive.
Let me give another example. When we say that two are united sacramentally in marriage, the husband cannot say I am my wife and the wife cannot say I am my husband.
That is why only Transubstantiation and not sacramental union makes sense if we are to affirm that we see bread and yet we say it IS the bodyf of Christ.

This is exactly right. See above for the meaning of this!!!

If that is right, then the bread IS NOT the Body of Christ. If the bread IS the Body of Christ, thent that is wrong.

Of course bread exists. That is what Christ held. But with the words of consecration and the power of the Holy Spirit, it is no longer mere bread. It is called and truly is the body of Christ.

No longer MERE bread? When you say it is no longer “mere” bread, then it is still bread, just not “mere”. It is bread that has somehow taken on heightened properties, perhaps even supernatural properties if you like, but it is still bread – just not mere and therefore that bread IS NOT the Body of Christ. **For it to BE the Body of Christ, then it must no longer BE bread. **

Exactly.

If that is so then Christ is not In, With, Under the Bread which negates sacramental union.

It is what Christ said.

Christ did not say my body is In, With, Under the bread. He did not say that He is united to the bread.

 

[benedictus2]

Where did I say “only”. When you receive the blessed sacrament, do your senses not perceive bread? Yet you know you are receiving His body.

Exactly! That is why only Transubstantiation can make sense of this disconnect between perception and reality. No other explanation makes sense. The Lutheran explanation just does not cut it.

This truly is 2 conflicting ideas.

No these are not two conflicting ideas. The conflict lies not in the ideas but in the sense perception and reality. Transubstantiation is the only one that makes sense of this.

So, yes. I am affirming two conflicting ideas - 1) my senses perceive bread, 2) Christ’s words confirm that it is called and truly is the body of Christ

No you are not affirming these two. That is what Transubstantiation affirms.

What you are affirming is that Christ is IWU the Bread and at the same time say that Christ IS the bread. They can’t both be true. You need to take your pick which one you will affirm.

Another analogy. If you put blue dye in water, the water will turn blue such that save for a highly advanced chemical process the two cannot be seperated.

The dye can then be said to be In, Under, With the water but the dye is not the water and the water is not the dye.

So, the Holy Spirit is incapable of doing this.

Is an omnipotent God capable of creating a weight He cannot lift?

You are asking the Holy Spirit to affirm something illogical? Our reason flows from God’s own reason. God cannot contradict Himself. He cannot say He IS the Bread and yet be only In, With Under the bread.

The Holy Spirit is required to perform the greatest of all miracles in a way that fits your human perception.

No, you are requiring the Holy Spirit to make it fit your human perception because it is easier to conceive that the God is In, With, Under the bread than that the God IS the bread.

When we give communion we say the Body of Christ not In, With, Under this bread is the Body of Christ.

I didn’t say “just”.

No you didn’t but if IWU then “just”. It IS NOT Christ. Christ is just IWU. IWU is NOT IS.

Read what I have written. Read what the Lutheran confessions have written. We do not say it is contained, or co-mingled, or creates a new substance. I not only say I’m not saying these things. I. in fact, am not saying these things.

No John, read what you have written and pass it through logic and reason. Read the Lutheran confession and pass it through logic and reason. Based on the principle of non contradiction the Lutheran confession is asking you to affirm contradictory propositions. This is a case of either/or. They cannot be both true. You have to take your pick.

If you affirm sacramental union and IWU then you deny that it IS the Body of Christ.

Because they are not disjointed. They only appear that way to you because you are fixed on substance and accidents.

But they are disjointed. And it is only “substances and accidents” that make them not disjointed. IWU and SU leaves them disjointed.

Well there you are. As an American, like our founders, I do not believe in democracy. Instead I believe in the rule of the people through a constitutional representative republic - our form of government.

So the US is not a democracy?

Even your comparison seems to miss the point.

No it doesn’t. What you have just done is show that you indeed missed the point. You basically just said that a rule of the people through constitutional representative republic is not a democracy. Maybe you might want to update Wikipedia and advise the Whitehouse.