- Status
A
Abu
Guest
False. There has been disagreement from the beginning – the personal preferences due to Original Sin – Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1). See below.
Where did Christ promise to send the Holy Spirit to teach “you everything and remind you of all that I told you."?
In John 14:26.
Where did Christ promise to build His Church to teach mankind with His authority?
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
‘Christ Himself emphasized: “The truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32), and St Paul: “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim 3:15).
There is nothing “vague” about the Christ, His Church or Her Scriptures – only in the minds of the confused.
As Jesus founded His Own Church with St Peter as Her Leader, and no other, only She can proclaim what is Truth and what is error. As the Christ does not allow His Church to teach error on faith and morals to the whole Church the truth is guaranteed.
In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.
Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).
After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).
Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
We are warned against the doubters and those who support falsehood:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
P
Peter_J
Guest
Sounds good except that whoever holds this momentum will have the postings of Thor.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Right, so why did the Church believe she had to formally canonize the Scriptures so late in time? And was the canon ever such a source of contention for the early Church? It seems that the canon only seemed to be ‘problematic’ when disputes of doctrine arose. For us, there were important men and councils in the early Church who, as you say, ‘fixed’ or addressed with certain authority what constituted Sacred Scriptures. The Church usually declares things with her authority to avoid problems and conflicts. So the actual recognition and selection/use of the Sacred Scriptures was a more traditional and natural process, but authority eventually became important during certain periods in order to avoid doubt and divided opinions. Nevertheless, that always happens anyway… but for those who respect and give reverence to Church authority, it means Confirmation from above and assurance, through this faith, that what is declared can be believed on wholly and firmly.
Well, I hope to have lots of good fellowship with you and dont doubt that I can learn much from you. But understand I cant exactly support this ordination.
I do believe the men through history who had a hand in the process of Sacred Scripture were inspired! Each point in history has its own context, and individuals can have various motives, but the inspiration has been over the general development of Scriptures history.
We dont follow the majority of member opinions, nor give these private opinions any authority, rather recognize the doctrine of the Church itself as authoritative. The Teachings of the Apostolic Church are what we profess as from our Lord.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
It seems as if I misunderstood the semantics involved and it also seems to me that the “semantics” seem more important to some than the fact that the Eucharist Is Jesus.
I thank you for “butting into this conversation”, even though I do NOT look at it that way, since I went back and saw the “semantics” but I have been places where people said pretty much that the Lutherans, and others, only looked at the Eucharist, symbolically.
Jesus really did seem to go out of His way to impress upon us, and those that were physically present at the time, that He meant it literally and not just symbolically.
I “know” that it is literal and I believe that it is also symbolic.
S
spedteacherita
Guest
No, we Lutherans do not believe that Holy Communion is purely symbolic. We know that Christ is fully there but Luther used the words “in, with and under.” We just do not teach or call it transubstantiation…
Hard to keep track of us, I know…
God bless!!
Rita
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well I wasn’t there of course, but possibly the person meant that some Lutherans look at the Eucharist symbolically. But I also don’t want to rule out the possibility that he/she was speaking of something without knowing. (I know, I know it sounds shocking. But from my experience on Internet forums I can promise that it really does happen.
)
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
I knew that Martin Luther believed in the True Presence and I thought that Lutherans believed in the True Presence.No, we Lutherans do not believe that Holy Communion is purely symbolic. We know that Christ is fully there but Luther used the words “in, with and under.” We just do not teach or call it transubstantiation…
Hard to keep track of us, I know…
God bless!!
Rita
I misunderstood when you wrote, “Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation”, thinking you meant that Lutherans didn’t believe in the True Presence.
And as I wrote, it sometimes “seems to me that the “semantics” seem more important to some than the fact that the Eucharist Is Jesus”.
To me, it does not matter if it is “transubstantiation or consubstantiation or some other kind of substantiation”, I happen to know that it is Jesus, just how doesn’t matter to me, since it was the Holy Spirit that revealed that the Eucharist Is Jesus to me at a Catholic Mass.
By the way, before this happened, I did not “know” that the Eucharist Is Jesus but I did believe it.
This is one of the reasons that I have said many times that the words (know and believe) do not mean the same thing.
Seems to me that the Eucharist being Jesus is more important that having the “right theological terminology” in speaking about It.
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s all well and good to just say “I don’t know and I don’t understand how”.
Except that the human mind is ordered towards wanting to know and understand how.
And we are commanded to try to understand how.
So it’s odd to me that folks, esp. those who are grounded in science and academics who want to know the how and why in other things, seem to be so ok with not knowing the how and why in some cases.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Are you sure?Well I wasn’t there of course, but possibly the person meant that some Lutherans look at the Eucharist symbolically. But I also don’t want to rule out the possibility that he/she was speaking of something without knowing. (I know, I know it sounds shocking. But from my experience on Internet forums I can promise that it really does happen.
THAT IS QUITE SHOCKING!
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
We happen to be speaking about the Eucharist, are you trying to tell me that you “know” how Jesus changes bread and wine into His Body and Blood?
Could be “that the human mind is ordered towards wanting to know and understand how” and it could also be that there are some things that are beyond the human mind.
As far as, “And we are commanded to try to understand how”, if you are speaking about the “how” of the Eucharist, just where are we commanded something such as this?
You wrote, “So it’s odd to me that folks, esp. those who are grounded in science and academics who want to know the how and why in other things, seem to be so ok with not knowing the how and why in some cases.”
Well, if they are not “ok with not knowing the how and why in some cases” than I would say that it is their problem since, like it or not, there are things beyond our human understanding.
I “know” that God Is a Being of Love and I know/believe/think that this is something that is very beyond my conceptualization or of anybody’s coming to know this from a merely rational or human perspective.
There are also things that I believe that are also way beyond my understanding but I do understand enough to know that that is just the way that it is.
P
PRmerger
Guest
There is no need to go to such extremes with, “Oh, so you’re saying you know how transubstantiation works, eh?”
I am simply saying that it’s odd to me that any human being would not try to apprehend the mystery of the Eucharist and to be simply ok with, “I have no idea how it happens.”
To try to apprehend the mystery, which is what I try to do, is NOT the same as saying, “So I know how it happens.”
Just like a math student who knows that there is an answer, I try to work my way through the problem to come to a better understanding.
I don’t get the guy who says, “I don’t understand and I don’t care to understand.”
You wouldn’t accept your child saying that to his teacher. So I don’t think God accepts that from us.
T
Telstar
Guest
Maybe this whole section of the Catechism can explain “how” the Holy Eucharist becomes the True Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It’s not just the words of blessing performed by any individual, but by an individual who has been specifically singled out from among the faithful to perform that function. This is a small part of that section:1140 It is the whole community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, that celebrates. "Liturgical services are not private functions but are celebrations of the Church which is ‘the sacrament of unity,’ namely, the holy people united and organized under the authority of the bishops. Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church. They manifest it, and have effects upon it. But they touch individual members of the Church in different ways, depending on their orders, their role in the liturgical services, and their actual participation in them."7 For this reason, "rites which are meant to be celebrated in common, with the faithful present and actively participating, should as far as possible be celebrated in that way rather than by an individual and quasi-privately."8
1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 This “common priesthood” is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:10
1142 **But “the members do not all have the same function.”**12 Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an “icon” of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop’s ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.
1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 This “common priesthood” is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:10
Code:
*Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.11*
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
I don’t think that it is an extreme at all and if anything I think that the “why” of the Eucharist is more important to ponder that the “how”.
I don’t know about anyone else but I have to say, “I have no idea how it happens.” and know that I am speaking personal truth and for that matter, I don’t care “how” it happens but what I find more interesting is just what might be some of the “reasons” “why” Jesus did this?
What do you mean by “mystery”?
I don’t look at the Eucharist as a problem to be worked out but if you are speaking more of the why as opposed to the how, than I can understand you wanting to have a “better understanding”.
Again, if the “guy” is me, I am just being honest with myself and acknowledging that some things are beyond my understanding.
One thing that I believe concerning the Eucharist is that I believe that God knew that I needed to “know” a little and not just have a belief.
I happen to believe that God created us and I believe that God knows that we have limitations so I, most definitely, believe that God knows that some things are beyond our understanding.
I, also most definitely, believe that God likes honesty.
A
Abu
Guest
What valid reason do you have to doubt God the Son and His Church, guided by His Supreme Vicar and protected from error in teaching dogma and doctrine to all by His Word – “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)?
The document of the Vatican Council II known as Dignitatis Humanae at section 14, actually tells one how certainty is to be accomplished:
“However, in forming their consciences, the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself.”
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think I understand where you’re coming from. Until about a dozen years ago, I thought that consubstantiation was the height of Protestant belief about the Eucharist, ie distinguishing Lutherans from those Protestant who (as I might have put it) “don’t even believe in consubstantiation.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
This post prompts the response by Dave Armstrong:
THE RADICAL AND BIZARRE ALL-TOO-COMMON PROTESTANT “QUEST FOR UNCERTAINTY”
Some Protestants make such a big stinking deal about how Catholics like to have “certainty” and how silly and foolish – almost “infantile” – that supposedly is (as if it were some foreign concept in Scripture). It’s not at all! One anti-Catholic tonight even ridiculously compared this to being nearly mentally ill, or on the path to same, anyway.
I flip that canard around and talk about how many Protestants are on a “quest for uncertainty” that never ends. I have many papers along those lines, because it’s a very common theme. They glory in it. They think it’s great (rather than a tragic scandal) that they can’t figure lots of things out in Christianity and that their sects endlessly contradict each other.
They are forever searching (i.e., those who think like this). I like the treasure hunt as much as the next guy (and I joyously found the pearl of great price in 1990), but God wants us to know the truth, so we can fully live by it, not to spend our whole lives searching, as if faith and spirituality were mere philosophy or a sort of “whodunit” where the (lifelong?) search is for the fullness of Christian truth rather than the murderer.
P
Peter_J
Guest
“Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God”
- St Gregory Nazianzen
G
GKC
Guest
Well quoted.
- Status