Papal primacy

[pocohombre]

Continued

I do hope you’ll read more of the Church Fathers sometime. They crushed all doubt about my faith, seeing how they taught and resolved conflict when it arose. It was like a mirror image of the faith I hold now: though weak and human and sinful, men, guided by the Spirit, have been led to all Truth.

They did the same for me.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Look at Peter’s words or answer. He mentions nothing of transubstantiation, not consubstantiation or really anything on the matter.

Yep. And yet, he still knew that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. His answer indicates that he didn’t understand, and yet trusted (believed) Jesus. Would that we all would simply believe Jesus when He says “this is my body” rather than trying to concoct some alternate explainations for this “hard saying.”

I know one thing, At the Last Supper Jesus referred to the so called consecrated wine (His Blood in the chalice) as fruit of the vine.

Sure; we all use phenomenological language.
We even use this type of language in the Mass, even though we certainly believe that it is Jesus’ Body and Blood.

Take note also these departing disciples did not believe “from the beginning”, even before the "eating"command.

It merely says that Jesus KNEW “from the beginning” who believed and who didn’t.

He wanted them to go under those circumstances of not believing from the beginning. Just as the apostles did believe, way before the command.

Perhaps. After all, “believing” (pisteou) in Him means believing His words, even when they’re “difficult.” Some, for instance, have a hard time with His “difficult sayings” here in John 6, and therefore don’t “believe” in Him.

Peter’s reaction was not to deny that this was a “hard saying” but rather to believe in Him even though this was a difficult teaching.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

bible.org/seriespage/sadducees Thanks, you made me read up on it and yes Jesus only quoted the 5 first books when dealing with Sadducees. Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you inferring that tradition could be used also ?

Ezeekl had posted referring to you: In another thread you made mention of Augustine using scripture as his final argument position.

I had inferred that your argument was that St. Augustine must’ve been somewhat of a sola scripturist since he used scripture as a final word in some arguments. My answer was in this context, since, like Jesus, he tailored his argumentation to be based on “common ground.” I.e. if someone believed in only scripture, and not Tradition, he’d restrict his arguments to scriptural ones.

Jesus did use the other books of Hebrew old testament, though not all, during his ministry. He certainly did not use tradition in a positive manner. If anything Jesus was like Augustine and Luther in final authority of scriptures that church/Judaism and individuals rest on.

I’d have to vehemently disagree.
Question: is the Chair of Moses a Jewish Tradition, or is it somewhere in scripture that I haven’t yet seen? Just one example.

And your final sentence is the type of argument I was addressing (re: St. Agustine; Luther is a different story altogether, depending on his own will rather than anything else).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Well,Paul still calls them bread and cup, after consecration, as did our Lord. You want transubstantiation Ok .You want consubstantiation ok . You want spiritual symbol ,OK. Paul does not rebuke them for not understanding that the elements turn into His body/blood. He chastises them for not discerning Calvary in the commemoration.

Really? In all my Bibles, St. Paul chastises them for not discerning** “the body.”** Surely your Bible can’t be THAT far off.

Yes, totally agree, just that you and I have different definition of what “church” is. Fact is for centuries differing views on “communion” and real presence were acceptable.

Only insofar as the nuances of the change in substance. The belief in the Real Presence at the hands of an ordained representative of the Apostles or their successors was believed as far back as we have any evidence for.

You say you’ve read the ECF, but I think you’d better take another look.

When did the CC come out with a doctrine on the matter that had to be believed ?

Sometime before St. Paul wrote 1Corinthians 11.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

How thrilling. You gave the exact answer I was hoping for. And you seem acquainted with Vatican 1.

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church…”

“For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith…”

“Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the world—should agree with the Roman Church…”

“Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received **from the beginning **of the Christian faith…”

And Leo 13 affirming Vatican 1:

“Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but** the venerable and constant belief of every age**.”

Ever been understood? Known to all ages? At all times necessary? The venerable and constant belief of every age? Let’s not kid ourselves, this is saying there was no development. You say “of course there’s been development” - and you’re right, every man and his dog knows there’s been development - but Vatican 1 says this tradition was received “from the beginning”. It was not.

Interestingly enough, when I searched the 'net to get the actual context of the quotes you provided, I found this interesting rebuttal to the argument. Since this author addresses it well, I thought I’d just “borrow” his words:

There is a serious assumption made here by the author that invalidates this entire paragraph. The assumption is that becuase a doctrine was known, that eliminates any “development.” Well, I ask yout, did the Apostles teach the Trinity as a doctrine? You know the answer is “Yes, of course they did.” You also know very well that this doctrine did indeed, “develop” throughout the first 300 + years of Christianity! It is a historical fact that the Council of Nicaea was called to combat the Arian heresy which denied Jesus was ‘eternal’, much like Mormons and JW’s today. Therefore, you are in grave error assuming a doctrine cannot develop even if it is known.

 

[ezeekl]

I’ll bite. "16th century inventions? Be specific.

Protestantism in all its myriad of forms, is that specific enough?

Anywho, tell me about the 2nd Council of Nicea. How many examples of icon worship/veneration/call it what you will, do you suppose the council found from the first 3 centuries in support of the practice? You wouldn’t want your doctrine to be the “invention of man” would you? By the way, the answer is one, and it was in a pagan context not Christian. But you can do that research on your own time if truth matters.

Gee I wonder where you got that little tidbit of information about only one icon from the first three centuries from. Could not have been from the council because, quite frankly, they did not assemble to conduct a historic inventory. So let’s look at icon veneration but let’s do away with the protestant spin, Okay? Icons tell a story just as much as the printed page in your Bible. You probably never thought of your Bible as iconographic did you? Knowing how to translate icons has never been developed in protestant denominations so it is no wonder that they are totally misunderstood. None the less, the seventh ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, was held in 787AD. The primary reason for the council was the heresy of Iconoclasm. Iconoclasm comes from the Greek Eikonoklasmos, and means “Image-breaking”. One of the primary cause for the heresy; but not the only one, was the effect of Moslem influence. To Moslems, and Jews too, any kind of picture, statue, or representation of the human form is an abominable idol. Did you know that you shared this belief with Islam? Anyway, another was the Paulician heresy which held that all matter (especially the human body) is bad, that all external religious forms, sacraments, rites, especially material pictures and relics, should be abolished. Sounds downright protestant don’t they? Since the seventh century these heretics had been allowed to have occasional great influence at Constantinople. In addition, a Nestorian bishop, Xenaeas of Hierapolis, was a conspicuous forerunner of the Iconoclasts. It was when the iconoclasts got the ear of the Emperor Leo III (716-41) that the persecution began. The emperor came to the conclusion that images were the chief hindrance to the conversion of Jews and Moslems, the cause of superstition, weakness, and division in his empire, and opposed to the First Commandment. The campaign waged against images was part of a general reformation of the Church and State by the emperor. Leo III’s idea was to purify the Church, centralize it as much as possible under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and thereby strengthen and centralize the State of the empire. That is how the iconoclast movement started. Thereupon begins a series of communications between the emperor and the Pope. The emperor wants to destroy the images and demands that the pope do likewise in order to preserve peace in the empire. The Pope says no and tells the emperor that it is he, the emperor, that is upsetting the peace in the empire. The emperor responded with threats. Meanwhile the persecution raged in the East. Monasteries were destroyed, monks put to death, tortured, or banished. The Iconoclasts began to apply their principle to relics also, to break open shrines and burn the bodies of saints buried in churches. Some of them rejected all intercession of saints (How protestant of them!) Anyway, all in all the controversy about icons lasted almost a full century until it was pretty obvious that it would continue on unless something was done. And thus we have the Second Council of Nicea in 787. The council lasted about a month and promulgated twenty-two canons relating to points of discipline. The seventh session of October 13, 787, was especially important. At it was read the horos, or dogmatic decision, of the council. The fathers made their definition which stated basically that images are to receive veneration (proskynesis), not adoration (latreia); the honor paid to them is only relative (schetike), for the sake of their prototype. And that, my friend, is a long, long way from worship as your 16th century man made invention alleges.

And, ezeekl, let me ask you a direct question that is quite on the topic of papal primacy: do you believe Catholic doctrine on the papacy developed?

Sure, depending of course, on what you mean by developed. Has it changed? No. It has always been a doctrine of the church and is implicit in the New Testament.

 

[pocohombre]

I can’t believe you just used Ireneaus to say that the Catholic Church says Scripture is ambiguous.

Well it might be considered ambiguous if you need a magisterium to interpret for you, or that you equally rely on tradition to be further enlightened.So ambiguous in the sense that you and scripture is not enough

Here, he shows how the heretics of his time used Scripture (and only Scripture) to prove their positions:

“and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce…” Which is it, they (heretics) only took scripture or said they had tradition on their side ? Seems to be both. As a matter of fact what does “via voce” mean ? Is that saying tradition is better because the church was founded before there was even a bible, that the gospel was orally transmitted so you can’t just go by “scripture” ? Is that what heretics put forth back then , viva voce, by word of mouth ? Pandoras box. Anyways, anybody using the same argument today ? The more things change…

Here, he gives a proof that the heretics are in error: they
differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error.

Perhaps but again we are all subject to this. .Do you really think there is unanimous consent of the fathers on all things ? Do you really think that what one Pope believes,says, decrees,practices is in perfect harmony with all predecessors ? Topics like purgatory, infant baptism, limbo, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, auditory confession, freedom of conscience papal power vs conciliarism, infallibility etc were all debated with differing spirits on the matter,some for centuries.

How about this one, in which he gives reasons as to why he is correct, and the heretics wrong, by appealing to Tradition and Apostolic Succession:

Well, you know how it goes with word of mouth (tradition), the closer you get to the source the better .They were only several generations away from the last apostle and I sure would use it in my arsenal of truth as I still would today, but not as much. Iraneus did a good job of combatting gnosticism, the idea that there was private knowledge/revelation to be had, or that the apostles kept things to themselves.This was not the case. The apostles told all and carefully anointed presbyters from amongst all their disciples to carry on the work .
As you would admonish me to be “apostolic”, I would admonish you also not to use succession divisively, like “I am of Peter, or I am of Paul and you are not”. One can start out with a good thing as Iraneus did with succession, and go to far to institutionalize or even mechanize the truth.

 

[Abu]

Heart Foam #222
all we get here are Catholics using private judgement
Sure, Ireneaus’ comments on the heretics apply well enough to JWs and Mormons, but that is how Catholicism operates too, isn’t it? All 3 groups say Scripture is ambiguous and that only their organisation can interpret it.

What a hoot. For the simpleton, Jesus wrote nothing.

He gave us His Church and Christ Himself proclaimed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18). “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

She gave us the New Testament which the simpleton then distorts to his own destruction as the N.T. emphasises.

The failure to understand Christ, His Church, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium is highlighted in Sacred Scripture, and solved only by Christ’s Catholic Church:
St Paul’s epistles have “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

The Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah was asked by Philip who had been moved by the Holy Spirit – “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, ‘How can I unless some man show me?’ And he asked Philip to come and sit with him.” [Acts 8:30-31].

 

[pocohombre]

Yep. And yet, he still knew that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. His answer indicates that he didn’t understand, and yet trusted (believed) Jesus.

Yes, some say, even myself, that Peter did not fully know at the time. Yet I have also said not to be to quick to sell him short. He may very well have taken it “metaphorically”. I mean I would if Jesus is still in front of me, as is the consecrated bread and wine. I partake and eat bread and wine. Jesus says he will not partake again of the wine(after consecration) any more. He did not call it “blood” again. The apostles were more or less aware of His impending death, hence the true symbolism. So we have no indication that Peter did not take it metaphorically.

Would that we all would simply believe Jesus when He says “this is my body” rather than trying to concoct some alternate explainations for this “hard saying.”
Sure; we all use phenomenological language.

This is simply believe, explanations like transubstantiation, phenomenolgical ? No, belief in real symbolism is straightforward without concoction. As far as hard saying you miss the context. The context is Jesus giving His life, of dying, is it not? He certainly did not infer that we are to eat Him while He is alive. Why do you focus on the eating as the primary context and not the dying ? The dying of the supposed savior of Israel ? The Messiah who was to kick out the Romans and establish an eternal throne ? The Messiah who would feed them forever ? The messiah who would heal them etc. etc. He was being swarmed by the masses, even after He tries to leave them. They kept on a comin,and supposedly a followin. Yet He was going to die ? Why do you think Jesus said to them ,"Man, you can’t even handle this saying, that I should die (so you can eat me). How are you gonna handle if I were to tell you I must not only die, but resurrect and ascend back to heaven ??? What! Why did he tell them this ? Because it is the primary context, not transubstantiation. They were all like Peter earlier when he rebuked the Lord for insinuating He was NOT going to die and Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me Satan”. The hard saying was that he was going to die, and in a beautifully sharp sword of a word that cut two ways, he separated the goats from the sheep. He veiled the truth to the goats with the eating. Yet for the apostles, they would be rewarded with the beauty of the real symbolic eating in future commemorations.

It merely says that Jesus KNEW “from the beginning” who believed and who didn’t.

Merely ? Jesus had a problem. People were following Him for the wrong reason. And how do you get rid of disciples who do not really believe in the program? How do you break them from a false salvation because of their unbelief ? It would have been wrong for Jesus to let them continue, else they could never be truly saved . You think he never corrected them about the eating and conclude it was all about transubstantiation. No, He never corrected them for what I just put forth. Why would He cast pearls before swine ? Why do you think he spoke in parables ? The hyperbole of eating was perfect in solving the problem. Three times he rubbed in the “eating”, even with not just “eating” but finally with a word that meant “gnawing”. Do you “gnaw”'at the consecrated wafer ? No. But faith in his Blood ( what the wine represents) is everything. That must be done with all your heart, soul and mind, even to your death (in baptism). That is “eating” , even “gnawing”.

 

[pocohombre]

Ezeekl had posted referring to you: In another thread you made mention of Augustine using scripture as his final argument position.I had inferred that your argument was that St. Augustine must’ve been somewhat of a sola scripturist since he used scripture as a final word in some arguments. My answer was in this context, since, like Jesus, he tailored his argumentation to be based on “common ground.” I.e. if someone believed in only scripture, and not Tradition, he’d restrict his arguments to scriptural ones.

 

[pocohombre]

Really? In all my Bibles, St. Paul chastises them for not discerning** “the body.”** Surely your Bible can’t be THAT far off.

Well, it is His body representatively. My bible also says He is a Door, a Shepherd, the Greek alphabet alpha and omega and I suppose all in between, a gate, the vine, light etc.

Only insofar as the nuances of the change in substance. The belief in the Real Presence at the hands of an ordained representative of the Apostles or their successors was believed as far back as we have any evidence for.
You say you’ve read the ECF, but I think you’d better take another look.

I have. They refer to the cup and loaf, and thanksgiving. This idea of representing a sacrifice back to God is not there. The idea of giving thanksgiving for the sacrifice He gave us, consecrated at Calvary for us is primary. Hence the word caught on of “eucharist” meaning “thanksgiving”. You also have the admonition of having a presider or president at the gathering. Later you see admonition for the presbyter, elder to preside, for the sake of order /and proper conduct, not to transubstantiate . But this is only the first hundred years. You do have one letter that is similar to Paul’s epistles that the bread is His body.

Sometime before St. Paul wrote 1Corinthians 11.

Well my guess is that transubstantiation was certainly defined around 9th century and later by Aquinas 12-13 th century , I think. For sure at Trent (1500) it was anathema to say what I state. But not totally sure, hence I asked. Thanks.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #227
Don’t follow what you are saying with the “I shall not drink”

That’s because you don’t follow much of what Jesus taught.

#215
At the Last Supper Jesus referred to the so called consecrated wine (His Blood in the chalice) as fruit of the vine.

Jesus referred to Himself only – “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." He does not need to be fed with Himself – He fed His Apostles – “26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, **“Take, eat; this is my body.” **27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”.” (Mt 26:26-28).

St Paul taught the truth which the non-believers try to deny:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
“Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11: 26,27).

“further denial of Jesus, by all of the false suppositions, disregarding Jesus Himself as with:
sacraments of Penance (Reconciliation), Confirmation” – his #227: We don’t think they are apostolic

1. Christ exercised the power of forgiving sins frequently, and gave it to his Apostles:
   First to Peter, later to all the Apostles: Mt 16:19; 18:18. (Reconciliation) Post #148.
2. “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (Jn 20:22-23).

Thus is his denial of Christ made evident.

his #227: We do believe in the annointing of the sick
Without the sacrament of Holy Orders (the priesthood) instituted by Christ, there is no sacrament of anointing.

The results are evident in the promotion of divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual/lesbian pretensions to “marriage”, to name a few, and the national promotion of all of these in many countries --** his #227: **it affects both “churches” in all countries
The degradation of Christ’s teaching by all of these grave evils is now excused from his Protestant sectarian capitulation and applied to the secular State, as if all the evils were doctrinally condemned by Protestant sects!

But these denials cannot even understand that all of the major developments also in agriculture, universities, arts, science, law and economics came from the Catholic teaching on faith and reason and that application to the real world.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I have. They refer to the cup and loaf, and thanksgiving.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Here is a website that quotes the Church Fathers extensively. I can see already from the very first quote from Clement of Rome, that they considered the Eucharist an oblation.

Oblation: a thing presented or offered to God

But no matter how many times someone points out the fathers, and how they came to conclusions based on councils, and how Christ promised to guide us to all Truth, it makes no difference. I really don’t know why I even bother at this point

 

[pocohombre]

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Here is a website that quotes the Church Fathers extensively. I can see already from the very first quote from Clement of Rome, that they considered the Eucharist an oblation.

Oblation: a thing presented or offered to God

Thanks+Giving(Oblation) =Eucharist. Again, what is presented or offered to God is a sacrifice of praise, for Calvary. We do not re-offer Calvary and pray for its acceptability, in my opinion. Clement referred to the oblation of praise and thanksgiving for Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[pocohombre]

his #227:

We don’t think they are apostolic
Clement -“and He desires nothing of any one except that confession be made to Him”…So Clement states to confess to God, but repent to the one you offended and be reunited. No auricular confession… Ignatius mentions nothing of auricular confession-".For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church,"

1. Christ exercised the power of forgiving sins frequently, and gave it to his Apostles:
   First to Peter, later to all the Apostles: Mt 16:19; 18:18. (Reconciliation) Post #148.

Yes, We believe that forgiveness of sins is offered thru the gospel. Calvary is for the forgiveness of sins. The apostles never held auricular confession. Again, Clement states the same here and notice he does not tell the offending party to confess to their presbyters but submit to them (for that was their sin,they actually ousted the ordained presbyters). Confess to God, do right to whom you offended - “Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved…The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one except that confession be made to Him… You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. (Letter to the Corinthians (Clement), Chapters 7,52,57. Translated by John Keith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm)” cogwriter.com/auricular-confession.htm

his #227: We do believe in the annointing of the sick
Without the sacrament of Holy Orders (the priesthood) instituted by Christ, there is no sacrament of anointing.

We do believe in “ordaining”, laying on of hands, even oil, on presbyters (priests). That is what you find in the early church, right ? You also find that it is wrong to say you must be of Peter, or of Paul, or from any supposed “inner circle” or clique. Remember those disciples who were “apart” from the apostles, and Jesus had to kind of rebuke the apostles for thinking they had no right to minister, and Jesus told them, “They are for Me” ?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

We do believe in “ordaining”, laying on of hands, even oil, on presbyters (priests). That is what you find in the early church, right ?

Almost, with one extremely important exception: this laying on of hands had to be performed by some authorized to do so.

Here’s a very excellent article that’s been floating around cyberspace for a while: By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors

Here are the concluding paragraphs:

Here, then, is the summary of what we find in Scripture: no man can take the responsibility or title of “pastor” to himself. Rather, he must be sent by God, either indirectly (via succession), or directly (via extraordinary calling). If he claims the latter, his mission must be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders as proof of his Divine vocation.

This is the crux of my challenge to you, if you are a Protestant pastor: by what authority do you claim your office? By succession? If so, demonstrate that you were called by a superior authority who himself had a legitimate claim to his office. By extraordinary calling? If so, then show the required signs and wonders that authenticate your ministry.
In conclusion, I say to you: you must be absolutely sure, for your own soul’s sake, that your calling is legitimate. In Numbers 16, Korah set himself up as an illegitimate authority against God’s appointed authorities, and was destroyed for his audacious act. This problem has not disappeared in our day, for we find St. Jude warning us of falling into the same sin:

“Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.” (Jude 11)

You may choose to brush this challenge aside, but that will not absolve you of the account that you will have to give before God one day regarding these issues. I invite to ask yourself, honestly: have you set yourself up illegitimately against the legitimate authorities who can prove their mission by succession? Are you in danger of being destroyed for committing Korah’s sin?

One side note, to those of you who read this who are not pastors: this same challenge applies secondarily to you. Are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?

You also find that it is wrong to say you must be of Peter, or of Paul, or from any supposed “inner circle” or clique. Remember those disciples who were “apart” from the apostles, and Jesus had to kind of rebuke the apostles for thinking they had no right to minister, and Jesus told them, “They are for Me” ?

Disciples can minister. What they cannot do is officiate Mass, or most other Sacraments, including priestly ordination.

 

[pocohombre]

What a hoot. For the simpleton, Jesus wrote nothing.

Why do you miss what is plain. This what I hear you say, your interpretation:
“He gave us His Church and Christ Himself proclaimed: “I will not leave you orphans; The Church will come to you.” (John 14:18). “The Church, the Holy Church that the Father will send in My name, She will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when the Church comes, the Spirit of truth, She will guide you to all truth. She will not speak on Her own, but the Church will speak what She hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.The Church will glorify Me, because She will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that the Church will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)."…That is what I hear you say, that we are not orphaned because of the Church ,as you stated in first sentence… I don’t think this is representative of proper CC interpretation of the two scriptures. Jesus was plain with His words. We are not orphaned due to the ministry of the Holy Spirit and Christ himself (I will come to you), not because of church as you allude. There are plenty of other scriptures that talk of the necessity and beauty of the Church, the Body of Christ, but not what you cited above, they talk of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Himself.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, some say, even myself, that Peter did not fully know at the time. Yet I have also said not to be to quick to sell him short. He may very well have taken it “metaphorically”. I mean I would if Jesus is still in front of me, as is the consecrated bread and wine.

You’re conflating two different events, separated in time by about a year.

In John 6, of course St. Peter didn’t know fully at the time. That’s what I said. He didn’t understand, but he TRUSTED the Lord implicitely.

He DID know that Jesus wasn’t speaking metaphorically. People questioned Him on that very issue. Every other occasion where Jesus was speaking metaphorically and people didn’t understand Him, He took the time to explain what He meant, at least to the Apostles. This time, however, He just got more and more graphic every time they questioned Him.

So, no, St. Peter didn’t take Him metaphorically at all. It wouldn’t have been possible.

I partake and eat bread and wine. Jesus says he will not partake again of the wine(after consecration) any more. He did not call it “blood” again. The apostles were more or less aware of His impending death, hence the true symbolism.

Huh? What symbolism?

So we have no indication that Peter did not take it metaphorically.

At the Last Supper, perhaps, since St. Peter doesn’t address the issue. But that’s a pretty weak argument from silence. And we DO have an indication that he didn’t take it metaphorically in John 6.

As far as hard saying you miss the context. The context is Jesus giving His life, of dying, is it not? He certainly did not infer that we are to eat Him while He is alive. Why do you focus on the eating as the primary context and not the dying ? The dying of the supposed savior of Israel ? The Messiah who was to kick out the Romans and establish an eternal throne ? The Messiah who would feed them forever ? The messiah who would heal them etc. etc. He was being swarmed by the masses, even after He tries to leave them. They kept on a comin,and supposedly a followin. Yet He was going to die ?

He may have told the Apostles that, but He didn’t say anything to the crowds at the time. Again, be careful about conflating John 6 and the Last Supper.

Why do you think Jesus said to them ,"Man, you can’t even handle this saying, that I should die (so you can eat me). How are you gonna handle if I were to tell you I must not only die, but resurrect and ascend back to heaven ??? What! Why did he tell them this ? Because it is the primary context, not transubstantiation.

Nope. Not in John 6 at all.

They were all like Peter earlier when he rebuked the Lord for insinuating He was NOT going to die and Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me Satan”. The hard saying was that he was going to die,

OK, this seems like a central theme of your beliefs. The only problem is that it never happened the way you keep repeating. He didn’t talk about His impending death in John 6.

So, your argument fail on the basis of a bad premise.

Merely ? Jesus had a problem. People were following Him for the wrong reason. And how do you get rid of disciples who do not really believe in the program? How do you break them from a false salvation because of their unbelief ? It would have been wrong for Jesus to let them continue, else they could never be truly saved . You think he never corrected them about the eating and conclude it was all about transubstantiation. No, He never corrected them for what I just put forth. Why would He cast pearls before swine ? Why do you think he spoke in parables ? The hyperbole of eating was perfect in solving the problem.

Ahem. Sorry, but you’re trying too hard.

Jesus let many of His disciples leave Him because they wouldn’t believe His strong assertions that were contrary to their strongly held beliefs.

He may not have always corrected the masses when they were wrong, but He ALWAYS explained to the Apostles. ALWAYS.

Regarding the parables:

Mt 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak **to them **in parables?”
11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Get it? He spoke to the crowds in parables, but explained things clearly to the “disciples.”

Three times he rubbed in the “eating”, even with not just “eating” but finally with a word that meant “gnawing”. Do you “gnaw”'at the consecrated wafer ? No.

Not sure how you thinks this would strengthen your argument …

But faith in his Blood ( what the wine represents) is everything. That must be done with all your heart, soul and mind, even to your death (in baptism). That is “eating” , even “gnawing”.

Seriously?

 

[rfournier103]

Is this a thread on Transubstansiation, the Catholic priesthood, or Papal primacy?

There’s plenty of room on other threads to debate these things, no?

Have a blessed All Saints Day, everyone! Don’t forget to go to Mass!!!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Well, it is His body representatively. My bible also says He is a Door, a Shepherd, the Greek alphabet alpha and omega and I suppose all in between, a gate, the vine, light etc.

When one is obviously speaking in metaphor, it’s not necessary to clarify. But John 6 shows crowds who challenged Jesus precisely on that point. They gave Him the opportunity multiple times to clarify His meaning, hoping that He would claim it to be a metaphor. He didn’t. He make His language stronger.

People grumbled and left. They obviously didn’t believe it to be a metaphor. You don’t leave someone because of a metaphor. Especially someone who was performing miracles just the day before.

So, obviously the crowd that left Him believed Him to be speaking literally.

Now, 1500 years later, some people want to re-interpret Our Lord’s meanings, precisely because it is a “hard teaching.”

Who would be in a better position to correctly understand Him? People who SAW Him give the message, who saw His body language, heard his inflections, understood the language perfectly including all the local popular idioms, etc., or someone to whom the language is foreign and ancient?

Even here on the 'net, it’s quite common for people to misunderstand one another precisely because the written words don’t have tonal inflections, etc., so something taken as a joke can be easily misinterpreted. How much moreso 2000 years removed?

I have. They refer to the cup and loaf, and thanksgiving.

Yes. Even today one of the Catholic Eucharistic prayers says:
“When we eat this bread, and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come in Glory.”

It’s phenominological language. We really believe it to be Transubstantiated. And yet we speak of a cup and bread. Imagine that. You see, that’s the type of misinterpretation that I was referring to above.

This idea of representing a sacrifice back to God is not there.

It’s not?

Didache, Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day.
But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

The idea of giving thanksgiving for the sacrifice He gave us, consecrated at Calvary for us is primary. Hence the word caught on of “eucharist” meaning “thanksgiving”. You also have the admonition of having a presider or president at the gathering. Later you see admonition for the presbyter, elder to preside, for the sake of order /and proper conduct, not to transubstantiate . But this is only the first hundred years. You do have one letter that is similar to Paul’s epistles that the bread is His body.

You should really read Dr. Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.

Well my guess is that transubstantiation was certainly defined around 9th century and later by Aquinas 12-13 th century , I think. For sure at Trent (1500) it was anathema to say what I state. But not totally sure, hence I asked. Thanks.

Ahh, so you’re hung up on when specific words were used to define the nuances of what was always believed by the Early Church.