P
- Status
E
ezeekl
Guest
I believe I posted this before but I’ll do it again. Jesus spoke of the Old Testament manna the crowd understood exactly what He was saying. They knew the story of the journey through the wilderness and how God provided food for them. NOW Here is the key. The crowd understood Jesus to be speaking literally about a material food.
Now when Jesus switches over to the New Testament manna the crowd is obviously still understanding Him as speaking literally of a material food. That is why they are aghast when Jesus proclaims that the New Testament manna is His flesh. They recoil in horror at the thought of canabalism. Jesus knows this. He knows that they do not understand what He is teaching. This includes His own apostles and disciples. As a teacher, therefore, He owes an explanation, if not to the crowd, then to His disciples and surely to His apostles. He gives them one. He says, My words are spirit.
Now, notice Spirit is not the opposite of literal. Spirit is the opposite of material. Jesus IS speaking literally but about a SPIRITUAL food. That is why the crowd was aghast, they were still thinking of a material food like the OT manna. But Jesus was speaking of the Eucharist, the New Testament spiritual manna, the bread that He will say at the Last Supper is His Body.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Read the article. Very interesting. By reading that I would think Lutherans and other protestants that came directly out of Catholicism are ok. That is, some reformers were "ordained’ by Catholic succession. Therefore they had a right, as a "man of God’ to rightly divide the word of God. Secondly, if you follow a ministry that has signs and wonders you are ok also. There are quite a few protestant ministries that do fulfill that requirement. It is interesting that Christ says the signs He did we would do and greater. I find it problematic even unfair that today “shepherds” who show succession do not need to show signs and wonders when Christ says they should, but “non-succession” shepherds must show signs. Further, no where does it say they must, for the unbelieving Greek seek a sign. It is put in a negative way. Never the less, signs are used by God for sure, but if you make it THE prerequisite, that is wrong. Remember, signs are done by false shepherds also (the Egyptians had signs also), and, “did we not do these wondrous things in thy name…depart from me I never knew you”. So there is some succession in the protestant ranks (even though they rightly divided the word differently on some things). Secondly, there are signs and wonders following some protestant ministries. So what about the large number of shepherds who do not fit ? The article says they are out, and no way are they "authorized’ . Yet,with his own reasoning there is another, a third way to be “authorized”. The article talks about the "man of God’, as not an ordinary Christian, but an "authorized"minister of God. "Man of God is a term applied to “prophets” the article points out. A prophet is one whom God puts His words in his mouth. They are apart from the priesthood, . The only way to judge their authenticness is by their words, and if they are true, and if they shall come to pass. The article says it is God who gives all authority, the Holy Spirit bequeaths authority, and here it is classic, at times without any middle man. I do not find a problem following a “prophet” today as a shepherd, just as Israel followed Moses… As far as a congregations being inferior in authority to appoint elders/priests I somewhat disagree. Was it Ignatius that admonished some churches to “appoint themselves elders” ? Pretty sure his letter was written to entire congregation, not just to the bishop or elders. Certainly Rome did not appoint them, nor did they have to go thru 8 years of training. No, this comes from forgetting that the congregation is a “royal priesthood”. The article goes on to warn us of the sin of Korah in Numbers 16. His sin was in misinterpreting scripture also. For he rightly heard that Israel was to be a kingdom of priests earlier in Exodus 19:6. Now in Numbers only Aaron and his sons were the priests. Perhaps it didn’t seem fair to Korah that the majority of Israelites were cut off from such authority and privilege, almost citing the Exodus promise. So he and his followers entered the tabernacle, only as a Aaron should,and would not come out! Of course God consumed them and validated the authority of Moses and Aaron. (Notice God destroyed and authenticated. Moses though tempted, did not destroy them.). To a Catholic this rebellion seems quite fitting to apply to reformers. Touche’. Unfortunately, as Korah misunderstood that the promise was conditional for all to be priests, and the condition was not met due to sin and fear at Sinai, so to Catholics misunderstand that the condition has now been met by Calvary and we have been given a spirit of boldness. We are as Peter states, a kingdom of priests. Paul says all can boldly go before His presence, into the holies, where once only the high priest could go, the veil torn in two that separated us. So, a priestly congregation can appoint an elder. A prophet can be a presbyter, and need not be a priest, for he already is, and there is no more sacrifice. And alas we are full circle. I believe in authoratatively ordaining elders, presbyters/priests, pastors, shepherds,missionaries (apostles) prophets, healers by succession, by signs and wonders, by God breathing into a man His words (man of God) and giftings, and by my royal priesthood responsibilities.
P
pocohombre
Guest
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes, the unbelievers took it literally then. Unbelievers in Christ took it literally.
Maybe it is a bit of pandoras box. After all, most believe things have been modified, traditionalized by man, such as gold chalices and fasting, some wine and some not wine partaking, from a presider to a priest having to consecrate. So if these things were modified perhaps the entire doctrine itself has been modified. 1500 years is a long time.
So you see the word sacrifice and right away you think in OT terms.This is NT. The fathers speak of NT sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Why would it be anything else? It is finished. We are accepted quite fully, because of Calvary, not in hope of it. Alleluia.
No, just trying to show that different views were acceptable by the “church”, just as some were not.
A
Abu
Guest
The reality is summed up here, for the here and now.
CDF prefect: contemplating Christ is answer to Reformation, post-Vatican II crises in the priesthood
CWN - October 31, 2013
Archbishop Müller said that he was referring particularly to the crisis in the doctrine of the priesthood that occurred during the Protestant Reformation, which sought to reduce the priest to a “mere representative of the community” and eliminate the “essential difference between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful.”
The prelate’s remarks were published on October 31, commemorated by some Protestant communities as Reformation Day because it marks the anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19542
There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.” (# 56).
CDF prefect: contemplating Christ is answer to Reformation, post-Vatican II crises in the priesthood
CWN - October 31, 2013
Archbishop Müller said that he was referring particularly to the crisis in the doctrine of the priesthood that occurred during the Protestant Reformation, which sought to reduce the priest to a “mere representative of the community” and eliminate the “essential difference between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful.”
The prelate’s remarks were published on October 31, commemorated by some Protestant communities as Reformation Day because it marks the anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19542
There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.” (# 56).
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes, thank you. Comments may still apply to both occassions as far as possibly not totally understanding and possibly metaphorically understanding.
Yes,and Augustine says that is how he “ate”,without teeth and belly".
anybodies presumption
Yes, and I told you why. To get rid of the unbelievers and to test, magnify the believers, who triumphed with “thou art the Christ”. There is an old lawyer adage, “when you have won your point, stop talking”. So Christ did not expound further and if you don’t believe that, then how many times are we told silence proves nothing" ?
How can you say he didn’t fully understand yet he took it literally and not metaphorically. If you don’t fully understand, you don’t fully take it literal and how then can you rule out metaphor ?
The same symbolism the CC teaches. The bread and wine are symbols of His Body and Blood. The Trent anathema is when you put “only” in front of symbols. But symbols they are.Huh? What symbolism?
As noted above. Same argument you use to say Jesus meant literal cause he didn’t go on to really explain symbolism.
Are you sure ? Jesus said nothing about his being lifted up or rebuilding temple in 3 days etc ? Are there no prophetic scriptures of His death ? Were the Jews totally ignorant of Isaiah ? Were they totally ignorant of the need for a spiritual Saviour ? regardless they were still following Him for the wrong reasons,and obviously they didn’t know it. Your assumption is that if they knew they would have believed, when Christ says they didn’t believe from the beginning.
My paraphrase was from this in John 6:61,62 - “Doth this offend you (the eating) ? What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ?” Why would His ascension into glory offend them more ? Vs 63-It is the spirit that quickeneth; and the flesh availeth nothing…,my words are spiritual and life". The literal interpreters were in the flesh, carnal, spiritually dead, following a messiah after their own image…Just as the entire hyperbolic usage of eating was doubled edged (separating sheep from goats) so to is this double edged with meaning.The primary is that our flesh can not see the things of God,except He quickens us with His spirit, so too the literal eating of flesh, even His flesh avails nothing. Otherwise one could eat his flesh, take communion, and be saved. Yet we know it isn’t that simple.
Well first you must see that in hindsight it makes perfect sense, the “eating” discourse, then the Last Supper, then Calvary, and the Ascension with doing in remembrance. Just cause one thinks they didn’t get it at the time doesn’t mean it ain’t so. Otherwise we would discarding a lot. Anyways, John 2:19 “destroy this temple and I will rebuild in 3 days”, or 3:14, " the son of man must be lifted up", 6:39, “search ye the scriptures,testifying of me”
Yes I am.
Just like I said, they were following Christ for the wrong reasons.
Yes, when needed. Was it needed when the profession is the ultimate revelation from God, “Thou art the Christ, your words (didn’t say eating flesh) have eternal life” ?
Now you are trying to hard but I love the image of Father Knows Best (Sunday nights starring Fred McMurray). When one says always or never it’s risky. It was so clear to the other apostles that Peter was made head apostle and given the keys that on several occasions thereafter they were arguing amongst themselves on who would be greater or who would sit at His right hand. So clear ? Hey bro, we are actually on thread topic!
Am I not correct that the final word for eating was to “gnaw”, is that what you are questioning? If it is gnaw, we do not literally gnaw at the Host. We do more so when pleading for mercy and new life. We even use the metaphor of “dying” to self or as Luke 16:16 says , “the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it”. "Gnawing’ as in carrying a heavy man up on roof and lowering him to Jesus, or a woman pressing thru the crowd just to touch the hem of His garment. Do we not cling to him like moss on a north side of a tree for dear life ? Gnaw,baby, a great word.Faith in him is gnawing at Him.Seriously?
Blessings
A
Abu
Guest
Typical of the nonsense that fills the void when truth is removed from fact; from faith and reason, of those who concoct their own beliefs, and are partial to idle aspersions.
How can Christ’s Church be the same as many thousands of differing sects in Protestantism, when the Catholic Church is that which Christ founded with His Magisterium? The faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the Magisterium in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures. Where else can you find this?
But there are those who blindly feel they can pick and choose out of what Jesus taught.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Ok Blessings.How about this .Clements letter, that CC says supports papacy, is denied by most scholars as doing so. Shepherd of Hermas says Clement wrote it as secretary for group of Rome’s presbyters. The better translations show that Corinth did not solicit the help. John the apostle was deceased. The authority of the letter is stated in the letter, their Holy Spirit aided righteousness on the matter of correcting the sin. We do not know if other churches weighed in on the matter. All we know for sure is that Rome did respond to the sin of the Corinth church, as any church should have, as any Christian should, as Paul confronted Peter, or Peter Ananias. It does not show superiority, otherwise are we to assume Paul is greater than Peter for correction of Peter’s sin ? Of course not. The letter also apologizes for not doing so sooner. Anyways, some of these things I have said earlier but some come from an old thread on the topic from others whom I do not wish to mention for privacy /rest sake, but it was good stuff from both sides of the argument.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!!!
P
pocohombre
Guest
Ok The Church has been the best light on the subject from the beginning. Yes, some are giving in unfortunately. Just be a little kinder for in trying to find out about pope’s stand on the issue I found stuff that was a bit compromising. It was not always considered murder, even by Aquinas. For a time it was only a sin but not homicide if aborted before 40/90 days for male/female . Life did not begin at conception for large periods of time during church history.
A
Abu
Guest
Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. 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. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
Christ solemnly promised His Apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20).
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied in His promise? The cavalier disregard of Christ’s mandate is the explanation of the selfists’ preoccupation with their own distortions and thus attacks against Christ.
Christ solemnly promised His Apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20).
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied in His promise? The cavalier disregard of Christ’s mandate is the explanation of the selfists’ preoccupation with their own distortions and thus attacks against Christ.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Not sure your dates are right, it took 16 years to send letter ? John was dead, not at Ephesus. Rome had no bishops, nor were they "called’ to settle the matter. Their command was due to Christ thru them reprimanding an obvious sin. They did their Christian duty, hence innocent of the sin. Didn’t sweep it under carpet, as none of us should when we see sin in a brother. Shepherd of Hermas says a Clement wrote the letter as secretary of presbyters at Rome. No names were in letter to Corinth other than from “church at Rome”…If you want to say Clement was fourth, some say third, pope, that is fine. It is CC tradition.
A
Abu
Guest
Assumptions from dubious sources reflect the confusion of the poster. Neither can any theologian stand against the teaching of the Church.
Our “Didache (composed before A.D. 80) told the faithful what they must not do: ‘You shall not procure abortion.’….Catholicism has always held that the direct attack on an unborn foetus, at any time after conception, is a grave sin. The history of this teaching has been consistent and continuous, beginning with the earliest times and up to the present.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 334-5). [CCC 2271].
The Fathers who addressed such evil condemned the practice and universally applied Galatians 5:20 and Revelation 21:8, 22:15. Trial, Tribulation & Triumph, Desmond A Birch, Queenship Publishing, 1996, p 334].
“Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.” [Bl John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae 61, 1995].
S
spina1953
Guest
I would like to agree with the majority of the posts presented in this forum concerning the primacy of Peter. For I too believe that Jesus wanted Peter not only to strenghten his follow brethren but to lead the others. There were not 14 Apostles as Peter in Acts 15-26 firmly states that Peter was saying that it is necessary to choose from one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord jesus went in and out among us beginning from John’s Baptism… etc. So that it would again be 12 Apostles.; That is my understanding of Acts 15:26-32. I have read a book 'Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray wich I feel is a great book explaining St. Peter and the Primacy orf Rome in Scripture and the Early Church.
S
spina1953
Guest
Thanks this is good and a appuld you for your efforts!!!
S
spina1953
Guest
Great work!!! I enjoyed what you have been writing concerning the primacy of Peter and I agree with you on that If I were not a Catholic I sure wouild now be considering becoming one!
S
spina1953
Guest
You have expressed what I was trying to say in another Forum. From your post #125 on you explained what seems to me to refute what those who disagree and take the Orthodox position and continue to expound the same old agruments which are only opinions of what they read and want to interpete to mean to make the claim that they are somehow correct in their views and the rest of us Catholic’s are wrong in our understanding of the issues being discussed. I somehow get the idea that no matter what is quoted and or used to explain thre Catholic position, they are not open to or really listening to what is said. It just seems to me that they agrue for arguments sake. Maybe I wrong about it but it seems that way to me. It seems to me that I have no trouble in understanding and it seems very clear to me that the Catholic thinking is the correct one and Scripture bares that out as well as Church teachings.Who went astray?
A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs
Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.
At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.
Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.
Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.
(Source: Dave Armstrong, socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html)
S
spina1953
Guest
You might as purely a suggestion include Arianisn, the teachings of Bishop Arius, I think from Alexandria or at least teaching from there if I remember my history correctly. It does seem to me that most of the heresies came from the east, not from the west. I am agreeing with you just tought I’d put my two cents in.
- Status