P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Because as in all other things in the universe, we do not have a Cartesian worldview which says we must infallibly know truth in order to know truth.
Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?
- Status
J
joe371
Guest
What…LOl…As I already stated: I believe the EOC has valid sacraments due to their apostolic pedigree…What they lack is the Petrine office which is why I belong to the CC. Hopefully one day those two churches will reunite. Shouldn’t we all hope and pray for that?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I was responding to joe, who said that he knows Rome is the true church because of his interpretation of Matthew 16, and that tells him that Rome best fits that interpretation.
Which is fine, I don’t begrudge him that.
How can you rely on Rome’s interpretation to tell you that Rome is the true church? How is that not hopelessly circular?
J
joe371
Guest
Within Christendom (leaving other religions out of the conversation, because you are right) let’s assume that God does not infallibly preserve doctrinal truth within the church established by Jesus in the first century. How can you and I really know, (especially since we disagree on certain doctrines) truth in light of that premise?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
But they don’t think the same of you. That is to say, if you became Orthodox, you’d have to reject that Rome has them. So what does that do to “equally comfortable being EOC.”
Good heavens no. Why would I want the East to be further in error?
N
Nicea325
Guest
No one is blaming God and God my friend is not responsible for the founding of hundreds of churches. Men are responsible because all have a human founder tied to their church. God’s part was set in stone nearly 2,000 years ago. Yes…those communities preach the Gospel,but to claim God had a “part” in their founding is a bit off.
J
joe371
Guest
Would you suggest that Jesus did not leave people with a way to know how to identify His church…the church of Matthew 16? If so then I suppose it really does not matter which church a Christian belongs to…
In terms of interpreting Matthew 16, even my little niece understood the grammatical understanding of - you are cephas and on this cephas - It seems pretty straightforward to me…Grammatically the church established by Jesus, who is the Divine Rock, is built on Simon, renamed Cephas.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Scripture, history, evidences, etc. i.e., the same way we can know anything else is true. Do you ask for infallible knowledge that the sun is going to rise tomorrow in order to know that it likely will?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
He did, which is why the position you hold to on Matthew 16 is the minority position in church history.Would you suggest that Jesus did not leave people with a way to know how to identify His church…the church of Matthew 16? If so then I suppose it really does not matter which church a Christian belongs to…
The problem is, you’re approaching Matthew 16 with a whole host of presuppositions that don’t exist in the text itself, and then magically, the Church of Rome meets those presuppositions, even though those presuppositions are already Rome’s.
J
joe371
Guest
Good heavens no. Why would I want the East to be further in error?
J
joe371
Guest
Let’s test that idea. My sister belongs to an evangelical church and uses scripture, history, evidences, etc. to conclude that the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbolic meal as opposed to what I believe as a Catholic. How can her and I know who is right and who is wrong? Or, did God not leave His church with a way to definitively know?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Sometimes I like the protestant motto:He did, which is why the position you hold to on Matthew 16 is the minority position in church history.
The problem is, you’re approaching Matthew 16 with a whole host of presuppositions that don’t exist in the text itself, and then magically, the Church of Rome meets those presuppositions, even though those presuppositions are already Rome’s.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
We should let Isaiah 22 interpret Matthew 16 whilst remembering that
- King David Prefigured King Jesus who is his heir.
- Jesus Kingdom is therefore the Davidic Kingdom fulfilled.
- Jesus makes a parrellell of Isaiah 22 in Matthew 16 on Peter as King David appoints someone I call a Prime Minister.
- Supremacy - “HE shall Shut NONE shall open HE shall open NONE shall shut”.
- An office(position) which has succession as demonstrated.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Donald, this is a really disingenuous quotation as Tertuallian is not even commenting about the Eucharist. He is defending the resurrection of the flesh from those who alleged that the flesh is unprofitable on the basis of Christ’s words in John 6. He is explaining that Christ was correcting the Jews’ notion that he was literally commanding cannibalism. Tertullian is not teaching Docetism or denying the Eucharist. When he says that we should “devour him with the ear” and “ruminate on him with understanding,” he is not denying the Eucharist anymore than he is denying the Incarnation.
This would be meaningful if Tertullian did not believe in the Eucharist, but it is a fact that he wrote about it elsewhere.
When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: “I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,” which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed “in His blood,” affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, “Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress?” The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, “He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes” — in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood. (Against Marcion IV.40)
Look at the part I underlined. Tertullian says that if Marcion is correct and Jesus did not have a true body, then it follows that Jesus gave bread for us. However, he says this as if it were an unreasonable conclusion. WHy is this? Because he identifies the bread with the crucified body of Christ. If Tertullian believed in a purely symbolic interpretation, then it would not follow that bread was crucified on the cross. After all, bread could symbolize something that didn’t exist, but it could not be something that didn’t exist. On the contrary, Tertullian identifies the Eucharist with the crucified body of Christ so it follows that if the Eucharistic bread is not a figure of anything more than bread, then only bread was crucified.
J
joe371
Guest
LOL…In your opinion, what is the true position of the early Catholic Church on Matthew 16?Per Crucem;11945287]He did, which is why the position you hold to on Matthew 16 is the minority position in church history.
I am approaching Matthew 16 in the same way my little niece did - with grammatical correctness. it says: you are peter and on this rock, as opposed to you are peter but on this rock, which is a form of eisegesis, not that I am accusing anyone of that. I came to the same conclusion as a former non-Catholic, even before I learned anything about the teachings of the CC. I began by reading the early church fathers…The problem is, you’re approaching Matthew 16 with a whole host of presuppositions that don’t exist in the text itself, and then magically, the Church of Rome meets those presuppositions, even though those presuppositions are already Rome’s.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Do you think the evidence that you are right and your sister is wrong is greater than hers?
J
joe371
Guest
:yup:
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
YOU are Peter and upon THIS rock…
THIS refers to the nearest preceding noun, YOU(Peter)
HA!
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
:hug3:
J
joe371
Guest
No. I don’t trust my interpretation in the final analysis. I trust that God preserves truth in His church, and defer to Jesus via His church, to settle doctrinal differences.
What was your answer: Let’s test that idea. My sister belongs to an evangelical church and uses scripture, history, evidences, etc. to conclude that the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbolic meal as opposed to what I believe as a Catholic. How can her and I know who is right and who is wrong? Or, did God not leave His church with a way to definitively know?
- Status