Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[mikeledes]

Some have argued that John 6:51-58 is about faith and that Jesus gives the explanation of the “metaphor” prior to actually using the metaphor. However, this goes against Jesus’s established teaching methods. Whenever Jesus explains a parable, the explanation usually comes after he has given the parable, such as in the case of the parables of the sower and the wheat and the tares. If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He means. Moreover, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

The Greek word translated “abiding” is “meno,” which means to continue, stay, remain, etc. Thus the assumption is that the person who abides in Christ has already come to faith in Him and has already been incorporated into Christ. Hence, abiding occurs subsequent to coming to Christ in faith and incorporation. What is being decribed here is an act rooted in faith, but not identical to faith.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:28

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[onenow1]

1. Christians ought to recognize one another as fellow believers, even if we differ on various theological points. We are not saved by theology but by God’s grace. I’m sure God doesn’t give a hoot about whether we believe in transubstantiation or we don’t. Intelligent and worthy people have different opinions. I am for a ‘big tent’ Christianity instead of a stale, stationary and stagnant Catholicism that proclaims itself wiser and better than every other religion. That spiritual arrogance is sinful - in my view. Besides, change in some arenas can be a healthy thing. Certainly the freedom to think independently is to be tolerated - even respected. The Catholic practice of silencing theologians who diverge from the ‘party line’ is unfortunate - a totalitarian mindset rather like the communists and fascists. Sorry - but true! Quote=Roy 5

HI, Roy
Obesreve this please.

Author Unknown: Developement since the reformation:

1. Reformation dividing Christianity weakens revelations.]
   2.Rationalism { doubting that man can rely on Divine revelation]
   3.Human Messianism [asserting that man can rely on himself ]
   4.Liberalism trusting man whollly ]
   5.Capitalism Human Messianism + Liberalism ]
   6.Democracy Rationalism + Liberalism ]
   7> Technocracy[and Techonolatry]- [Nationalism + Human Messianism ].

Quote =OneNow1 All this is exactly how communism developed. Even Jesus gave Rome the authority to crucify him. Yes it’s all about who has the authority.

Quote =OneNow1 In the end there will be one King And Lord Jesus Christ.

He is here with us now taste and see the goodness of the Lord.
EUCHARIST
Because truth is being revealed to you and you do not accept it you take exception to it ?

With possibly few exceptions most catholics are telling you truth as revealed by the gospels.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:35

**35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. **

What does Jesus mean? He is basically saying that He is the source of all life giving spiritual nourishment. He is the only one that can satisfy our hunger and thirst for righteousness. Those who wish to partake of this spiritual nourishment must come to Him in faith.

In this verse, Jesus sets the stage for the greatest form of spiritual nourishment that He will give to those who believe in Him, namely, His own self in the Eucharist. So it makes sense that Jesus would first talk about faith (i.e. coming to Him) before talking about how He will feed the believer. You must go to your grocery or supermarket first before you can purchase the food. The wonderful thing is that the Eucharist is freely offered to the believer.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[NDfan]

You’re not barging in, welcome to the discussion, and the forum, NDfan.

Thanks for the welcome What part of MD do you live?

So, I’m assuming you’re a consubstantiationist?

Well I don’t like to put myself into a category because the terminology is only being used to describe something that can’t be described. I believe Eusebius didn’t even understand Transubstantiation but believed in the presence. I don’t believe we are chewing physical flesh, bones, nerves etc. because we are not tasting it. Transubstantiation tries to describe that we don’t taste it because the elements still appear as bread and wine but the substance underneath is flesh and blood. Since it is underneath it would have to be spiritual. That’s how I arrive at it.

If that is so, then His physical dying on the Cross, and his physical suffering would not mean anything.

I think you are mixing Apples and Oranges here. HIS flesh and blood were the sacrifice and represent the new covenant. But the flesh doesn’t save it’s the Spirit that saves. Believing that Jesus died for our sins on the cross is the foundation of our Faith so of course Jesus flesh and blood means something. But as Jesus said on the cross “It is finished”. So HIS work on the cross is a one time event. The one time sacrifice for all and forever that will never happen again. Jesus will not re-sacrifice HIMSELF again. So what remains for us then? The Spirit which resides in us upon Baptism and confession of our Faith, and Jesus Spirit in the Eucharist. Just my humble thoughts

No, when ever “flesh” and “spirit” are contrasted in the Bible, they usually mean, the “old, carnal man” (as St.Paul says, “put off the old man”) and “grace”.

Exactly. In Romans Paul tells us not to live in the flesh because the flesh is sinful. The flesh does not get us to GOD. The Spirit does. We are to live in the Spirit and align ourselves with Jesus. This is why I keep coming back to a spiritual connotation of the Eucharist.

The Sacrament is beyond human understanding.

I think we’re trying to put it beyond our understanding. But it doesn’t need to be. Jesus always says he dwells in us Spiritually giving us life. HIS body right now in Heaven is not an earthly fleshly body. It’s an immortal spiritual body and it is the same body the Bible tells us we will receive. So if the Eucharist has HIS flesh and blood then it’s spiritual. Wouldn’t you agree??

Unless you are in a state of mortal sin, (like the atheist) then you are “partaking unworthily, and are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” as St.Paul says (in I Corinthians, on the discourse on the Eucharist.)

Yes I’m quite familiar with Corinthians. An excellent discourse I might add But remember what was going on within the church in Corinth. Folks were getting drunk before partaking the Eucharist. They were also split amongst their followers. Some followed Apollos, some Peter, and some Christ. So they weren’t in communion with one another. It would be like you and I partaking the Eucharist but you being a follower of Christ and me Chevy Chase. (Humor) I would be partaking it in an unworthy manner causing me to have the blood of Christ on my hands. Paul is saying if you eat the Eucharist and don’t follow Christ then you might as well be guilty of HIS blood.

It isn’t done by the priest. Christ, of His own power, does it by the Holy Orders indelibly marked on the priest ordained in Apostolic Succession.

Well I don’t believe that because that’s not scriptural. If you look at the original Greek Jesus tells the Apostles to basically mimic what he is doing and to do it in anamnesis (remembrance/memorial) of HIM. So Jesus wants us to copy what he is doing. Given that all followers of Christ are called to be Priests in the Bible, then why can’t we do this? Now the early church Fathers desired for only a Bishop to give or administer the Eucharist. But the Didache nor the Bible ever gives us these instructions and given that many early churches met in their houses in small groups, I doubt that a Bishop was present.

Had to be 2 posts sorry. contd below.

 

[NDfan]

Then it would be impossible to partake of it unworthily, as St.Paul says in I Corinthians.

Yes it would actually. If you were a follower and came to church drunk as the church in Corinth was doing. Or if you followed Christ but in your heart had issues with your Faith. I think there is a difference between taking it unworthily and not being worthy of taking it. Atheist are not worthy to take it because they don’t believe. That’s why if they partake it does nothing for them because spiritually they are dead. Taking it unworthily is as I described above.

No, he’s “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” as St.Paul states. He’s committed a vile act of sacrilege, of the worst kind. St.Paul says that many who partook unworthly were sick and died.

No doubt they got sick and died but why did they? They were dishonoring the body of Christ. How does one dishonor the body of Christ? Is it the body of believers? That body of Christ? Or the body of Christ HIMSELF? Given the behavior of the church in Corinth and their blatant mistreatment of the poor coupled with their complete disrespect for the meaning of the supper I would say both.

That last section intrigues me. Let’s look at what the Fathers really said:

I had to cut out all the quotes so this could be one post. Sorry

I’ve read what all the early church fathers have said regarding the Eucharist. The first thing I always ask myself is why did they say that? It obviously must have been in response to someone denying something about the Eucharist. We don’t know because we are not privy to that conversation so we have to gleen the potential meaning. In many cases it appears that some did believe in a form of presence. But keep in mind many early church fathers were well educated in Greek Philosophy and many philosophical interpretations have been applied to the Bible. The real physical presence has a Platonic connotation to it. So it wouldn’t surprise me if someone that was into Greek Philosophy reading the Lord’s words “this is my body and blood” would apply that philosophical interpretation and consider it to mean real presence.

But in reading the Didache we never see any physical connotation applied to the Eucharist. The Didache was supposedly written by the Apostles.

Now if we read Irenaeus who apparently was trained by Polycarp who was trained by John, that could give us the closest representation to what the Apostle John taught.

When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?

First Irenaeus never talks about anyone doing anything to invoke the presence. He says when the bread and wine receive the Word of GOD and become the body. Receive it from who and is it a spiritual body or physical body? If I ask GOD to bless the bread and wine for the purposes of communion why wouldn’t he listen to me or you if we were true believers? Why do we ask for GOD’s blessing before any meal if it does nothing?

The last part of Irenaeus is interesting. Our flesh is increased and supported. Again spiritual feeding. Then; the body and blood of the Lord is in fact a member of him. Jesus always tells us that he dwells in us Spiritually not physically.

Romans 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Again; spirit, spirit, spirit. Anyway just my thoughts.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Although I love how you laid this out:thumbsup:

The ambiguous statements as you categorize them are the following:

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The misunderstanding is the following:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

They were saying this obviously because eating the blood of any living thing is forbidden in
Leviticus 17.

The clarification then follows:

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So Jesus clarifies that the words spoken from about verse 48 - 58 are spirit and life. Otherwise what words is HE referring to.

Now let me throw this to you:

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

I can’t seem to find any clarification on this. So why wouldn’t we take this literally??

PEACE

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

RELIGIOUS HUMILITY AND RECONCILIATION

I must stop this as it can become addictive. And I have plenty else that needs doing!

1. **As for the thread - the Eucharist **- (sorry if I wandered in order to answers challengers on this thread): receiving communion can play a very positive role in our lives. But too often it becomes a substitute for doing good. We somehow think we are spiritually okay because we attend Mass faithfully and receive the sacraments, but like the Pharisees of old our lives are cluttered with self-righteousness, judgement, and prejudice.
2. Christians ought to recognize one another as fellow believers, even if we differ on various theological points. We are not saved by theology but by God’s grace. I’m sure God doesn’t give a hoot about whether we believe in transubstantiation or we don’t. Intelligent and worthy people have different opinions. I am for a ‘big tent’ Christianity instead of a stale, stationary and stagnant Catholicism that proclaims itself wiser and better than every other religion. That spiritual arrogance is sinful - in my view. Besides, change in some arenas can be a healthy thing. Certainly the freedom to think independently is to be tolerated - even respected. The Catholic practice of silencing theologians who diverge from the ‘party line’ is unfortunate - a totalitarian mindset rather like the communists and fascists. Sorry - but true!

**I am sorry I cant aswer all your questions, but there is time. So I will reference the thread topic, so as not to stray to much off the thread.
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned and her teachings that she abides by and is willing to go to the death for them, are not the Catholic church’s teachings and docrtrines. They come from Jesus himself and the Apostles. It isnt the obedient members of the Catholic church, you disagreee with, it is the teachings of Jesus. The body of Christ is the Catholic church. This is not a human truth, it is by the word of God. The Catholic church possesses the fullness of truth, and has taught, died for, and continues to teach it, Jesus has entrusted his teachings to her to go out into all the world and baptise them and teach them.

I cannot emphasize this enough, You are kicking at the Rock of Peter, that is what frustrates many nonbelievers, because Jesus named her the Rock, And either you will hurt yourself kicking at his church, or become unglued because the Rock will not move. Or set your house of faith upon the solid ground Rock the Catholic church.

As an Independent thinker, nothing wrong with that, it when the independent thinkers try to change the will of God, to their will. That is not going to happen.

When it comes to the Eucharist, this fundamental faith by Catholics, is the summit of our faith, the body,blood, soul and divinity it was makes us One body, One Church, One Faith. The Eucharist unites all past, present, future and the Saints and Martyrs in heaven made present to us now.

This is the unity you are looking for among divided christians and the world, it is right here in the Catholic faith, we Catholics are not of the world we are joined together in one faith, one baptism, one Lord. Come to this knowledge and the holy Spirit will make you one in the body of Jesus Christ. No other christian community can claim unity from history, death, heaven and here on earth.

You may find differences among Catholics and different devotions, or ministries, at the end of the day, We all partake of the same body, blood, soul, and divinity of our lord Jesus.

Amen**

 

[Metaron]

Where did Jesus specifically promise that the church would be protected from teaching error?

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

If whatever he binds or looses on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven, it is because whatever he binds or looses it is the truth, “infallible”, “without any possibility of error”. This promise is being fulfilled now in the Ecumenical Councils, ever since the first one in Acts 15. Notice, after Peter speaks at the Council, the discussion ends. Everyone assents to Peter’s decision.

Peter exercises his “supremacy”. He is the one talking, when all the Apostles are present. The first 11 chapters of Acts, report 8 rather long sermons of Peter (1:15, 2:14, 3:12, 4:8, 5:29, 8:20, 10:34, 11:4).

Jesus said: “I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may nor fail, and when you are restored, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luk.22:32)…

The Church of Christ on earth is very divine, but also very human… made up by sinners, like Peter and Paul, and like you and me, imperfect persons, and consequently with many imperfections… but here it comes the promise of Jesus to Peter, the gates of Hades will not overcome it… and every Christian is convinced of this promise!.

To call the church itself the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” is not really what the scriptures are saying here. Rather the church is the “support” of the truth and not truth itself.

And how do you intend to support this statement of yours?

Secondly, this does not mean the church cannot teach error for a number of reasons. Not only did Jesus not promise protection from teaching error but that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. See 2 Peter 2:1

This is true. There are several heretical bishops who are at odds with the magisterium and official Catholic teaching.

Can you give me a couple of examples of this influence?

Stated above.

 

[mikeledes]

I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Although I love how you laid this out:thumbsup:

The ambiguous statements as you categorize them are the following:

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The misunderstanding is the following:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

They were saying this obviously because eating the blood of any living thing is forbidden in
Leviticus 17.

First of all, welcome! I address this objection in post # 158. That is not a clarification. That is a statement of fact, namely, that those in the flesh cannot accept His words because they are of the Spirit and life-giving. That’s why they reject that Jesus comes from heaven - which is a literal truth - and that we have to consume His body and blood.

The clarification then follows:

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So Jesus clarifies that the words spoken from about verse 48 - 58 are spirit and life. Otherwise what words is HE referring to.

Now let me throw this to you:

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

I can’t seem to find any clarification on this. So why wouldn’t we take this literally??

PEACE

The first difference is that what is stated in John 6 is reaffirmed in other parts of the Bible that discuss the Eucharist. Secondly, there is no objection from the apostles or those hearing - they obviously understood that he was speaking figuratively, thus there was no need for clarification.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

Metaron;3369691]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Where did Jesus specifically promise that the church would be protected from teaching error?

Metaron
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

What specifically did Peter bound in heaven that is recorded in the NT?

If whatever he binds or looses on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven, it is because whatever he binds or looses it is the truth, “infallible”, “without any possibility of error”.

No problem with Peter doing this. The problem you have is showing that this applied to others after he died. There is no mention of that in these passages.

This promise is being fulfilled now in the Ecumenical Councils, ever since the first one in Acts 15. Notice, after Peter speaks at the Council, the discussion ends. Everyone assents to Peter’s decision.

If you look at Acts 15:19 you will see that it is James and not Peter who has the final say in the first council. It is his decesion.

Peter exercises his “supremacy”. He is the one talking, when all the Apostles are present. The first 11 chapters of Acts, report 8 rather long sermons of Peter (1:15, 2:14, 3:12, 4:8, 5:29, 8:20, 10:34, 11:4).

Jesus said: “I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may nor fail, and when you are restored, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luk.22:32)…

The Church of Christ on earth is very divine, but also very human… made up by sinners, like Peter and Paul, and like you and me, imperfect persons, and consequently with many imperfections… but here it comes the promise of Jesus to Peter, the gates of Hades will not overcome it… and every Christian is convinced of this promise!.

Not one of these passages addresses the issue of the church being protected from error. Take Peter for example. He still made errors even while supposedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit in Matt 16:22-23.
Paul also rebukes him in Gal 2:11-16.

Quote:justasking4
To call the church itself the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” is not really what the scriptures are saying here. Rather the church is the “support” of the truth and not truth itself.

Metaron
And how do you intend to support this statement of yours?

A couple of ways. One is with a literal tanslation of the Scriptures. The New American Standard translate it this way–
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Secondly, we know the church has not always taught the truth.

Quote:justasking4
Secondly, this does not mean the church cannot teach error for a number of reasons. Not only did Jesus not promise protection from teaching error but that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. See 2 Peter 2:1

Metaron
This is true. There are several heretical bishops who are at odds with the magisterium and official Catholic teaching.

Then you do agree then that the church is not protected from error?

Quote:
Can you give me a couple of examples of this influence?

Stated above.

 

[Metaron]

Metaron;3369691]

No problem with Peter doing this. The problem you have is showing that this applied to others after he died. There is no mention of that in these passages.

 

[Metaron]

Metaron;3369691]

No problem with Peter doing this. The problem you have is showing that this applied to others after he died. There is no mention of that in these passages.

 

[guanophore]

What specifically did Peter bound in heaven that is recorded in the NT?

Those that lie to the HS will die.

No problem with Peter doing this. The problem you have is showing that this applied to others after he died. There is no mention of that in these passages.

No, we don’t have a problem showing this.
On the other hand, you have a problem accepting history.
You are rejecting the Divine Deposit of Faith

If you look at Acts 15:19 you will see that it is James and not Peter who has the final say in the first council. It is his decesion.

To whom did God reveal that the Gospel was also for the Gentiles? Who “stood up among the brethren” to preach on Pentecost, and to replace Judas?

Not one of these passages addresses the issue of the church being protected from error. Take Peter for example. He still made errors even while supposedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit in Matt 16:22-23.
Paul also rebukes him in Gal 2:11-16.

This is a common mistake. You are confusing the Church with Peter. Jesus identifies Himself with the Church. It is Jesus as the Head, and the HS as the Soul that makes the Church infallible. Individual members of the church are not without error. There is a difference between teaching error, and behaving badly. Peter was acting in opposition to the infallible doctrine he had already taught Just as the Pope today is still accountable to his own infallible teaching.

A couple of ways. One is with a literal tanslation of the Scriptures. The New American Standard translate it this way–
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Secondly, we know the church has not always taught the truth.

Who is this royal “we” that you claim to represent, ja4? On the contrary, “we” (those of Apostolic faith) know that the Church has never taught error. People sometimes behave erroneously, or become false teachers, but their bad behavior can be distinguished from the One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Faith in which there is no error. how can a fallible church find or support the truth, if she is not led by the HS?

Then you do agree then that the church is not protected from error?

If it seems to you that the Church is not protected from error, it is because you have a concept of Jesus and the HS that percieves them as weak and liars.

 

[Roy5]

GABRIEL OF 12

 Can't resist a couple quick rejoinders.

 1. **The idea that the Catholic church is the only faith** in possession of the full truth has been questioned by thousands upon thousands of scholarly students of scripture, especially Protestants. There is something supercilious about dismissing all those scholars as ipso facto wrong. Many of them studied the Christian faith throughout their lives and come to different conclusions based on their understanding of the Bible, tradition, experience, and reason. To label them all as misguided heretics is quite arrogant. It was such arrogance that launched Protestantism in the first place, when the Vatican would not permit full discussion of controversial points. Some people are ready to submit their minds to a church and a Pope, but I find that harder and harder to do. I actually enjoy wrestling with various viewponts and resent the effort over the years to keep other viewpoints from me. Why is it sinful in the eyes of a forgiving God if we use the brain hne gave us and have doubts? It is normal for thinking people to have such doubts.

 2.** I'm not sure there is as much unity in the Church** as your suggest. Tmahe column of Fr. Mc Brien appears weekly in our paper and he challenges the ecclesiastic chinery frequently. I find his columns thought-provoking and a credit to Catholicism. If the Church looked at things with the same tolerance as he does I could embrace Catholicism with greater pride and fervor. I also find that lay Catholics are very divided. I daresay that the majority I know ignore much of what the Church teaches. They are 'cultural Catholics' but pay little attention to the doctrines and dogmae that distinguish the Church from other churches. I believe it was just this week that I raed that 10% of the American people (30 million) are ex-Catholics, and that the Church would have suffered staggering loses if it weren't for the Latino immigration, much of it illegal. Apparently nearly 45% of US Catholics is now or soon to be Latino - and millions of Latinos end of in Protestant sects.  If Catholicism were more open to diverse ideas - as it is open to diverse races - it could thrive. Just this noon I was speaking with a woman who left the Church over the issues of freedom, the subordinate role of women and (the last straw) the priest sex scandal. 

 Happy Leap Day!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

GABRIEL OF 12

 Can't resist a couple quick rejoinders.

 1. **The idea that the Catholic church is the only faith** in possession of the full truth has been questioned by thousands upon thousands of scholarly students of scripture, especially Protestants. There is something supercilious about dismissing all those scholars as ipso facto wrong. Many of them studied the Christian faith throughout their lives and come to different conclusions based on their understanding of the Bible, tradition, experience, and reason. To label them all as misguided heretics is quite arrogant. It was such arrogance that launched Protestantism in the first place, when the Vatican would not permit full discussion of controversial points. Some people are ready to submit their minds to a church and a Pope, but I find that harder and harder to do. I actually enjoy wrestling with various viewponts and resent the effort over the years to keep other viewpoints from me. Why is it sinful in the eyes of a forgiving God if we use the brain hne gave us and have doubts? It is normal for thinking people to have such doubts.

 2.** I'm not sure there is as much unity in the Church** as your suggest. Tmahe column of Fr. Mc Brien appears weekly in our paper and he challenges the ecclesiastic chinery frequently. I find his columns thought-provoking and a credit to Catholicism. If the Church looked at things with the same tolerance as he does I could embrace Catholicism with greater pride and fervor. I also find that lay Catholics are very divided. I daresay that the majority I know ignore much of what the Church teaches. They are 'cultural Catholics' but pay little attention to the doctrines and dogmae that distinguish the Church from other churches. I believe it was just this week that I raed that 10% of the American people (30 million) are ex-Catholics, and that the Church would have suffered staggering loses if it weren't for the Latino immigration, much of it illegal. Apparently nearly 45% of US Catholics is now or soon to be Latino - and millions of Latinos end of in Protestant sects.  If Catholicism were more open to diverse ideas - as it is open to diverse races - it could thrive. Just this noon I was speaking with a woman who left the Church over the issues of freedom, the subordinate role of women and (the last straw) the priest sex scandal. 

 Happy Leap Day!

Roy,

Although I pray that all people find God and I believe God wishes for for all to come to Him, changing the rules because they cause some discomfort or they disagree and threaten to leave is not gods will. I see nothing wrong with having doubts or asking questions you are correct the whole of Martin Luther’s reform may have been avoided if the Bishops has just sat down and talked ans listened to him. But many of the things you have brought up have been dealt with over the last 2000 tears already. It is the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, Men and women have separate roles with in the Church, and if this women left because of the sex scandal I have no idea were she will go as practically the same thing has happened in all. You are free to question and when the answers are given you are free to accept or reject. I pray that everyone realize that even if a priest or bishop is wrong the Church is not and the things you have said ago against not a person but the teaching of the church.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3371342]Those that lie to the HS will die.

Didn’t teach as much in the gospels?

Originally Posted by justasking4
No problem with Peter doing this. The problem you have is showing that this applied to others after he died. There is no mention of that in these passages.

guanophore
No, we don’t have a problem showing this.
On the other hand, you have a problem accepting history.
You are rejecting the Divine Deposit of Faith

Then give me the specifics of this Divine Deposit of Faith that you speak of. Some me specifically from your Divine Deposit of Faith that it was give to others after him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If you look at Acts 15:19 you will see that it is James and not Peter who has the final say in the first council. It is his decesion.

guanophore
To whom did God reveal that the Gospel was also for the Gentiles? Who “stood up among the brethren” to preach on Pentecost, and to replace Judas?

Peter did. However in the first council of the church it was James who was in charge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not one of these passages addresses the issue of the church being protected from error. Take Peter for example. He still made errors even while supposedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit in Matt 16:22-23.
Paul also rebukes him in Gal 2:11-16.

guanophore
This is a common mistake. You are confusing the Church with Peter.

I thought i had read from you and others that the church is Christ. When someone persecutes the church they are automatically persecuting Christ. I must have missunderstood.

guanophore
Jesus identifies Himself with the Church. It is Jesus as the Head, and the HS as the Soul that makes the Church infallible. Individual members of the church are not without error. There is a difference between teaching error, and behaving badly. Peter was acting in opposition to the infallible doctrine he had already taught Just as the Pope today is still accountable to his own infallible teaching.

Was Peter speaking infallibly when he made is belief about Jesus being the Christ?

Now we both know immediately after this he denies Christ. He was not just acting in oppostion to what he said but spoke falsely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
A couple of ways. One is with a literal tanslation of the Scriptures. The New American Standard translate it this way–
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Secondly, we know the church has not always taught the truth.

guanophore
Who is this royal “we” that you claim to represent, ja4?

I think you know by now----

On the contrary, “we” (those of Apostolic faith) know that the Church has never taught error.

So long as you don’t look at the facts of history you will believe this. Once we look at the various facts in this regards we know this is not true.

People sometimes behave erroneously, or become false teachers, but their bad behavior can be distinguished from the One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Faith in which there is no error.

If the doctrines are grounded in the Scriptures then you are correct. However it has been repeatedly shown this has not always been the case.

how can a fallible church find or support the truth, if she is not led by the HS?

It is one thing to be led truly by the HS and another to claim that all your teachers and leaders down the centuries have done so. Surely the pope and Tetzel thought they were being led by the HS and yet even catholics condemn them for what they did. Or look your inquisitions. The same principle applies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then you do agree then that the church is not protected from error?

guanophore
If it seems to you that the Church is not protected from error, it is because you have a concept of Jesus and the HS that percieves them as weak and liars.

Not the HS or Jesus are liars and weak but some of your leaders and teachers have been.

---

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GABRIEL OF 12

 Can't resist a couple quick rejoinders.

 1. **The idea that the Catholic church is the only faith** in possession of the full truth has been questioned by thousands upon thousands of scholarly students of scripture, especially Protestants. There is something supercilious about dismissing all those scholars as ipso facto wrong. Many of them studied the Christian faith throughout their lives and come to different conclusions based on their understanding of the Bible, tradition, experience, and reason. To label them all as misguided heretics is quite arrogant.

**Roy5, You are mistaken, I do not say that prostestants are wrong, and I dont label them as heretics. That is to broad of a statement to made by me.
It is clear I havent said the “Catholic church is the only faith” these are your words. My words are that “The Catholic church possesses the fullness of Truth” big difference would’nt you say?

The point I hope to make clear with you is, and I will use scripture here so as not to get misquoted,and dont take this pitiful humans words for it, take God’s word for it. Now please read these scriptures because they dont just refer to the Church on earth, but the full church in heaven and on earth, The Catholic church to my knowledge is the only one that has this doctrine believed in the Communion of Saints.

Col.2: 4 I say this so that no one may deceive you by specious arguments. **
5 For even if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing as I observe your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.
8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world 3 and not according to Christ.
9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity 4 bodily,
10 and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Col,1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
19 For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
20 and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven.

Ephesians 2:17-23
22 And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,
15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,
19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us,
21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

2 Thes.2;13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth.
15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

1 John 4:4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

There many more text to this claim. So I ask you, Which Church today has a history and succession leading back to the Apostles, and possess the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. This is the Church That I believe possesses the fullness of Truth, The Roman Catholic Church. She is the only one that can prove her existance since the Apostles.

I dont submit to a Church or a Pope, I submit to the body of Jesus Christ, and his authority he gave us to feed us, and teach us. This is the difference in our understanding. This is why the Catholic faith is Rock, and has stood the test of time, it is divine, and she will not submit to any other authority except Jesus Christ. She has outlived governments, nations,institutions because she is not of this world, and will not heed to man or woman for that matter today on freedoms that infect the Spirit of Truth.

Please dont confuse with what you call Catholics individual beliefs and faith on doctrine, with the Catholic Doctrine that is taught. The unchangeable doctrines of the Catholic church is what unites all Catholics world wide.

peace be with you, and thanks, you have a great leap day also

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Gabriel of 12;3374197]

GABRIEL OF 12

 Can't resist a couple quick rejoinders.

 1. **The idea that the Catholic church is the only faith** in possession of the full truth has been questioned by thousands upon thousands of scholarly students of scripture, especially Protestants. There is something supercilious about dismissing all those scholars as ipso facto wrong. Many of them studied the Christian faith throughout their lives and come to different conclusions based on their understanding of the Bible, tradition, experience, and reason. To label them all as misguided heretics is quite arrogant.

**Roy5, You are mistaken, I do not say that prostestants are wrong, and I dont label them as heretics. That is to broad of a statement to made by me.
It is clear I havent said the “Catholic church is the only faith” these are your words. My words are that “The Catholic church possesses the fullness of Truth” big difference would’nt you say?

The point I hope to make clear with you is, and I will use scripture here so as not to get misquoted,and dont take this pitiful humans words for it, take God’s word for it. Now please read these scriptures because they dont just refer to the Church on earth, but the full church in heaven and on earth, The Catholic church to my knowledge is the only one that has this doctrine believed in the Communion of Saints.

Col.2: 4 I say this so that no one may deceive you by specious arguments. **
5 For even if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing as I observe your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.
8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world 3 and not according to Christ.
9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity 4 bodily,
10 and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Col,1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
19 For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
20 and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven.

Ephesians 2:17-23
22 And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,
15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,
19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us,
21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

2 Thes.2;13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth.
15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

1 John 4:4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

There many more text to this claim. So I ask you, Which Church today has a history and succession leading back to the Apostles, and possess the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. This is the Church That I believe possesses the fullness of Truth, The Roman Catholic Church. She is the only one that can prove her existance since the Apostles.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

I dont submit to a Church or a Pope, I submit to the body of Jesus Christ, and his authority he gave us to feed us, and teach us.

If you are a catholic i don’t know how you can say this. I thought all catholics must submit to the pope and to the church.

This is the difference in our understanding. This is why the Catholic faith is Rock, and has stood the test of time, it is divine, and she will not submit to any other authority except Jesus Christ. She has outlived governments, nations,institutions because she is not of this world, and will not heed to man or woman for that matter today on freedoms that infect the Spirit of Truth.

Please dont confuse with what you call Catholics individual beliefs and faith on doctrine, with the Catholic Doctrine that is taught. The unchangeable doctrines of the Catholic church is what unites all Catholics world wide.

The catholic church has changed its doctrines a number of times. It used to be a sin to eat meat on Fridays and now its not. The NT chrisitans were never forbiden to eat meat. Celibate leadership is another doctrine that has changed. There is more that could be said but these are just 2 examples that demonstrate that the catholic church does change.

peace be with you, and thanks, you have a great leap day also

 

[Metaron]

The catholic church has changed its doctrines a number of times.

No it hasn’t. Ypu have to prove that.

It used to be a sin to eat meat on Fridays and now its not.

It was a sin to disobey the Church’s disciplinary rules, not that the actual act was sinful. It was disciplinary, not divine law. (Like the one-hour fast before Mass) Even the most uneducated Catholic could rebuke this transparent answer.

Celibate leadership is another doctrine that has changed.

That’s not a doctrine, and was never dogmatically defined. It’s a mere disciplinary rule.

There is more that could be said but these are just 2 examples that demonstrate that the catholic church does change.

You’re going to have to come up with better “examples” than that, LOL. That was a joke.