Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[Metaron]

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

No s***. He was the local bishop (of Jerusalem). But Peter was the one who made the decision.

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.

… … I don’t understand your reasoning abilities…

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

It’s irrelavant, because infallible does not mean that he will be able to make the right answer, only that he will not make the wrong one (when, of course, Ex Cathedra criteria are met.)

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

LOL, are you saying that Peter was defining a doctrine on Faith and morals, for all Christians for the rest of time to adhere to? LOL, you’re funny.

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.

LOL, that’s funny. It’s when I started studying history that I left the bickering, fragmenting, multiplying, arguing, and heretical Protestantism of my youth. I found mature, true, and deep faith and theology in the ancient Churches, unlike the shallow things taught by the whining break-offs of the “reformation”.

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.

Please tell me where the canon and *Sola Scriptura *are found in the Bible.

This is only the thousandth time I’ve refuted this self-refuting claim.

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.

Is’nt this basically what Protestant pastors claim for themselves anyway? And besides, what qualifies these “pastors” to teach, preach, and celebrate the Sacraments? By going to seminary? By getting an A+ in theology? LOL, no. They have no connection to the Apostles (by laying on of hands, as in the Bible) and therefore have invalid Sacraments, and no more a right to teach in the Church’s name than any one of us laymen.

Surely the pope and Tetzel thought they were being led by the HS and yet even catholics condemn them for what they did.

Pope Leo didn’t make some sort of infallible declaration, it was his personal acts. Apparently, you cannot distinguish and do not know Catholic theology well enough to understand. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the personal acts of a Pope.

And as for Tetzel, well… he got away with it, because the Pope did not speak out against the abuses, as he should of. He did think he had te Holy Spirit-- just as many Protestant self-ordained “pastors” claim for themselves.

Or look your inquisitions. The same principle applies.

[QUOTENot the HS or Jesus are liars and weak but some of your leaders and teachers have been.

---

[/QUOTE]

Yes, when they went against the Church’s infallible teachings, and thus were not speaking for the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Part 1

Gabriel of 12;3374197]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Part 2

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.

Yes we do, but I was explaining to Roy5 that I dont submit to a building Church, or the man of a Pope, I submit to the body of Jesus Christ which is the church, and the authority of the Pope his office that Jesus instituted in Peter. I wanted to clarify his and my view points on these two subjects. In summary, I dont think of the Catholic church as a building or institution of man, I believe she is the body of Jesus Christ how scripture explains this as being the bride of Christ. The Pope, His authority, His office as Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth is what I submit to, not the man himself who sits in Peters chair. I submit to his divinely protected authority, and his divinley office to teach us and feed us the body of Jesus Christ, and his teachings, without error by the protection of the Holy Spirit that Jesus has promised the apostles, and that he will not leave them.

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.

B]Before you go further, you cannot confuse doctrines with disciplines of the Catholic church, this is a common misunderstanding among non catholics. The disciplines can change to the times, the cultural traditions of different Catholic peoples can change, but the doctrines of the Catholic church will never change. They have been clarified in councils, to be clarified to changing languages inorder to understand them, we have grown in our doctrine understanding. But you will not see change. All Catholics believe in the same doctrine all around the World. We even hear the same Gospel readings on Sunday all around the world. Remember Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Catholic church is his body on earth as it is in heaven ( communion of saints) we all belong to the one faith, one baptism , one Lord. Ask a saint in heaven he will tell you, or research his writings that the Catholic church possess. You find him or her holding to the teachings of the Catholic faith, and obedient to the chair of Peter, the Pope.

Peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you

 

[guanophore]

Didn’t teach as much in the gospels?

Well, now you are changing horses. you asked what infallible teaching was made by Peter. Peter was presiding over the congregation when people came in and lied to him. They dropped dead on the spot. There is no account like this in the gospels.

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.

That nothing shoud be done without the Bishop, lest it be invalid (only bishops ordained in the Apostolic Succession are authorized to preside over sacraments). A Eucharist celebrated otherwise is invalid.

Peter did. However in the first council of the church it was James who was in charge.
[/qoute]

You are falling into your secular view of leadership and power again, ja4. The fact that James was presiding did not prevent Peter from teaching infallibly. Jesus gave the revelation to Peter, not to James.
justasking4;3374031:

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.

I don’t think you misunderstood. This is what the Scriptures say.

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

This is a good example of an infallbile proclamation. Note that Peter did not come up with it by himself, but that it was revealed to him by God. this is the same standard that is used today for infallible proclamations.

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

His denial of Christ, just like all the personal sins of bishops, are not considered part of the infallble teaching of the Church.

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.

I don’t know who this royal “we” is that you presume to represent. Why is it so hard to speak for yourself? Who are you claiming to represent?

A review of your posts makes it clear that you have many prejudiced beliefs about history - especially Christian history. It is not a surprise that you are unable to discern the truth by studying it. History, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

No, in fact, all the Christian doctrines were whole and entire before a word of the NT was penned, and they are still whole and entire (the NT never invalidated the Sacred Tradition).

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.

Where did you ever see a claim like that! I think you are still confusing individuals with the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is infallible. The fallen members of her are not.

 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.

Instead of changing the subject with your oozing anti-Catholic bigotry, can you stick to the topic? Where did the Catholic Church ever teach a “symbolic” Eucharist? Where is this found first in history?

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

Indeed, there have been many leaders and teachers who are weak, and some who have completely fallen from Grace. Where you seem to be confused is that you think this has cause the Holy part of the Church, comprised of Jesus as the Head and the HS as the Soul to also be fallen, and this is not the case.

 

[Roy5]

Gabriel of 12

 You do a good job of representing the traditional Roman Catholic view, but that view foes not impress me.

  I am one of those folks who probably should admit that Catholicism is not for me. I have a difficult job turning over my mind to any church or Pope - or book, for that matter. So, fundamentalist Protestantism is not an option, either. But the more 'big tent' for of Christianity does appeal, the kind that permits free and open discussion of spiritual concerns without anyone telling me that my opinions are out of bounds. Is it a sin to think for myself and come up with different conclusions than Catholics are supposed to accept on faith. 

   That's the crux of it. And in thinking for myself I have a mucho problem with such teachings as transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, praying to all manner fo saints (some of them mythological - or partly so), veneration of Mary, personal guardian angels, a divine right pontiff, - etc. All that sort of thing may have been okay during Medieval times. People also believed the earth was flat, that witches and demons were not far away, that the Black Plague was God's wrath, and much more that we look at as primitive today. And, frankly, I have trouble with some of the Bible, too - from Adam and Eden to the wierd book of Revelation. If God wanted us to believe all the Bible he could have at least made it clearer so that reasonable people could not arrive at quite different reasonable conclusions. What about the Quakers who take the Bible literally - "love your enemies" - and refuse to go to war? Or, Baptists who follow the example of Christ and do not have infant baptism? Or, Pentecostalists, who rely heavily upon Acts 2? Or, Calvinists who traditionally taught predestination - the elect - which Paul seemed to teach? And we could go on and on. I also have trouble with all the ornate robes and strong incense that some churches use. It seems to me that Christ had none of this and would be shocked by such luturgical and formal legalism that I witness on EWTN.

 

[guanophore]

Where did Jesus or His aposltes teach that “succession leading back to the Apostles” is the criteria for the true church?

Jesus commissioned them, He breathed upon them, and gave them specific instructions about how to keep His Teachings. He revealed to the Apostles that they were to entrust the Teaching to faithful men who were to teach others also. This was done with fasting, prayer, and the laying on of the Apostles hands. We call this process “ordination”.

Secondly, did the apostles possess the fulness of the truth?

Certainly not at the beginning, because it has been revelaed gradually. He specifically told them that there was more, but that they were not ready to hear it. Scripture does state that He explained “everything” to them, but it also states that they did not understand some things until later.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12

      I am one of those folks who probably should admit that Catholicism is not for me. I have a difficult job turning over my mind to any church or Pope - or book, for that matter. So, fundamentalist Protestantism is not an option, either. But the more 'big tent' for of Christianity does appeal, the kind that permits free and open discussion of spiritual concerns without anyone telling me that my opinions are out of bounds. Is it a sin to think for myself and come up with different conclusions than Catholics are supposed to accept on faith.

Roy5, Jesus doesnt want your mind, he wants you to love God with all your heart, mind, strength. The “big Tent” that you speak of is found in the Catholic church, when you combine both heaven and earthly church coming together in worship. I have found that in Catholicism, I am free to think for myself, talk to God, pray, and recieve my personal reflection from scripture. The Church is placed here to guide us and protect us from going into error. For example I have found that the mysteries of the Rosary are Gospel prayed, and that they fulfill the law and the prophets. This is not defined as church doctrine. but I am free to research, discuss, and believe, what I am not free to do is teach it as church doctrine.
So we are free to grow in our faith as we believe, as long as we do not go out of the parameters of the Gospel that can lead to error and false teachings.

  That's the crux of it. And in thinking for myself I have a mucho problem with such teachings as transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, praying to all manner fo saints (some of them mythological - or partly so), veneration of Mary, personal guardian angels, a divine right pontiff, - etc.

**I admit these are doctrines that at the surface can be troubling, but if you investigate them with an open mind and heart of faith in Jesus, the Holy Spirit will reveal this mysteries to your heart and mind. If you have just taken a glance at these doctrines without, looking into why the Church believes in them, and prove them to be sound and scriptural. And each one deserves adequate attention to arrive at a conclusion. But learn them from a Catholic.

Another point I would like to mention, is this many different denominations, they all come from the Catholic faith, but they got to pick and chose their doctrine, and believe in these half trues. Protestants have Truth, but it is not the fullness of Truth. Just as you are contemplating to free think of the Christian faith. If you were to start a church under the pretense of your free will thinking Chirstian faith, I would guarantee you, in your life time, you will have break offs from your doctrinal beliefs. There is only one Faith in Christianity, and all the ones you spoke of believe in parts of it. And they will continue to splinter as time goes on, until they come back to the fullness of the Faith, the Catholic Church.

Enjoy talking with you, Peace be with you**

 

[guanophore]

  I am one of those folks who probably should admit that Catholicism is not for me. I have a difficult job turning over my mind to any church or Pope - or book, for that matter.

Jesus represented in the Catholic Church, does not teach this. i am glad that you are not willing to “turn over” youf mind. This woudl be an improper use of the mind God gave you for HIs glory.

So, fundamentalist Protestantism is not an option, either. But the more ‘big tent’ for of Christianity does appeal, the kind that permits free and open discussion of spiritual concerns without anyone telling me that my opinions are out of bounds. Is it a sin to think for myself and come up with different conclusions than Catholics are supposed to accept on faith.

There is plenty of room for you to have free and open discussion. It is the duty of the Church, commissioned by Christ, to define where the boundaries are. It is not a sin to think for yourself, you are mistaken on that point. You can come up with different conclusions, but it is important that you realize, when you do, that you may be out of the bounds of the Teaching of Jesus.

     That's the crux of it. And in thinking for myself I have a mucho problem with such teachings as transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, praying to all manner fo saints (some of them mythological - or partly so), veneration of Mary, personal guardian angels, a divine right pontiff, - etc.

I have never heard of a “divine right pontiff” so I can’t speak to that. It is not a sin to have problems with the Church’s Teachings. Many of us have or did in the past. The appropriate response is to recognize that we are fallible and limited, and to trust that God will reveal everything to us sooner or later. It seems to me that what you have is a trust issue.

All that sort of thing may have been okay during Medieval times. People also believed the earth was flat, that witches and demons were not far away, that the Black Plague was God’s wrath, and much more that we look at as primitive today.

These teachings you list above are not “midieval”. They have been with the Church since her creation. I have read this statement from you before, and I guess that you just have not studied the history of the Church, and don’t understand that these predated midieval times.

And, frankly, I have trouble with some of the Bible, too - from Adam and Eden to the wierd book of Revelation. If God wanted us to believe all the Bible he could have at least made it clearer so that reasonable people could not arrive at quite different reasonable conclusions.

That is why God appointed a Teaching Authority, which is the Church. God does not confine the revealation of Himself to intellect, but works through the Soul and Spirit.

What about the Quakers who take the Bible literally - “love your enemies” - and refuse to go to war? Or, Baptists who follow the example of Christ and do not have infant baptism? Or, Pentecostalists, who rely heavily upon Acts 2? Or, Calvinists who traditionally taught predestination - the elect - which Paul seemed to teach? And we could go on and on.

What about them? Why is this a problem? Did you not say above that you want to use your own mind to come up with your own conclusions? Should not everyone else hve the same right?

I also have trouble with all the ornate robes and strong incense that some churches use. It seems to me that Christ had none of this and would be shocked by such luturgical and formal legalism that I witness on EWTN.

Christ is not shocked, I assure you. I think if you study the history of these customs, you will find them less objectionable.

 

[Roy5]

GABRIEL OF 12, GUANAPHONE

Thanks for trying, but I am still inclined to think that I need a more open church that doesn't focus so much on authority. I have also become more aware of the lag of Catholicism on the issue of women - an all-male priesthood. Advances have been made, of course, as I remember when women weren't readers at Mass, altar girls were not permitted, etc. Advances have been made in other areas, too. I recall hearing about weddings and funerals missed because they were held in Protestant churches. Much of my family has left the church, and probably this is having an influence.

 Three quick points.

  1. I can't call it real freedom of discussion when the Pope has said, for example, that women priests is not a subject that can be discussed. I also have doctrinal objections (some mentioned in #184) and hate to think that honest dislogue about their validity is 'off-limits' to Catholics. One of my early gripes was when the Vatican declared artificial birth control immoral. One of my friends left the church after 6 children - the church's birth control did not work - so they chose between an harmonious and fulfilling married life and the church. I noticed in a recent magazine that over 2/3 of American Catholics and over 70% of Ireland's Catholics think the church should change its stance on that very personal issue.

   2. It seems more and more impossible for me to be led by a church or a book, a pope or a preacher. They all may have some (name removed by moderator)ut, but my Christian conscience has become my main guide.

This can be denounced as heresy or egotism or whatever, but I can’t believe a merciful God condemns those who do their best to follow Christ and his teachings.

   3. The church has a questionable record on freedom of thought and freedom of religion generally. Think of all the heretics that were slaughtered in the name of Catholicism. In modern times, for example, I recall under Franco how Protestants were severely repressed. Catholics met some resistance in America, true, but they have been enormously blessed in this country. Just as Catholics were not allowed in, say, Massachusetts in colonial times, Protestants were not permitted to settle in New France. Prejudice went both ways, and some of it still remains. Fortunately, John XXIII convened Vatican II which helped enormously. Pope John Paul II was a mixture - very progressive in some areas, status quo in others. Benedict's statements last July (as I recall) troubled me, especially the one that suggested that Protestant ministers had no authority to give communion, and that Protestant churches were not really churches at all but 'ecclesial entities'. My Protestant family members and friends note such statements and it only deepens suspicions of Rome. They are less concerned about Catholicism in America, they say, because Catholics here have been so influenced by our democratic society that think for themselves when it comes to religious beliefs and practices.

  Happy March - and, looking ahead, a most Blessed Easter. In Easter we have the essential message of Christianity - victory over defeat, good over evil, life over death. I am told that that is why Protestants generally don't have Christ on the cross. He is not dead but much alive.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GABRIEL OF 12, GUANAPHONE

Thanks for trying, but I am still inclined to think that I need a more open church that doesn't focus so much on authority. I have also become more aware of the lag of Catholicism on the issue of women - an all-male priesthood. Advances have been made, of course, as I remember when women weren't readers at Mass, altar girls were not permitted, etc. Advances have been made in other areas, too. I recall hearing about weddings and funerals missed because they were held in Protestant churches. Much of my family has left the church, and probably this is having an influence.

**B]Roy5, my intent is not to convert you, that is the holy spirits job. My intent is to clarify any misconceptions you still have about the Roman Catholic faith. And hope you dont continue the path of misinforming others about my faith, as you have been misinformed, and misunderstanding. I dont want to change your mind, I just want you to know the Truth about what the church teaches.

Your misunderstandings of authority and church are judgemental to misconstrued understanding of the reality of what is divinely commanded and what is believed. You judge the Catholic church and her divinely appointed authority as if the Pope can change what has been revealed by God. Just because you see a man in the chair of Peter does not mean he can put assunder what God has joined. Your complaints are not with the Church or her authority, Your complaints are with God. And if your will does not agree with God, then that is between you and him.

I can say this much, you will always be in search for him, that is why you are undecided about things, and conflict with truth. Sometimes we have to let go and let God’s will be done in our lives. That is why when one is baptised into the body of Jesus Christ he has died to self, and is raised out of the baptism waters in Christ Jesus, made a new creation in God. We are not of the world. Maybe that is what this strife you are experiencing. Could it be you cant let go of the world? You speak about wanting to be free, the only way to be set free eternally is Truth.B]

A book or authority you relate to is not just a book or a man. These are the inspired word of God, administered through his vicar (primeminister) to give us Truth. Now we have the choice to accept him and his teachings, or reject him, it is your free will.

Remember Roy5 do not confuse church disciplines and teachings with church doctrine. This is always a misunderstanding from Protestants and non Catholics.

I wish you well in your journey’s, and made God keep you, and reveal his unending love for you. May the peace and Love of Jesus christ be with you.**

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

guanophore;3375699]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Didn’t teach as much in the gospels?

guanophore
Well, now you are changing horses. you asked what infallible teaching was made by Peter. Peter was presiding over the congregation when people came in and lied to him. They dropped dead on the spot. There is no account like this in the gospels.

I was not clear in my original post. I was referring to Jesus’ who said that those who blashpheme the HS are guilty of an eternal sin. To resist the HS on anything thing is serious business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
That nothing shoud be done without the Bishop, lest it be invalid (only bishops ordained in the Apostolic Succession are authorized to preside over sacraments). A Eucharist celebrated otherwise is invalid.

Do you know when this was first said in regards to the eucharist?

justasking4;3374031] Peter did. However in the first council of the church it was James who was in charge.

guanophore
You are falling into your secular view of leadership and power again, ja4. The fact that James was presiding did not prevent Peter from teaching infallibly. Jesus gave the revelation to Peter, not to James

When James spoke at the end, was he speaking infallilby?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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
I don’t think you misunderstood. This is what the Scriptures say.

A little side track here. Were the catholic popes who endorsed the inquisitions guilty of persecuting the church they were pledged to protect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Was Peter speaking infallibly when he made is belief about Jesus being the Christ?

guanophore
This is a good example of an infallbile proclamation. Note that Peter did not come up with it by himself, but that it was revealed to him by God. this is the same standard that is used today for infallible proclamations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Now we both know immediately after this he denies Christ. He was not just acting in oppostion to what he said but spoke falsely.

His denial of Christ, just like all the personal sins of bishops, are not considered part of the infallble teaching of the Church.

But he did speak falsely under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
I don’t know who this royal “we” is that you presume to represent. Why is it so hard to speak for yourself? Who are you claiming to represent?

All true believers in Christ.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

guanophore;3375699]

A review of your posts makes it clear that you have many prejudiced beliefs about history - especially Christian history. It is not a surprise that you are unable to discern the truth by studying it. History, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder.

If thats the case then this is true of everyone. I have presented in many cases facts that can be checked out by anyone. If what i’m saying is supported by these facts then i’m not being prejudiced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
No, in fact, all the Christian doctrines were whole and entire before a word of the NT was penned, and they are still whole and entire (the NT never invalidated the Sacred Tradition).

This term you keep using needs to be studied in detail before we know its true or not. Thats why i have asked you and others for a complete list of these “Sacred Traditions” before you can say they never invalidate the NT. How can i agree with you unless i know exactly what all these Sacred Traditions are? Can you now produce them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
Where did you ever see a claim like that! I think you are still confusing individuals with the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is infallible. The fallen members of her are not.

I thought it was said the HS has guided the catholic church down through the centuries? If so, this would at least cover all popes and councils. Correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
Instead of changing the subject with your oozing anti-Catholic bigotry, can you stick to the topic? Where did the Catholic Church ever teach a “symbolic” Eucharist? Where is this found first in history?

I already have. Here is a quote from a church historian on this:
church historian Philip Schaff:
In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.703 The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar…

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not the HS or Jesus are liars and weak but some of your leaders and teachers have been.

guanophore
Indeed, there have been many leaders and teachers who are weak, and some who have completely fallen from Grace. Where you seem to be confused is that you think this has cause the Holy part of the Church, comprised of Jesus as the Head and the HS as the Soul to also be fallen, and this is not the case.

The church is composed of men and women who are fallen and weak. Many of them were false teachers who have lead the catholic church astray with their teachings and practices. Your church still endorses many of them.
I never ever claimed the Christ or the HS is fallen.

---

 

[guanophore]

Do you know when this was first said in regards to the eucharist?

“Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110, [13,1])

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishops presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, [6,1])

“Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic; he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [3,2])

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110, [8,1])

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, - and such is your practice, that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1])

Ignatius says that a valid eucharist is one that is presided over by the bishop, or one appointed by him. His letters are written in the year 110. Do you think the Church was already “off the rails” by then?

When James spoke at the end, was he speaking infallilby?

Just as all Church councils do.

A little side track here. Were the catholic popes who endorsed the inquisitions guilty of persecuting the church they were pledged to protect?

Too big of a side track. Needs to go on another thread.

But he did speak falsely under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No, ja4, this cannot happen. No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the HS. Equally, on who denies Him has fallen from a state of grace. Jesus specifically looks at Peter and says “get thee behind me, Satan”. How can you doubt the source of denying Christ? why would you say it is from the HS? Sometimes I just cannot follow your reasoning at all. Are you so bent on “proving” that the Catholic Church is false that you are even willing to deny what is in the Scripture?

All true believers in Christ.

So, basically you are saying that anyone who believes Catholic doctrine is not really a “true believer in Christ”?

 

[guanophore]

If thats the case then this is true of everyone.

Yes, I believe it is. Everyone has bias. Everyone has their own perceptions, which have been formed by their own specific life experiences.

I have presented in many cases facts that can be checked out by anyone. If what i’m saying is supported by these facts then i’m not being prejudiced.

Oh contraire! A person can use facts to support all kinds of prejudice! A person can justify the beating of wives and children, or the oppression of another race, or the killing of people who believe differently. All done with the facts! I will quote Obiwan Kenobi, who said to Luke Sky walker: “you are going to find that many of the truths of life depend upon your point of view”.

This term you keep using needs to be studied in detail before we know its true or not. Thats why i have asked you and others for a complete list of these "Sacred Traditions" before you can say they never invalidate the NT. How can i agree with you unless i know exactly what all these Sacred Traditions are? Can you now produce them?

The Church is the custodian of Sacred Tradition, ja4. If you keep learning about the Church, you will keep learning about the Sacred Tradition. A person does not 'produce them" because they are part of Divine Revelation. On the contrary, a person “receives” them from God, just as one “receives” Christ in the Eucharist. You have already agreed with many of the Sacred Traditions. It is my fervent prayer that you will continue in your journey.

I thought it was said the HS has guided the catholic church down through the centuries? If so, this would at least cover all popes and councils. Correct?

No, Popes are not personally preserved from error. The Church is preserved. The Teaching is preserved. Not all the councils were ecumencal, either, and reflect decisions that are made locally, and don’t apply to the Church throughout the world. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the HS can lead fallible men? Are you prevented from this by your idea that sin is more powerful than God?

The church is composed of men and women who are fallen and weak. Many of them were false teachers who have lead the catholic church astray with their teachings and practices. Your church still endorses many of them. I never ever claimed the Christ or the HS is fallen.

There are fallen men and women , and there are false teachers. However, this formulation denies that the Church belongs to Christ, that He is the Head, and that the HS ensouls the Church.
It denies that the Church is His Holy Bride, as scripture states, and that it is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. For some reason, you are fixated on the members of the body that have fallen from grace, instead of the members that are preserved in grace. I guess you need to deny the Holy part of God’s church in order to reject Catholicism?

Do you think that false teachers let the Catholic Church astray with their teachings and practices on the Eucharist? Which of these does the Church “still endorse”?