D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Yes, I read this post but couldn’t interpret its meaning. How do you interpret it?
- Status
S
stewstew03
Guest
I interpret that to mean she was mistaken that the Gospel of Thomas has been “approved” by the Church as a private revelation.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Well your church believed it until good old King Henry did his thing. Why would a political situation change the validity of the power of the papacy or the Church’s understanding of justification?
You sound more like a Fundamentalist than an Anglican, and you obviously know little about Catholic belief. This has been answered so many times that I can’t bear to go there again :banghead: so I’ll just leave you with this; If this is really your belief about the Catholic idea of salvation then you have been misled.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Taestron, how ya doin…Regarding the fullness of truth, I certainly used to think like that until it occurred to me that not each and every church, including the catholic church, can possess the fullness of truth taught by Jesus unless of course truth is relative. For example, we see many theological differences within Christendom e.g., disagreements regarding the structure of church leadership, the liturgy, eucharist, baptism, salvation and the nature of Jesus, just to name a few.
In your opinion, how can we know, with certainty, which church in the world today, actually possesses the fullness of truth?
S
SteveVH
Guest
What does the fact that those who separated from the Catholic Church all disagree with each other have to do with whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the “fullness of truth”? Because someone may disagree does not change the truth. You can certainly say that not all communities have it as that it the logical conclusion to which one must arrive considering that truth cannot conflict with truth. Either one has it, or none have it.
I can tell you how I conclude that the Catholic Church has it? Begin with Truth himself; Jesus. He started a Church. He made promises to that Church, that he would not leave it orphaned, that he would remain with it until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. To me, it is all based upon these promises of Christ, who, being God, cannot but fulfill those promises. The Catholic Church can historically trace itself back to Peter. No other Church can make this claim. The Catholic Church is that same Church that Christ founded, in which he remains always, and to which he made the promises. Therefore it possesses the “fullness of truth”.
J
joe370
Guest
I am a catholic. I now believe the catholic church possesses the fullness of truth. The fullness of truth can be found in the church founded by Jesus, (the Catholic Church) simply because He guides His catholic church into all truth until the end of time. The catholic church is the historical church to which the apostles belonged.
T
Taestron
Guest
Hi, Joe. I’m doing fine; how are you?
As for the fulness of truth, I must admit I don’t have the full picture. However, I want to claim that all true members of the Church hold to the same truth, and it is that truth which is “the fulness of truth” and the “truth that sets us free.” What that truth actually is tricky to define, but the creeds of the ecumenical councils are a good place to start. So in this system, there can be quite a bit of difference between in certain doctrines without claiming that there is absent of the more important truth.
As far as how do we know which church(es) possess the fulness of truth, I cannot have the same level of certainty that Catholics have, but this is due to the skeptic streak inside me. But this is why I quoted the Timothy passage. I could not say that Protestants don’t have the fulness of truth because I know their godliness and know I can trust what they teach me. When they disagree, it is not that both sides are correct, but that the truth in this case is part of the freedom we have as Christians. Now I do believe it is important to hold to the truth even in these cases, but I won’t say that this church or that church is not the true Church because of one of these doctrines.
J
joe370
Guest
I’m doing pretty good.
Just curious: when you say, all true members of the Church hold to the same truth, and it is that truth which is the “fulness of truth” and the “truth that sets us free” - to which church are you referring? Keeping in mind that I am not trying to convince you that the catholic church is the church founded by Jesus. I just enjoy friendly discussions about the faith. However, that’s where my journey took me.By the way, what are your beliefs regarding the Eucharist? That’s what really knocked me off the proverbial fence right into the Tiber river. LOL…
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Dave Noonon…I was recalling a list of approved books with designation some time ago and could not find the source…it was some time ago…and I already rejected the example of a writing attributed to the Thomas Gospel in my forthcoming post. I am a heavy reader since childhood.
Thanks Stew for clarifying the obvious comment to Dave…I made a mistake! I certainly oppose any gnostic writings. And Catholics promoting the fullness of truth in Christ are human…like just Peter was when he was not at the Crucifixion, just as Thomas was…and subsequently unable to testify to anything he witnessed at the Cross as well.
But Peter’s epistles hold up to the Church whereas Thomas’ does not.
Thanks Stew for clarifying the obvious comment to Dave…I made a mistake! I certainly oppose any gnostic writings. And Catholics promoting the fullness of truth in Christ are human…like just Peter was when he was not at the Crucifixion, just as Thomas was…and subsequently unable to testify to anything he witnessed at the Cross as well.
But Peter’s epistles hold up to the Church whereas Thomas’ does not.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Joe…in the Church we have to separate Tradition of faith passed down vs the expression of faith found in many different cultures and languages.
There was universal practice of the liturgy, along with the creed, the episcopal form of hierarchy, the Creed, and approved books of the Bible by 100 AD throughout the Christian world which can be attributed to none other than the transmission of faith by the Holy Spirit.
All the rubrics of the Mass, the movements, parts, gestures…all must be fully evaluated…because liturgy is a great form of catechesis and how we believe…How we pray, how we believe. There are exterior differences among the many different Catholic and Orthodox cultures, but all such differences affirm the same Creed and action of God among us.
So we say the big ‘T’ of tradition of faith and the small ‘t’ of faith, the small or external ecclesial traditions given in different cultures.
There was universal practice of the liturgy, along with the creed, the episcopal form of hierarchy, the Creed, and approved books of the Bible by 100 AD throughout the Christian world which can be attributed to none other than the transmission of faith by the Holy Spirit.
All the rubrics of the Mass, the movements, parts, gestures…all must be fully evaluated…because liturgy is a great form of catechesis and how we believe…How we pray, how we believe. There are exterior differences among the many different Catholic and Orthodox cultures, but all such differences affirm the same Creed and action of God among us.
So we say the big ‘T’ of tradition of faith and the small ‘t’ of faith, the small or external ecclesial traditions given in different cultures.
T
Taestron
Guest
I was talking of the invisible Church. I believe that anything the Catholic Church ascribes to itself, is better ascribed to the invisible Church (gates of hell not prevailing, Jesus found, etc.). I think we can say with some certainty which congregations are a part of this invisible church by looking at the ecumenical creeds and seeing which communities hold to these truths. So I think we can conclude that any community which holds to these truths possesses the fulness of truth. That is my position in a nutshell.I’m doing pretty good.
By the way, what are your beliefs regarding the Eucharist? That’s what really knocked me off the proverbial fence right into the Tiber river. LOL…
I am an oddball when it comes to the Eucharist. I believe in the real presence, that the elements are the body and blood of Christ. I prefer to avoid the term transubstantiation, and leave it up to smarter people to figure out the exact mechanics of the consecration. I do not think of the Eucharist in terms of sacrifice, but I have not thought that issue through as much I would like. I also believe that the Eucharist mediates Christ. So I am not your typical Nazarene, but the Manual is sort of vague about this point.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Loraine Boettner said things/doctrines that had been belived centuries were invented as new brand new, when they became dogma de fide.
J
joe370
Guest
Thanks for the feedback.I was talking of the invisible Church. I believe that anything the Catholic Church ascribes to itself, is better ascribed to the invisible Church (gates of hell not prevailing, Jesus found, etc.). I think we can say with some certainty which congregations are a part of this invisible church by looking at the ecumenical creeds and seeing which communities hold to these truths. So I think we can conclude that any community which holds to these truths possesses the fulness of truth. That is my position in a nutshell.
I am an oddball when it comes to the Eucharist. I believe in the real presence, that the elements are the body and blood of Christ. I prefer to avoid the term transubstantiation, and leave it up to smarter people to figure out the exact mechanics of the consecration. I do not think of the Eucharist in terms of sacrifice, but I have not thought that issue through as much I would like. I also believe that the Eucharist mediates Christ. So I am not your typical Nazarene, but the Manual is sort of vague about this point.
I could appreciate the non-catholic position e.g. symbolic, or real presence but not a sacrifice, if it was simply a communal meal of mere bread and wine being offered up to God. No sacrificial overtones there. However, if we believe via the eyes of faith, that mere bread and wine, upon the words of consecration, truly become Jesus’ Body and Blood, (real food…real drink) then wouldn’t that make it a sacrificial meal? Your thoughts?Who made the once-for-all-sacrifice, Joe? In that sense, it is a sacrifice. What sacrifice do we make, other than one of thanks and praise? And who benefits by the reception of His true body and blood?Thanks for the feedback.
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon.
Jesus of course made the once-and-for-all sacrifice on Calvary. What occurred to me long ago, is that if the bread and wine, upon the words of consecration, truly transform into Jesus’ Body and Blood, via the power of God, then, like the OT requirements regarding sacrifice, it is truly a sacrifice of Jesus’ Body and Blood which was offered up to the Father on Calvary and continues to be offered up on the alter, to the Father on a daily basis. I believe we can see a comparison in the book of Malachi, other than one of only thanks and praise; of course it is that too, hence the word Eucharist:“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
** “By offering defiled food on my altar.**
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
“Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
“Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty,** “and I will accept no offering from your hands.** My name will be great among the nations,** from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me,** because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty… “Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am a great king, ” says the Lord Almighty, **“and my name is to be feared among the nations." **
God seems displeased with the way the OT priests handled the sacrifice on the alter and therefore promises to provide His own sacrifice on His alter, which of course will replace the old sacrificial system. Your thoughts?
P
Porknpie
Guest
Hi Xian -
Share your perspective. Which church is referred to in Matthew 18:17 and what authority is determining what constitutes a “sin”?
15 “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
T
Taestron
Guest
I think that we can safely say the Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. After all, we are consuming the flesh of the one who was sacrificed. However, I’m not sure what other language of sacrifice we can apply to the Eucharist.Thanks for the feedback.
I don’t think anybody is arguing that Christ cannot be considered a sacrifice. However, I know I am confused as to the relationship between the actual event of the crucifixion and the Eucharist. It doesn’t seem correct to say that Jesus is actually sacrificed during the Eucharist, but it seems to be more than mere remembrance. I think viewing it as a sacrificial meal may be all we can say about the sacrifice of the Eucharist.Hey Jon.
J
joe370
Guest
You are right and the catholic church does not teach that Jesus dies again. My sister makes that claim and I think it is so silly. Jesus is in heaven, or where ever He wants to be. I think the simplest way to put it is to say that, via the words of consecration, God transforms simple bread and wine into His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity; similar to the way He transformed water into wine. It was one thing and it is now something completely different.
By the way, well stated regarding the following:
“After all, we are consuming the flesh of the one who was sacrificed…”
K
kempo1
Guest
Concerning the Holy Eucharist St. Paul writes in first corinthians chapter 11 versus 26-32
for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. V27 Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. V28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. V29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself. V30 That is why many of you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. V31 If we discerned ourselves, would not be under judgement.,v32 but since we are judged by the lord, we are being disciplined so thar we may not be condemned along with the world.
Ok back up to 1st corinthians chapter 10 v16 St Paul says The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? That to me should clear up a whole lot of questions about the eucharist and what we as Catholics believe about it. I cant quite understand why so many people reject this. When Jesus was teaching his disciples explaining that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink, and told them whoever eats his flesh and drnks his blood renains in him and he in them they could not bear to hear his teaching then and people today cant bear to hear it today and reject it and walk away as did those disciples back then.
for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. V27 Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. V28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. V29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself. V30 That is why many of you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. V31 If we discerned ourselves, would not be under judgement.,v32 but since we are judged by the lord, we are being disciplined so thar we may not be condemned along with the world.
Ok back up to 1st corinthians chapter 10 v16 St Paul says The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? That to me should clear up a whole lot of questions about the eucharist and what we as Catholics believe about it. I cant quite understand why so many people reject this. When Jesus was teaching his disciples explaining that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink, and told them whoever eats his flesh and drnks his blood renains in him and he in them they could not bear to hear his teaching then and people today cant bear to hear it today and reject it and walk away as did those disciples back then.
- Status