J
joe370
Guest
Those passages are undeniable in my humble opinion.
- Status
K
kempo1
Guest
Amen brother! Wish our seperated bretheren could see it also:shrug:
S
SteveVH
Guest
I’ve never seen a scriptural reference to the “invisible Church”. The Church was made visible beacause we are human beings.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.
But the way, to what Church do you belong? Very few Protestants belive in the real presence of Christ, not do they have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ.
Anyway, I think you are on the right track.
T
Taestron
Guest
I’m a Nazarene. The real presence is not an official doctrine of our church, but the official doctrine is vague enough that you can basically believe whatever you want about the Eucharist.
True there is nothing explicit in Scripture about the invisible church. But then again, there is no explicit Scripture about non-practicing Catholics. Both of these are explanations as to how/why is it that there seems to be Christians who don’t take their faith seriously.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Taestron. Would you also concede the following if a non-catholic believed it; some do: The Trinitarian doctrine is not an official doctrine of our church; the official doctrine is vague enough that you can basically believe whatever you want about the Trinity?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Remembrance is the Memorial, and fulfillment of the Passover and the Day of Atonement.
Bread and wine were served at the Last Supper, but not lamb as Christ would now become the Sacrificial Lamb…and during the Constellation of Aries…the Ram…considering the ram that was stuck in the bush and used as sacrifice instead of Abraham’s son, Isaac…
March 25 is the Jewish feast of this event and also March 25 is the Catholic feastday of the Word Made Flesh, the Incarnation.
God created time and space and lives outside of them. Christ, the fruit of the Tree of the Living, that was shown to Adam and Eve by God Himself…and Who they continued to see but not go near being banished out of the Garden…
And later we see the high priest offering gifts of bread and wine, Melchizedek…but no animal sacrifice to the victor over battle, the high priest prophecizing there would come some day the perfect sacrifice…Who we know is Christ.
Once a year the High Priest would enter into the sanctuary, and sprinkle the Mercy Seat with blood of sacrificed animals for atonement of sin.
Christ’s crucifixion and death is the only perfect sacrifice for sin, and His Resurrection defeated the power of sin and death, the power of linear time, to make each day in Him brand new.
When Christ ascended into heaven, He now fulfilled the high priest, entering through the doorway into the throne of heaven to the Heavenly Father, standing wounded but triumphant as the Sacrificial Lamb, Who is transubstantiated at the altar here at Mass through the Holy Spirit, the Fountain of Life Whose Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity nourishes us, every day at the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass…Jesus atonement for sin, for those sins continuing to be committed throughout the world.
The Mass is said not just for Catholics attending, but every one, 24/7 all over the entire world for all of humanity.
Thus it can be said that Christ brings All men up to Himself.
God deigned that the sacrificial lambs and goats b
Bread and wine were served at the Last Supper, but not lamb as Christ would now become the Sacrificial Lamb…and during the Constellation of Aries…the Ram…considering the ram that was stuck in the bush and used as sacrifice instead of Abraham’s son, Isaac…
March 25 is the Jewish feast of this event and also March 25 is the Catholic feastday of the Word Made Flesh, the Incarnation.
God created time and space and lives outside of them. Christ, the fruit of the Tree of the Living, that was shown to Adam and Eve by God Himself…and Who they continued to see but not go near being banished out of the Garden…
And later we see the high priest offering gifts of bread and wine, Melchizedek…but no animal sacrifice to the victor over battle, the high priest prophecizing there would come some day the perfect sacrifice…Who we know is Christ.
Once a year the High Priest would enter into the sanctuary, and sprinkle the Mercy Seat with blood of sacrificed animals for atonement of sin.
Christ’s crucifixion and death is the only perfect sacrifice for sin, and His Resurrection defeated the power of sin and death, the power of linear time, to make each day in Him brand new.
When Christ ascended into heaven, He now fulfilled the high priest, entering through the doorway into the throne of heaven to the Heavenly Father, standing wounded but triumphant as the Sacrificial Lamb, Who is transubstantiated at the altar here at Mass through the Holy Spirit, the Fountain of Life Whose Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity nourishes us, every day at the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass…Jesus atonement for sin, for those sins continuing to be committed throughout the world.
The Mass is said not just for Catholics attending, but every one, 24/7 all over the entire world for all of humanity.
Thus it can be said that Christ brings All men up to Himself.
God deigned that the sacrificial lambs and goats b
J
joe370
Guest
I didn’t know that.
T
Taestron
Guest
Well I would have to accept that they have the right to formulate their doctrine, but I don’t have to recognize them as a Christian community if they don’t hold to the Trinity. I would try to convince them of the importance of having an official Trinitarian doctrine that conforms to the creeds, or switching to a community that does.
J
joe370
Guest
That seems reasonable. I guess the age-old question remains: did Jesus leave Christianity with the means to know truth regarding things like Baptism, the Eucharist and the Trinity, in view of the fact that sacred scripture simply cannot fill those big infallible shoes? If it could…well, you know the rest. Not that I am suggesting that sacred scripture is not the inerrant word of God of course. It just seems, from your perspective, that Jesus failed to leave us with an arbiter to settle doctrinal differences when they arise.
T
Taestron
Guest
That’s true; it is the major weakness of protestantism. However, if Jesus did not leave us with a final arbiter on doctrinal disputes (and Scripture fails to do so
) then I must conclude that the things we do dispute should not be defined so minutely that it excludes the two sides from communion. Yet, I recognize that Jesus might have (and probably did) give the Church this authority. However, as I was discussing with Enickman earlier in this thread, I believe we lost the right to use this authority because of the great schism.Edit: Actually the reason I still hold to sola scriptura is because of this reason. Scripture cannot address all the concerns with which the Church must deal. Yet since I believe any one community has lost the right to speak ex cathedra, then we must fall on an equally trustworthy source even if it is limited in scope.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Then there is really nothing to decide. If you do have a “communion service”, it can only be symbolic as there is no one who would have authority to consecrate the bread and wine. If you want the real thing, you really should at least investigate the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
Sorry, you’ve lost me here. There is plenty of scripture concerning those who walk away from Christ. That would include Catholics as well as everyone else. Not sure what this has to do with the “invisible Church”.
T
Taestron
Guest
I have investigated, but I am unsure why you must have a certain authority to consecrate the elements. Is it not Catholic doctrine that anyone can perform a valid baptism? So if it is really the intent which matters and not the external form in the case of baptism (though the external form can guarantee proper intent), why can’t the same be true of the Eucharist?
Ah sorry. I believe simultaneously in free will and predestination, because both are taught in the Scriptures. So while our choice to walk away is a free choice, I must take seriously when Jesus says that none of the sheep God gives Him will be lost and when Paul says that those that God justifies He glorifies. The invisible Church is an attempt to describe the mechanics of this. If I join the Church but it does not change my life, then I can be said to have joined the visible Church but not the invisible Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I guess the basic answer is because that’s the way Jesus set it up.
He told his apostles that what they bound on earth would be bound in heaven.
And the apostles and their successors have held, for 2000 years, that only a priest may consecrate the bread and wine, but that, under certain conditions, the laity may baptize.
T
Taestron
Guest
And that is fine; 2000 years of tradition is a good bit of evidence. However, I do wish someone could tell me why this is the case; it would make the authority pill easier to swallow.I guess the basic answer is because that’s the way Jesus set it up.
He told his apostles that what they bound on earth would be bound in heaven.
And the apostles and their successors have held, for 2000 years, that only a priest may consecrate the bread and wine, but that, under certain conditions, the laity may baptize.
J
joe370
Guest
CCC: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Baptism, by those other than the ministers of reconciliation, seems to be the exception not the rule.
So, what you are suggesting is: since the royal priesthood, (which is comprised of all baptized Christians) has the authority to perform the prescribed Trinitarian Baptism therefore, logically speaking, that same priesthood of all Christian believers should possess the authority to confect the Eucharist.
From scripture, we certainly see a royal priesthood of both the old and new testaments, regarding spiritual sacrifices, consisting of all the children of Israel (old covenant) and all Christians (new covenant):
Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
I think we all agree that there was in fact an old testament ordained priesthood that descended from Aaron (other than the royal priesthood of all the children of Israel) that was specifically charged with the duty of offering up blood sacrifices along with other sacrifices, and that Jesus is the fulfilment of that old system, being that He is the once-and-for-all Sacrifice.
I suppose the critical question is: was Jesus ordaining just the 12 apostles at the last supper when He said, this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, do this in remembrance of me, or did these words also apply to folks outside that particular circle of disciples?
Also, does it seem reasonable to conclude that since there was a distinction in the old covenant between the two priesthoods there should be a distinction between the two in the new covenant?
T
Taestron
Guest
I didn’t think of trying to base it off of the priesthood of all believers, mainly because even non-baptized persons can administer a valid baptism. So, no, I don’t think that lay-baptism is due to the priesthood of all believers. But yes, I do believe there are distinctions between the two priesthoods under the new covenant (just don’t ask me what those are as a low-church Protestant).
The concept that Jesus may have only been speaking to the disciples is new to me. Especially in the gospel of John, it seems like all Jesus’ words apply equally to every Christian. So when I first heard that the “binding” promise of Matthew 18, only applied to the apostles, I scratched my head a bit. So, my default answer is that Jesus’ words, unless there is good reason to the contrary, apply to all Christians.
J
joe370
Guest
I suppose it is only natural to interpret scripture in light of tradition, regardless of church affiliation. As a former protestant, I too did the same, but felt compelled to oppose it in certain instances e.g. the binding and loosing…If the following passages apply to all Christians, I had thought, then they must apply to me as well. I simply could not, in good conscience, admit to myself or anyone else for that matter, that Jesus had entrusted me with the keys of the kingdom of heaven or the responsibility to bind or loose.
I 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. Matthew 16
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18
P
PRmerger
Guest
If I read between the lines what you’re referring to when you say “tradition” is “custom”. It’s simply been Catholic custom that priests consecrate the bread and wine. And you want to know why it’s always been customary.
But what I was referring to, when I said we have a 2000 year history of doing this, is Sacred Tradition.
And the distinction is IMMENSE.
What we mean, in this case, when we talk about Sacred Tradition, is that it is the Word of God that comes to us from the mouths of the Apostles, rather than the pen of the Apostles.
So when you ask “why is this the case” our answer is: because the Apostles told us to do it this way.
It is not the same as: because it’s the custom that we’ve always done it this way, followed by a
T
Taestron
Guest
Noted: Sacred Tradition is not the same as custom. If I were to accept that this is the Word of God, then this would be enough for me to submit. However, as I don’t quite believe the same thing about Sacred Tradition as you, any reason as to the “why” the Apostles told the Church to do it that way?I
What we mean, in this case, when we talk about Sacred Tradition, is that it is the Word of God that comes to us from the mouths of the Apostles, rather than the pen of the Apostles.
So when you ask “why is this the case” our answer is: because the Apostles told us to do it this way.
It is not the same as: because it’s the custom that we’ve always done it this way, followed by a
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because the Eucharist, being Jesus’ body/blood/soul/and divinity, is so sacred that only ordained hands can do this?
- Status