Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

[FathersKnowBest]

Do you agree then that when Fathers talking of a “sacrifice” being continually given around the earth forever, it is us and our praise, and not the re offering of an unbloody transformation of the elements to Calvay’s victim ?

The early Fathers were most decidedly speaking of the Eucharist.

Malachi speaks of a “perfect” sacrifice, or a “pure” offering.

Do you claim that you are “perfect” or “pure”? I know I don’t.

 

[Contarini]

The church can not fail even if we are both wrong on some "stuff’ .

I agree with this. This is why I find so much Catholic argument pointless, even though I believe strongly that we should all be in communion with Rome.

That’s the paradox: I think there is no good reason not to be Catholic, but there is also no good reason to break communion with my fellow-Christians who are not Catholics.

Hence my continual hesitation. . . .

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Right but has His sacrifice ceased ? Why should the Mass still be a sacrifice ?

As long as there are human souls in need of salvation, Christ’s Sacrifice must be made present.

Still does not answer as to why you offer him back His sacrifice (Calvary). I understand us then adding our lives as a living sacrifice. But it is like He gives you a gift and you give it back along with another one.

The same way the OT priests accepted the first fruits from God and returned them back to God through sacrifice. Not entirely identical but the principle remains.

 

[benhur]

The early Fathers were most decidedly speaking of the Eucharist.

Malachi speaks of a “perfect” sacrifice, or a “pure” offering.

Do you claim that you are “perfect” or “pure”? I know I don’t.

Is Jesus pure ? Is He not in you ? Does He not inhabit the praises of His people ( especially when we examine ourselves, do contrition beforehand) ?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The OT gives a clue. How is it that the children of the ancient father’s of Abraham and Moses got so muddled that by the time Jesus came He was too new and treated like a foreign object and “removed”. " I am become a stranger unto my brethren and an alien unto my mother’s children". Psalm 69. The real irony is that God was still faithful to Moses and Abraham and his descendants and all His promises perfectly fulfilled with Israel delivering the Christ Child…Jesus said nothing new as reformations/schisms have not either. And all His promises to the apostles for delivering forth a spotless Bride is right on schedule, despite our muddled appearance to some.

My question hasn’t really been answered. When was the creation of new numerous bodies required when the church fell into such false belief and doctrine? I am currently examining the issue of sola fide which seems to be the protestant clincher, the doctrine they rest upon and if this is necessary I would have to conclude based on my readings of the fathers that it quite frankly happened very early that hte church become totally corrupt. As early as the second century I might wager if I were to judge the churches throughout history by a standard of protestantism.

But where would you place the date? It must have happened at some time or began at one point in time to culminate at a later date. I do wonder how protestants would react to the monastic literature I have been reading, I think you would have to declare them anathema and false Christians in which case you would be doing away with Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Oriental orthodoxy.

Or do you admit to an ignorance about the date, only arguing that there needed to be reformation in the fifteenth century? Alright, but if the eastern and western churches share such ideas of salvation which are entirely different from the reformation, it is something that must be considered. Why God let it happen and why for so long did it happen that there was no true church on earth.

 

[benhur]

As long as there are human souls in need of salvation, Christ’s Sacrifice must be made present.

Sorry, but I thought communion was only for the saved baptized . Why did the church at some point in her history ask for catechumens to leave mass before the consecration ?

The same way the OT priests accepted the first fruits from God and returned them back to God through sacrifice. Not entirely identical but the principle remains.

Maybe exactly identical ? Still a sacrifice, still OT fashion of “doing business” with God.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Is Jesus pure ? Is He not in you ?

Yes. But I am not purely Jesus.

 

[benhur]

My question hasn’t really been answered. When was the creation of new numerous bodies required when the church fell into such false belief and doctrine? I am currently examining the issue of sola fide which seems to be the protestant clincher, the doctrine they rest upon and if this is necessary I would have to conclude based on my readings of the fathers that it quite frankly happened very early that hte church become totally corrupt. As early as the second century I might wager if I were to judge the churches throughout history by a standard of protestantism.

But where would you place the date? It must have happened at some time or began at one point in time to culminate at a later date. I do wonder how protestants would react to the monastic literature I have been reading, I think you would have to declare them anathema and false Christians in which case you would be doing away with Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Oriental orthodoxy.

Or do you admit to an ignorance about the date, only arguing that there needed to be reformation in the fifteenth century? Alright, but if the eastern and western churches share such ideas of salvation which are entirely different from the reformation, it is something that must be considered. Why God let it happen and why for so long did it happen that there was no true church on earth.

It is an interesting study. Not sure how p(name removed by moderator)ointing or not means anything, especially if you think that means “it"never happened (error.compromise etc). it is like asking a drug addict when they began their “descent”. P(name removed by moderator)ointing that is problematic, but it doesn’t mean they have no problem. Or a couple wants a divorce after 30 years of marriage. You ask to p(name removed by moderator)oint how that came to be. No exact point does not mean they don’t have a problem…The other problem is that some think the church infallible in certain areas and see the church as a particular institution (theirs) instead of the “called out ones”, the “ecclesia”, a universal institution. So then the problem arises to determine who and what does God promise to be with and guide , and how do you judge His guidance,by being perfect , infallible ?..But your study is good. I would think if it is possible for you to take one dogma/practice/rite/writing at a time, and not look at one mistake as pandoras box where everything crumbles. Like don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. One can also work backwards . For instance, I would say the last two ex-cathedra statements were” not needed", even errant. Anyways, it is not “one” thing that did it, hence no magical, revealing “one” date.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

It is an interesting study. Not sure how p(name removed by moderator)ointing or not means anything, especially if you think that means “it"never happened (error.compromise etc). it is like asking a drug addict when they began their “descent”. P(name removed by moderator)ointing that is problematic, but it doesn’t mean they have no problem. Or a couple wants a divorce after 30 years of marriage. You ask to p(name removed by moderator)oint how that came to be. No exact point does not mean they don’t have a problem…The other problem is that some think the church infallible in certain areas and see the church as a particular institution (theirs) instead of the “called out ones”, the “ecclesia”, a universal institution. So then the problem arises to determine who and what does God promise to be with and guide , and how do you judge His guidance,by being perfect , infallible ?..But your study is good. I would think if it is possible for you to take one dogma/practice/rite/writing at a time, and not look at one mistake as pandoras box where everything crumbles. Like don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. One can also work backwards . For instance, I would say the last two ex-cathedra statements were” not needed", even errant. Anyways, it is not “one” thing that did it, hence no magical, revealing “one” date.

Let me ask you, was the Orthodox church just as in need of a reformation during the time of the reformation?

I might also suggest your idea of church is fairly new. I dare say we’ve had the idea of church wrong since the second century if that idea is correct.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I agree with this. This is why I find so much Catholic argument pointless, even though I believe strongly that we should all be in communion with Rome.

That’s the paradox: I think there is no good reason not to be Catholic, but there is also no good reason to break communion with my fellow-Christians who are not Catholics.

Hence my continual hesitation. . . .

Edwin

By becoming Catholic you do not have to break communion with other Christians. It is the Catholic Church who calls them separated brethren, she who feels the pain of loss due to the division.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Is Jesus pure ? Is He not in you ? Does He not inhabit the praises of His people ( especially when we examine ourselves, do contrition beforehand) ?

Jesus is pure, but his Purity clearly is not fully transfered to me as evidenced by my sinfulness.

Do you still sin Ben hur?

 

[benhur]

[Let me ask you, was the Orthodox church just as in need of a reformation during the time of the reformation?

no, not as much.

I might also suggest your idea of church is fairly new. I dare say we’ve had the idea of church wrong since the second century if that idea is correct.

[/QUOTE]

 

[benhur]

Jesus is pure, but his Purity clearly is not fully transfered to me as evidenced by my sinfulness.

Do you still sin Ben hur?

Yet a fellow catholic here says it is possible to be holy and pure, and keep His commands,that we are a new creation. The question isn’t can you remain constantly pure, but can you be pure for even a moment in Christ, even sacramentally ?..Some how we are pure enough for a perfect holy God to indwell. Part of the rationale for the immaculate conception is for a pure vessel (Mary) to contain the Lord. We are now His monstrance, His temple and how can we not be also immaculate ?

 

[Denise1957]

Remember those who were for Christ but did not hang out with the apostles ? Christ told the apostles to chill for those others were indeed right on. So my suggestion of ecclesia is straight from Jesus.

Non-Catholics can be right sometimes. But did Our Lord build His Church upon the Apostles, or the “others?” Keeping in mind also that when Jesus said that, the Holy Ghost had not yet come upon them (in the upper room) to remind them of and help them to preach truth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yet a fellow catholic here says it is possible to be holy and pure, and keep His commands,that we are a new creation. The question isn’t can you remain constantly pure, but can you be pure for even a moment in Christ, even sacramentally ?..Some how we are pure enough for a perfect holy God to indwell. Part of the rationale for the immaculate conception is for a pure vessel (Mary) to contain the Lord. We are now His monstrance, His temple and how can we not be also immaculate ?

A really big difference between us and Her:

Not only was she impregnated by the Holy Spirit - Christ’s flesh came from the Blessed Virgin Mary, whereas we put our flesh to death with the Holy Spirit.

When you look at the totality of Scriptures, we see nothing unholy (sinful) can be before God (Moses taking his sandals off, Isaiah’s lips cleansed.

We don’t have any revelation as to BV Mary having been cleansed before holding the Living God in Her womb.

How much more holy it is to give your own flesh to the only begotten Son of God? Mary gave herself to God, literally. Can any one of us say the same thing?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yet a fellow catholic here says it is possible to be holy and pure, and keep His commands,that we are a new creation. The question isn’t can you remain constantly pure, but can you be pure for even a moment in Christ, even sacramentally ?..Some how we are pure enough for a perfect holy God to indwell. Part of the rationale for the immaculate conception is for a pure vessel (Mary) to contain the Lord. We are now His monstrance, His temple and how can we not be also immaculate ?

I think your epistemology is wrong.

The Holy Spirit of God gives us grace. That grace is a mark on our soul. But our spirit does not become God. God is still very separate from us. Saying he dwells in us is far more figurative than actual.

It is nothing like God himself dwelling completely in us as Jesus did in Mary.

 

[Jon_S_1]

no, not as much.
The main criteria is being for Christ.The apostles preached Christ, and we listen to the apostles. Remember those who were for Christ but did not hang out with the apostles ? Christ told the apostles to chill for those others were indeed right on. So my suggestion of ecclesia is straight from Jesus.

Do if the Orthodox did not need reforming, why not?

They hold the same teaching on the Eucharist we do.

More interesting,

How is it the church in India, iraq, Ethiopia and Russia all separately come up with this real presence teaching.

All of them separated from Rome significantly. Especially in the second century.

Yet they all got this teaching the same. Identical. Because that’s what the apostles taught them.

 

[benhur]

They hold the same teaching on the Eucharist we do.

I understood they do not believe in your transubstantiation but yet a real presence.

More interesting,How is it the church in India, iraq, Ethiopia and Russia all separately come up with this real presence teaching.

Again, is it transubstantiation, consubstantiation, a spiritual presence and or symbolic ?

Yet they all got this teaching the same. Identical. Because that’s what the apostles taught .

Similar but not identical. The apostles did not teach your transubstantiation. A real presence perhaps and perhaps strictly symbolic.

 

[benhur]

I think your epistemology is wrong.
The Holy Spirit of God gives us grace.

Yes and for many things,one of them being a new creation.

That grace is a mark on our soul. But our spirit does not become God.

There is no matk on our soul . There is a revived,born again spirit that was dead in trespasses and sin, inherited from Adam. The New Adam restores that in regeneration of our spirits .You are right, we are not God but God is Spirit and we connect to Him with our spirit . We are made in his image a spiritual likening.

God is still very separate from us

. Absolutely a separate entity/ being but able to inhabit whatever He pleases, be it a jackass or a cloud or a covenant ark ,a bush or you and me.

Saying he dwells in us is far more figurative than actual.

So “eat me” is literal but that we are His temple is figurative ? Is the latter CC doctrine ?

It is nothing like God himself dwelling completely in us as Jesus did in Mary.

Agreed, she had both the man /flesh the Son of Man, which we do not (unless you believe in literally eating His body , then you are like Mary, having his entire entity in you, Body and Spirit,) but we both have the Son of God/Spirit indwelling. Jesus said He/God/HS is with you now but will be in you (after Pentecost). He does more than “mark” our soul.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I understood they do not believe in your transubstantiation but yet a real presence.
Again, is it transubstantiation, consubstantiation, a spiritual presence and or symbolic ?
Similar but not identical. The apostles did not teach your transubstantiation. A real presence perhaps and perhaps strictly symbolic.

Don’t get hung up on the word Transubstantiation. It’s a made up word to try to explain the spiritual reality.

They all believe that Jesus is really present, that the bread becomes his body, and the wine his blood.

Why don’t you hold to the doctrine that is clearly demonstrated by all these churches?

I’m sure our orthodox friend can affirm this if he is still watching the thread.