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

[benhur]

Hi Benhur: It just seems to me that Jesus wanted peter to do it, appointing one from among them, of course Jesus could have but he left it up to Peter to decide. remember the Apostles were thinking along the lines of who was with them and with Jesus while Jesus was alive and traveled with them and someone saying that Jesus spoke in a vision was not the same thing to them as actually knowing Jesus in the flesh.

Ok Understand the thinking.

 

[spina1953]

Ok Understand the thinking.

Hi Benhur: Great!

 

[benhur]

Christ’s disciples had the same skepticism as you. They respond:
60 “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”
Many left him and Christ did not clarify that he was speaking symbolically, where in every other case in the bible, Christ would clarify his teaching if they were confused. Christ himself simply said:
67 “Do you also wish to go away?”

Yes, have heard this simplistic argument many times and rebutted many times.

The apostles however knew that they should trust him and remained with him. They had the spirit which gives life. Those that left him were of the flesh and could not understand that of the spirit and truth revealed

.Bingo .The apostles had what Jesus was looking for in all of us. This is the super context, not what would be eucharisting, for we all would do that. Thank you, for you properly did not say the apostles understood by the spirit they somehow literally would eat Jesus’s body.

 

[benhur]

Seriously?

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes 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?” (ibid., 5:2).

Ummm, oh yeah. I can see how you get that from what Iraneous wrote.

NOT!

Again, I read your quote to be in harmony with my views. Look, when Jesus says “eat and drink me” you take it literal as I do not. Why would Irenaeus be different ? it is right there in front of us, and in the eye of the beholder. No one speaks of the elements other than in terms of His Body and Blood, but just how and it’s significance is the perfectly placed question.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry ,was not yours but Pablope’s. Post #166
Not so sure Irenaeus took the transformation as literal but spiritual, but that for sure some might “imagine that it was actually flesh and blood”.

This is an interesting use of language. Why can;t something that is in the Spiritual realm still be literal?

If Jesus said “this is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, how should this not be taken literally? If the transformation occurs beyond our senses, does that mean it is not “literal”? I am not sure I am expressing this well.

Is an angel a literal messenger of God? Are they less “real” because they exist solely in the spiritual realm?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Peter can not bind what is not bound in heaven.

Exactly.

This is the very definition of infallibility.

“Peter can not bind what is not bound in heaven”, and therefore, those things that he binds ARE bound in heaven. According to Jesus’ promises.

 

[Kliska]

Transubstantiation is a latter construct, so no, Irenaeus would not be familiar with it. Instead, he wrote of the Real Presence, where the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. The East also embraces this Apostolic faith, though they do not call it Transubstantiation, but leave it in the form of a mystery.

I have a question, and it springs from many conversations and it’s this; if a person held the view of mystery such as the EO, would that person be allowed to join the RCC? Is someone that joins the RCC expected to profess transubstantiation specifically? I know there is room for various views, or wiggle room, amongst Theologians. This is a question I’ve had about the teaching of purgatory as well.

 

[jmcrae]

I have a question, and it springs from many conversations and it’s this; if a person held the view of mystery such as the EO, would that person be allowed to join the RCC? Is someone that joins the RCC expected to profess transubstantiation specifically? I know there is room for various views, or wiggle room, amongst Theologians. This is a question I’ve had about the teaching of purgatory as well.

We allow seven year olds to receive the Eucharist when they are able to say “This bread is different from other bread. This is Jesus.” We don’t require them to understand or even pronounce “Transubstantiation.” The simple faith of a child that “this is Jesus” is all that is required.

As far as purgatory is concerned, we don’t expect people to be able to describe the afterlife in great detail; an understanding that some are being purified is sufficient.

 

[spina1953]

We allow seven year olds to receive the Eucharist when they are able to say “This bread is different from other bread. This is Jesus.” We don’t require them to understand or even pronounce “Transubstantiation.” The simple faith of a child that “this is Jesus” is all that is required.

As far as purgatory is concerned, we don’t expect people to be able to describe the afterlife in great detail; an understanding that some are being purified is sufficient.

Hi Jmcrae: I agree, we do not how God does things, only that we have a child like faith that he can. Things like the Eucharist, Purgatory, heaven, hell are things we really can not know since they are mysteries, beyond our comprehension. It takes faith to believe that it is so, not reasoning.

 

[benhur]

Exactly.

This is the very definition of infallibility.

“Peter can not bind what is not bound in heaven”, and therefore, those things that he binds ARE bound in heaven. According to Jesus’ promises.

Good as far as you agreeing with proper Greek understanding of the text (the greater is always subject to the lesser, even if in full communion) hence you shall bind what has been bound in heaven. The good news is we are connected and authoritatively representing heaven. The bad news is we are still on earth, in the flesh, and thus it is *conditional *upon being in the Spirit, in the Light, under the Guidance, on any particular matter. I say we are infallible when inspired in Him, and can speak perfectly. Otherwise we are not ( a bit like free will and same arguments used against once saved always saved, and full assurance of salvation now ).

 

[Kliska]

We allow seven year olds to receive the Eucharist when they are able to say “This bread is different from other bread. This is Jesus.” We don’t require them to understand or even pronounce “Transubstantiation.” The simple faith of a child that “this is Jesus” is all that is required.

As far as purgatory is concerned, we don’t expect people to be able to describe the afterlife in great detail; an understanding that some are being purified is sufficient.

I would imagine, though, that a middle aged adult would be held up to a little bit higher standard.

I ask what I do in all sincerity, and converts from protestant denominations to the church have pointed out that to join as an adult is to assent to all the teachings and they waited to convert until they did assent. So, I’m interested to know what one actually has to believe “fully and faithfully” in order to be inline with church teaching. Is believing in the real presence enough, or must it be transubstantiation specifically, purgation or purgatory, etc…

 

[benhur]

This is an interesting use of language. Why can;t something that is in the Spiritual realm still be literal?

Well why can’t it be literally spiritual, which I have been taught was one of the early views of RP

If Jesus said “this is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, how should this not be taken literally?

Well as you say, cause it still looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (someone else said that on CA forum), and Jesus is still there before you physically whole at the last supper, and it is not necessary to get the context of what Jesus is trying to say :I (my full essence-man -God, body, ,soul,) am going to die for you, to save you (body and spirit in resurrection power, in covenant). Do this to “commemorate”, even seal the new covenant. The elements now literally represent the covenant and Calvary.

If the transformation occurs beyond our senses, does that mean it is not “literal”?

That is a possibility, one you put forth and has been around for ages,

Is an angel a literal messenger of God? Are they less “real” because they exist solely in the spiritual realm?

Is an angel literal flesh and blood when you see them …if ?Not sure. I look at it like this. I can take a bunch of cotton material, and some red and blue die and consecrate or "make " a flag of the United States. Is it just cotton and die or have the elements been transformed to another essence, imaging another reality ( a country) ? The flag is not the country. It is still earthly elements of cotton and die yet a true symbol of another reality. That is the whole point of a flag. That is the whole point of covenant elements also. They are a springboard to another reality. It does not require anything else.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Good as far as you agreeing with proper Greek understanding of the text (the greater is always subject to the lesser, even if in full communion) hence you shall bind what has been bound in heaven. The good news is we are connected and authoritatively representing heaven. The bad news is we are still on earth, in the flesh, and thus it is *conditional *upon being in the Spirit, in the Light, under the Guidance, on any particular matter. I say we are infallible when inspired in Him, and can speak perfectly. Otherwise we are not ( a bit like free will and same arguments used against once saved always saved, and full assurance of salvation now ).

Pardon, but it’s not what you say that matters, and what you say isn’t in the inspired scripture, nor in the constant understanding of the Church that Jesus built.

Where does it say that it is conditional?

 

[benhur]

Pardon, but it’s not what you say that matters, and what you say isn’t in the inspired scripture, nor in the constant understanding of the Church that Jesus built.

Seems a bit pious. Of course there is truth, scripture, church and what they say.Then there is opinion, to which the Lord entitles us and even demands. What do* you *say ?

Where does it say that it is conditional?

You have conditions don’t you ? Where does it say only when speaking ex-cathedra ? Where does it say only in regards to faith and morals ? Where does it say it must not contradict scripture nor previous infallible statements ? Where does it say the pope will always be in the Spirit, in the Light, abiding in the Vine, when speaking on faith and morals ? Scripture says you must abide in Him, you must persevere, thru the ages, not just day in and day out, as you speak forth on the Lord’s issues.

 

[Porknpie]

I have a question, and it springs from many conversations and it’s this; if a person held the view of mystery such as the EO, would that person be allowed to join the RCC? Is someone that joins the RCC expected to profess transubstantiation specifically? I know there is room for various views, or wiggle room, amongst Theologians. This is a question I’ve had about the teaching of purgatory as well.

Kliska, a thought on purgatory… as nothing unclean can enter heaven, we can not enter heaven with any stain of sin or even the desire, the inclination to sin. The process of how we are cleansed of all sin and all inclination to sin is what Catholic’s call purgatory. Hence the common description of it being a cleansing fire. This may happen instantaneously or of some type of longer duration. After death we are outside of time and space so the sense of heavenly time is a mystery.

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, have heard this simplistic argument many times and rebutted many times.

It’s a simple argument because the Written Word of God, particularly John 6, and Tradition are in such agreement. I have never read a satisfactory answer as to why Christ would let his many disciples leave him and not clarify his teaching. In addition, I have never read an answer even remotely satisfactory on why the Church could be universally (in Africa, Spain, the Middle East etc) wrong on this point for 1,500 years. Only if one takes the view that Christ was a horrible teacher could one believe that the teaching of the apostles and their descendants could error so greatly.

But those descendants of the apostles did not error. St. Iranaeus could not be any clearer. The other ECF’s speak with the same clarity, a few examples below.

St. Ignatius (a disciple of St. John) below. Nothing symbolic with his language.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Same with Justin Martyr. He even comments that they have been taught that bread and wine “is” Jesus. Nothing symbolic here.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,** so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”** Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

St. Cyril comments that the wine is not wine but the Blood Christ. Nothing symbolic here either.

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

.Bingo .

Such a Catholic word to be using Benhur.

The apostles had what Jesus was looking for in all of us. This is the super context, not what would be eucharisting, for we all would do that.

I’m not sure what you mean here. How can we “all do that”? It’s a sacrificial act needed to be performed by a priest.

Curious, do you view the Eucharist meal as a sacrificial act in anyway?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Seems a bit pious. Of course there is truth, scripture, church and what they say.Then there is opinion, to which the Lord entitles us and even demands. What do* you *say ?

I say that we read the text, and listen to those who lived with the Apostles and were taught by them.

You have conditions don’t you ? Where does it say only when speaking ex-cathedra ? Where does it say only in regards to faith and morals ? Where does it say it must not contradict scripture nor previous infallible statements ? Where does it say the pope will always be in the Spirit, in the Light, abiding in the Vine, when speaking on faith and morals ? Scripture says you must abide in Him, you must persevere, thru the ages, not just day in and day out, as you speak forth on the Lord’s issues.

Those aren’t “conditions”; they are logical outgrowths of the text itself and the surrounding contexts.

For instance, the mere fact that Truth cannot contradict Truth means that an infallible statement cannot, by its very nature, contradict scripture nor previous infallible statements. Now, it may build on them, but it cannot contradict them.

Faith and morals? That was the way the Jewish rabbis of the time understood the technical language of binding & loosing that Jesus was using. You need to know the context.

Ex-cathedra? That’s just shorthand, again in the context of Jesus’ words, for having the INTENTION that the pronouncement should be binding.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, a thought on purgatory… as nothing unclean can enter heaven, we can not enter heaven with any stain of sin or even the desire, the inclination to sin. The process of how we are cleansed of all sin and all inclination to sin is what Catholic’s call purgatory. Hence the common description of it being a cleansing fire. This may happen instantaneously or of some type of longer duration. After death we are outside of time and space so the sense of heavenly time is a mystery.

Thank you for the explanation!

 

[benhur]

I have never read a satisfactory answer as to why Christ would let his many disciples leave him and not clarify his teaching.

They did not leave because He failed to clarify. In fact the more He clarified, the more they decided to reject Christ. He then wanted them to depart, and not follow under false pretense or false ideas, even a false calling.

I have never read an answer even remotely satisfactory on why the Church could be universally (in Africa, Spain, the Middle East etc) wrong on this point for 1,500 years. Only if one takes the view that Christ was a horrible teacher could one believe that the teaching of the apostles and their descendants could error so greatly.

Believing in symbolic or spiritual presence actually makes Christ a very astute teacher, able to divide to the marrow. That is the debate as to the apostles teaching CC views on mass and RP or not.

I’m not sure what you mean here. How can we “all do that”? It’s a sacrificial act needed to be performed by a priest.
Curious, do you view the Eucharist meal as a sacrificial act in anyway?

Is the Passover "sacrificial " or a memorial with token sacrifice ? I do not view it as sacrificial but understand it changed to this, as did then the obvious need for "priests ". The only sacrifice is that of praise. We do not need to ask the Father to find this acceptable, at the hands of an intercessor. The Lord’s resurrection shows it is “acceptable” forever, hence our thanksgiving.

 

[benhur]

I say that we read the text, and listen to those who lived with the Apostles and were taught by them.

Good, you have an opinion also , an “I say”.

Those aren’t “conditions”; they are logical outgrowths of the text itself and the surrounding contexts.

OK. How about the abiding, being in the Spirit, the Vine, persevering thru the ages, as well as day in day out, as popes intentionally speak out ?