F
Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Right. They left because His clarifications always got more and more graphic and physical.
IF it were just symbolic, then He would have been a very poor teacher indeed, since He didn’t make THAT aspect known to His disciples. But the fact is that He didn’t INTEND to teach that it was just symbolic.
B
benhur
Guest
Good . That is my opinion on my opinion also
Not sure I would be that pious, but would say by grace He gives us a piece of His mind.
Those were conditions for infallibility, the only one you did not rebut.
B
benhur
Guest
No, they left because they did not believe even before the discourse which burst their anticipations of Him.
Jesus found no need to further explain (either symbolic or literal) because He got the right answer from the apostles,"we follow you for right reasons - "you are the Messiah and have the words of life, no matter what happens to you (die- eat, whatever that means to them at the time , ascend back to heaven). He had taught them perfectly for the Father drew them to the Son, and enlightened them perfectly ( unlike the other disciples).
G
guanophore
Guest
Eastern Catholics share a theology on these matters with the EO, and yet, they are in unity with the successor of Peter in Rome. Their differing concepts of the theology are approved and affirmed because the doctrine is the same. Eastern Catholics agree not to quibble about Transubstantiation and Purgatory. These are Latinizations that developed over many centuries.
We all must profess the same faith, and accept all that the Church proposes for our instruction.
K
Kliska
Guest
I guess that is what is confusing from an outsider’s perspective (not being Catholic, or Orthodox either one). So, EC’s share theology with EO’s… so they don’t accept all that the Church proposes in the same way that Latin-rite Catholics do. Is that a matter of theological wiggle room? What I mean, is the I know from reading here and elsewhere that Theologians, in the course of their work, can question and probe and search within a belief.
Can a person join a Latin-rite Catholic church if they believe the Eucharist is best defined as mystery, or does a person joining a Latin-rite Catholic church have to believe in transubstantiation specifically. I do understand there is an overlay belief of the real presence, and it is close enough to be “in communion” but it is one thing that confuses me; is it the spirit of the idea that must be assented to, or the letter of the idea.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think the distinction is between theological perspectives and the doctrine. There is no “wiggle room” on the doctrine, but how we conceptualize it there is. For example, there are several ways of conceptualizing predestination, all of which are acceptable for Catholics, but we cannot accept the heresies of Calvanism.
Most Christians believe in “purgatory”, though only Latin Catholics tend to conceptualize it in a certain way. EO have something I have heard described as “toll houses” where the soul stops on the way to heaven. Even Protestants will agree with EO and Catholics that “nothing unclean will enter” heaven. "But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. " Revelation 21:27
But Protestants tend to think of the final cleansing - anything that remains in our souls that is not of God at the end of this life- as a purging that happens instantaneously.
" Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written…:1 Corinthians 15:51–54
Latins have been theologizing about this process of transformation for two millennia so have developed more ideas about it. Eastern Christians, whether they are Orthodox or Catholic, do not try to mentalize things like Latins do, and have not had their faith influences as much by scholasticism and philosophy.
Transubstantiation is the conceptualization the Latin Rite has used to define and describe the Real Presence. It is a doctrine of the faith, but it is not one of the questions that is asked of people who are joining the Church. I have seen Pastors take a more relaxed view of this, so that if candidates are not able to wrap their minds around the concept, they are expected to grow into it. What the Church expects of candidates is that they accept the words of Christ at the institution of the last supper litterally, and this is consistent with what the Eastern Catholics do. After the consecration, the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, and he is truly and physically present. I don’t know if that helps.
The reason this has become such an issue here in the West is because of the Reformation. Anglicans and Lutherans also claimed to believe in the Real Presence, ,but “differently”, and quickly the concept of the sacrifice was lost. What followed is that both communions experienced a great falling away from the belief in the Real Presence, so that the Church became much more strict, especially with converts.
That being said, polls show that most American “Catholics” do not believe in Transubstantiation either, so there are many of our separated brethren who come closer to the Catholic faith in this area than baptized Catholics!
K
Kliska
Guest
Guanophore, thank you for all your answers, they do help me understand!
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
OK, but there’s a problem with this. Your opinion is in conflict with Christ’s “opinion.”
Please give me a citation for this:
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 ?
being a condition for infallibility.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
If you’re going to totally ignore the text of scripture, then we can’t have a serious conversation.
Right. Even though He told them something that sounded incredible, literally.
The others couldn’t handle the truth.
Sounds familiar.
G
guanophore
Guest
You are getting ascerbic, FKB. Ben is right, the Scriptures are clear that Jesus knew from the beginning those who did not believe. It was probably one of the reasons He chose to address them in such strong terms.If you’re going to totally ignore the text of scripture, then we can’t have a serious conversation.
Right. Even though He told them something that sounded incredible, literally.
The others couldn’t handle the truth.
Sounds familiar.
They did walk away because it was too much for them, but honestly, it was too much for the apostles also. The difference was that they had faith that they would understand in time.
P
pablope
Guest
You may want to listen to how Pope Benedict XVI explains purgatory here…and I hope it will help you understand it more…xt3.com/library/view.php?id=4986I 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…
I think this is the transcript: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20110112_en.html
“The soul”, Catherine says, “presents itself to God still bound to the desires and suffering that derive from sin and this makes it impossible for it to enjoy the beatific vision of God”. Catherine asserts that God is so pure and holy that a soul stained by sin cannot be in the presence of the divine majesty (cf. Vita Mirabile, 177r).
We too feel how distant we are, how full we are of so many things that we cannot see God. The soul is aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God and consequently suffers for having failed to respond in a correct and perfect way to this love; and love for God itself becomes a flame, love itself cleanses it from the residue of sin.
In Catherine we can make out the presence of theological and mystical sources on which it was normal to draw in her time. In particular, we find an image typical of Dionysius the Areopagite: the thread of gold that links the human heart to God himself. When God purified man, he bound him with the finest golden thread, that is, his love, and draws him toward himself with such strong affection that man is as it were “overcome and won over and completely beside himself”.
Thus man’s heart is pervaded by God’s love that becomes the one guide, the one driving force of his life (cf. Vita Mirabile, 246rv). This situation of being uplifted towards God and of surrender to his will, expressed in the image of the thread, is used by Catherine to express the action of divine light on the souls in purgatory, a light that purifies and raises them to the splendour of the shining radiance of God (cf. Vita Mirabile, 179r).
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Right. But “did not believe” has to be taken in context.
IN CONTEXT, scripture is saying that Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe in His teachings on the Eucharist. It was in reference to His question on “Do you take offense at this?” in verse 61.
What was the “this”?
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
The theological virtue of faith is simply that we believe something because we trust He who said it.
CCC1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.
The Eucharistic teaching was the litmus test for belief in Him.
Those who were to fall away complained:
Joh 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
And, yes, I pointed out that this should sound familiar. I did mean it partially in jest (hence the smiley), but also as food for thought. When we see people in scriptures on the wrong side of Christ for precisely the same reason we are espousing, we should take heed. Strongly.
Maybe, but He also addressed the Apostles in equally strong terms, so I don’t think your statement is valid.
Yes. And that’s my point. Those who have the Real Presence also have faith in Jesus’ words, because of He who said them.
K
Kliska
Guest
It was the ones that left Him that took Him literally. So, the RCC is saying it was the ones that were right are the ones that left… Further, if they were offered blood and drank it, they would have broken the Old Covenant law. It was such a firm law that James repeats it to the Gentiles after Christ’s death and resurrection; don’t drink blood. He didn’t give an exception.
Look at the temple analogy. He said destroy this temple and in 3 days I’ll raise it up again. The ones that took Him literally were mad at Him and mocked Him, but that wasn’t correct, He was speaking symbolically of His Body. He doesn’t correct people when they misunderstand His symbolic language.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Thanks for this. I had never read it before. Great insights! Lots to ponder.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
I think it’s best to step back a bit. Better if you refer to Church fathers (to state your case) rather than depend on what seems like your own understanding.
MJ
C
Cube2
Guest
Literal thinking and drawing parallels will make us lose focus.
If we use the Bible as our reference, then we’ll be correctly guided.
Acts11:26… And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. There-before, they were referred to as the people of the Way. They did not have an organization structure. Later we hear the terms bishop, deacons etc coming up. The letters written by apostle Paul, Peter, John James etc were to churches spread out. The universal message contained is on centrality of Christ and the newness gained by believing in Christ. Later, the same letters were giving a warning of ‘anti christian’ doctrines. Christ himself also mentioned of antichrists.
The true denomination is the one the remains true to the teaching of Christ. Christ commanded the apostles to make disciples (who are Christ-like) of all nations. Christ promised in Matt 18:20, that where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, He shall be there with them.
A church/ denomination may be without Christ.
Rev. 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me”.
The denomination at Laodecia had closed out Jesus and yet it was appearing as a church.
Christ judged it, and advised in Rev 3:18: I counsel thee to buy from me gold tried in the fire, that thou may be rich; and white raiment, that thou may be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou may see.
G
guanophore
Guest
The ones that stayed took Him literally also.
The CC is not “Roman”. The CC is comprised of 23 Rites, of which the Latin Rite is the largest and most common in the West.
The CC also shares this Apostolic Teaching with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (all Churches that were founded by Apostles) who have no love lost on Rome.
And yes, all of the Churches founded by Apostles were taught by them that the Jews understood Jesus literally at this Teaching, and walked away from Him. Those that remained also took Him literally.
Precisely why they were scandalized. They had been taught since the beginning that the Life was in the blood.
Sometimes He did, and the Jews did not accept this correction even after the Apostles explained it. The Aposltes understood Him literally, and this is the teaching that was passed on to the Bishops, their successors, and so on up to this day.
K
Kliska
Guest
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
God is not the author of confusion. James was clear in his declaration to the Gentiles; don’t drink blood. No exceptions mentioned (and a perfect chance to talk about the Eucharist), and it was an extension of the OT law, and it is very clear; no blood of any kind. So, not only is it contended that Jesus taught to break the law, but also that He Himself broke it the night of the Last Supper.
Perhaps.
Obviously those of us brothers and sisters that disagree see something taught differently by the earliest fathers, including Jesus Himself, and Paul. We can even bring in the earliest writing outside of the scripture; the Didache. But this has all been argued here before and we each know the other side’s arguments. Thank you for the dialogue though.
G
guanophore
Guest
Can you identify the source of these exegetical principles?
What is the difference between a parallel and an analogy?
What is meant by the statement that what is concealed in the OT is revealed in the NT?
Catholics will agree with this, however, we understand the Scriptures through the faith that created them. During the Reformation, many Christians abandoned essential elements of this faith, so most Protestants today understand the Scriptures very differently than those who have retained the Apostolic Faith.
All of these disciples were Catholic, as well as the authors of the NT.
Jesus created a visible Church with structure and authority. This is visible throughout the NT.
Yes, of course. There were also people who separated from unity with the Apostles (abandoned the Catholic faith) even before the NT was finished. Most of the letters were written to address specific problems in the faith. The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.
I agree with your basic principle here. Unity is found in adherance to the Truth. Those who drift from the One Faith have lost some of the Truth.
That being said, Jesus does not want “denominations”. These are fractures and divisions in the Body are marked by how much, and which parts of the Catholic faith they have rejected.
I find this assertion puzzling. I think that anyone who does not have Christ would not be considered a Christian.
The Letters to Revelation were not written to "denominations " (ecclesial communities with different doctrines) but all were written to Catholic communities. The warnings in each are directed to individuals within thos communities. If his warnings applied to everyone present, then there would no longer be a lampstand with them. There were some in each community that had fallen from the faith, and some who were faithful, just as there are today.
- Status