second question for our non-catholic brethern

[PRmerger]

That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that).

Do you know why the ECFs said that?

Because, when we receive Him in the Eucharist we do indeed become His monstrance.

Thus, the reference by the ECFs was another testimony to the fact that the early church believed in the Real Presence.

It is only those who left Jesus because of this “hard saying” (see John 6:66) that didn’t believe He was present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Bread and Wine.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Croc.

Q2. Jesus Himself did not start a Church per se. Even after his ascension, the apostles used to stay in one house and share food together

You don’t believe it was “a Church per se”?

 

[eddie_too]

i question the accuracy of people who say Jesus did not start a Church per se.

to me, it defies credulity to believe that Jesus left the world in a situation where it is every man for himself when it comes to knowing and following Jesus. to say that such a belief is absurd is too kind.

we can see the fruits of such a belief when we see and hear the Church of England teaching that it is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ that two men or two women can engage in sexual activity.

they have no evidence for such an assertion.

all of the evidence that exists supports that Jesus taught us that only human sexual activity between one man and one woman in an exclusive and permanent relationship is not sinful. all other human sexual activity is sinful and this has been the constant and unchanging teaching of Jesus’ Church since the first Pentecost.

some who claim to follow Jesus teach the world that Jesus was not truly God. others teach that Jesus was not truly man. still others teach that there are many gods. and, they all claim to be teaching what Jesus taught us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Q2. Jesus Himself did not start a Church per se.

Right, because LOTS of men have started a church…just look in the phone book for a partial list.

No, Jesus started THE Church…the ONE Church He promised to build when He said, "You are Peter [Kepha] and on this rock [kepha], I will build my church.

The early Church was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Q2. Jesus Himself did not start a Church per se.

Then why did He state that he would build His Church?
Mt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

You’ve GOT to take Jesus at His word!!!

1. Yes (as the apostles died, Christ gives spiritual gifts: Eph:4:11: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
   Eph:4:12: For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

… which is His Church:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Col 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church

 

[pocohombre]

Do you know why the ECFs said that?

Because, when we receive Him in the Eucharist we do indeed become His monstrance.

Thus, the reference by the ECFs was another testimony to the fact that the early church believed in the Real Presence.

It is only those who left Jesus because of this “hard saying” (see John 6:66) that didn’t believe He was present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Bread and Wine.

Source please saying that is what this father meant ? It has nothing to do with “He shall be in you”, Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit ? Don’t think that is CC teaching, that Christ, or Godhead can only indwell thru communion. And which type of real presence is referred to by any particular early father ?

 

[spina1953]

Jesus the Christ as well as the Apostles were Jewish. Jesus fulfilled the Covenet God made to the Jews. The Church per say was that fulfillment. However, because the Jewish leaders did not accept Jesus or His teachings , or that Jesus is the Messiah. early on the Jewish religious leaders would no longer allow any of those who believed in Christ and His teachings into the synagogues or the Temple, so that in the end since the Jews did not accpet Jesus, the early Christains had no other choice but to make their own Church separate from from the Jews and the Temple and synagogues, since they no longer could worhship as they did and also go to the Temple or synagogues. So in this way Jesus built His Church on those who Believed in Him and the Apostles He sent to teach them. So in a sense the Jewish religion is separated from the fulfillment and are still looking for a Messiah who aready came into the world. Because of this we have a Church catholic in nature as Jesus willed so that we cabn have the truth he taught and passed on to His apostles who continued to pass on those teachings to all through the Catholic Church. At least that is my understanding of the history of it.

 

[Protestor]

Of course it is equivalent.

No. One faith and one set of essential beliefs (which we know through the CC) are indeed equivalent.

Correct me if I am wrong. You can have faith in a set of beliefs, but to say that faith is a set of beliefs is a stretch. I have never seen it defined as such. When exactly should I use this definition if I am to accept it? If you want to say that I can see your faith through your works; that is fine with me. Then you want to say that the only way to know what works to do is through the catholic faith. That might make your point that faith is a set of beliefs. It really has less to do with beliefs and more to do with actions. Most of the actions between christians is going to be drastically different. There are many ways to love something.

Are you guys freaking out because one faith in different beliefs sounds so weird. I would say that we have one faith in a core set of beliefs. I know there will be chatter about this, where is my backup for this verses quotes needed right. It is one of the pains of actually trying to make a point. I still stand by the fact that this is could be an interpretation of this passage.

I do not feel like doing a word study right now faith is mentioned 250 some odd times then I have to look for valid ecf texts which explain it the way I think it should be. That is a really daunting task. I would do it if you told me that you would have a open mind. If you would change your thoughts on this subject then I might do it. It is going to take me like 3 days. If I do this I do not want to hear some malarky about how such and such is not an ecf or we do not recognize one of this dudes writings. Like if you say Origen is not an ecf or Justin or Tertulian. I might have a fit. Actually if I am going to do this I want a list of approved books

 

[eddie_too]

believing no one knows what Jesus taught and did for sure is not a very persuasive or cogent argument.

repeatedly denying that the meaning the Church has always given to a particular writing, whether it be part of sacred scripture or not simply begs the question, "where does the follower of Christ go to find certainty about His teachings and His gifts.

it is simple to ask, where do you get that interpretation. but, it is equally simple to answer, that has been the consistent interpretation since the first Pentecost Sunday.

casting down on the teachings we have received from Jesus through His Church does not come from the Holy Spirit.

add to that, the fact that those casting doubt on the correct understanding of sacred scripture have no facts or information to support an understanding different from that we received from the apostles and their successors since the first Pentecost Sunday reinforces the reasonable conclusion that challenging the teachings of the RCC does not derive from the Holy Spirit but derives from the hearts of sinful men.

the sincerity of those rejecting the constant and consistent teaching of the apostles and their successors is not the question. the question is the reasonableness of the contention that Jesus did not provide a mechanism for ensuring that all of His followers had access to the correct understanding and interpetations of His teachings and His life.

the very rejection of apostolic succession is unsupportable by facts or logic. there is NO OTHER MECHNISM available to us to ensure we are receiving the true teachings of and about Jesus.

it is so easy to reject, but rejection is meaningless and absurd without an alternative. and an alternative is meaningless and absurd without being supported by facts, history and logic.

 

[eddie_too]

casting down (should read casting “doubt”) on the teachings we have received from Jesus through His Church does not come from the Holy Spirit.

 

[eddie_too]

there is the faith that we believe; and, there is the faith by which we believe.

it serves communication well to distinguish which definition of the word faith you are using when discussing religion.

faith used as a noun to identify the content of what is believed. faith used to denote the act of believing.

i have faith in this particular faith.

 

[Protestor]

In the event you have not read it, I’d like to refer you to Dominus Iesus.

Peace,

Thank you so much. I have not read it and on a personal note I hate reading. I only book I have ever enjoyed or read for a long time is the bible.

I really feel like I have been looking for the things you say you are willing to present. Let me be clear I am not looking for perfect premises which lead to conclusions by logic, it would be nice, but I am on this site to challenge my own beliefs. My hope is that others will come to a deeper understanding of their own beliefs by understand the strengths and weakness or their way of thinking. I want to see “documentation from the Apostles and those they taught” I do not think that this is what I am being presented with(I do not use bold for no reason. I put it there to say if you read nothing else I want you to see this and understand).

You guys have to understand I grew up in a household that changed churches every few years so I am used to people telling their beliefs are the only correct ones. When I finally became a christian I began to search for beliefs that came naturally from the bible. So when you see my premises you are looking at the way I think about the bible and my thoughts on it’s passages (so it is very personal). I cannot say that I have thought everything up on my own because I will read several commentaries that I find are well put and concise. I also listen to audio books a lot or I did. For me if I see something that does not jive with what I think I feel I have a duty to question it. The “because I say so” explanation is very off-putting to me I need to know why.

 

[pocohombre]

Of course it is equivalent.

One faith cannot say, “Divorce and re-marriage is adultery for you but not for the Methodists!”

One faith cannot say, “Saturday is the day of worship for you but not for the Baptists!”

One faith cannot say, “Baptism saves you, but not the Church of the Solid Rock!”

No. One faith and one set of essential beliefs (which we know through the CC) are indeed equivalent.

Then Judaism was not one faith, though she perfectly delivered ?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you so much. I have not read it and on a personal note I hate reading. I only book I have ever enjoyed or read for a long time is the bible.

I don’t blame you! I love reading the Bible, in fact it’s the only book I don’t mind reading repeatedly .

On a personal note, I do love to read.

I really feel like I have been looking for the things you say you are willing to present. Let me be clear I am not looking for perfect premises which lead to conclusions by logic, it would be nice, but I am on this site to challenge my own beliefs. My hope is that others will come to a deeper understanding of their own beliefs by understand the strengths and weakness or their way of thinking.

Thanks, this helps me greatly in approaching our conversation. However, we truly need to remain logical and reasonable in order to make sense in what we are presenting.

I want to see “documentation from the Apostles and those they taught” I do not think that this is what I am being presented with(I do not use bold for no reason. I put it there to say if you read nothing else I want you to see this and understand).

It depends on what you are willing to accept as documentation.

Keeping in mind that we have no originals for any of the books of the Bible. We do have a consensus on the copies that we have. But in this light, it would be unreasonable to demand too strict of a documentation with 21st century standards. We need to take into consideration the era and the culture of the times.

You guys have to understand I grew up in a household that changed churches every few years so I am used to people telling their beliefs are the only correct ones. When I finally became a christian I began to search for beliefs that came naturally from the bible. So when you see my premises you are looking at the way I think about the bible and my thoughts on it’s passages (so it is very personal). I cannot say that I have thought everything up on my own because I will read several commentaries that I find are well put and concise. I also listen to audio books a lot or I did. For me if I see something that does not jive with what I think I feel I have a duty to question it. The “because I say so” explanation is very off-putting to me I need to know why.

Hey, I understand where you are coming from. I was born and raised Catholic and then walked away from the Church and got into all kinds of occult and spiritual things and then walked away from any religion or similar to it. It was reading the Bible again that I started to make my way back to Christ. I did a lot of Church shopping and an incredible amount of reading and talking to the Pastors of several denominations (or lack thereof ). This for about 10 years. Oddly enough it wasn’t history alone but actually Scriptures themselves that brought me back to the Catholic faith. Although I think it was Christ .

And please know that I also understand how fragile and personal faith is.

However, , you need to understand that when engaging in Faith/Theological discussions you will be challenged on what you are proposing.

Thanks for taking the time to explain where you are coming from.

Peace,

 

[pocohombre]

the question is the reasonableness of the contention that Jesus did not provide a mechanism for ensuring that all of His followers had access to the correct understanding and interpretations of His teachings and His life.

Either or again. My way or the highway… No one is denying the foundation of the apostles. No one is denying the appointment of presbyters during and after the apostles time. No one is denying Peter was a leader. No one is denying the Holy Spirit is behind anything/ anyone authoritative in the church or in the individual. No one is denying that there is a role for the church corporate and the individual -that we are all on a mission ,the finger of God here on planet earth. No one is denying this dispensation of the “church” age. No one is denying church offices of presbyter/bishop/elders and other giftings to the body. No one is denying that scripture has a role in all of this. So what is the problem? Oh yes, there is contention to some of the specifics, but overall, the mechanism, the players remain mostly the same. History, facts, and logic are cherished by any contender, but not infallibly.

 

[eddie_too]

mostly the same except for, among others, the Real Presence, the moral teachings of the RCC that few other denominations accept, the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage, praying for the dead.

perhaps to some these differences are unimportant. but, they are what received from the Lord through the apostles and their successors.

surely if someone is going to dismiss the teachings of the RCC in areas where the breakoff bodies of believers disagree, they should have something on which to base their dismissals.

so, yeah, anyone can say anything, but the believability and reasonableness of a person’s opinion is largely dependent upon the facts, the history and the logic with which they support what they say.

for example, a person might say that they do not accept the teaching authority of the magisterium of the RCC. no one has denied the ability of others to deny that authority.

instead, we RCCs ask at a minimum two relevant questions. first, then what authority do you recognize when it comes to teaching about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ? and, second, what evidence, logic or history can you provide to make your rejection of the RCC reasonable?

 

[Protestor]

It depends on what you are willing to accept as documentation.

Keeping in mind that we have no originals for any of the books of the Bible. We do have a consensus on the copies that we have. But in this light, it would be unreasonable to demand too strict of a documentation with 21st century standards. We need to take into consideration the era and the culture of the times.

Peace,

I am willing to accept lots of types of documents. It is just very confusing to try and find out who to read when sometimes you do not even accept what they are saying as being valid. Like when I quoted Origen earlier in this thread and I was immediately told he is not an ecf. For me it is this kind of indecisiveness that will cause confusion. I do not mind reading them like any other modern theologian, but do not tell me you are going to quote him when it fits your dogma’s and only then is it fine to quote him. The early writers regardless of fatherhood should be a gage for what the beliefs were in the early church. It should go to show that not everything was set in stone from the beginning of the Church. Which should be expected considering we are only humans trying to decipher God’s will and teaching.

The RCC has made it really hard for someone like me to take them seriously. When they say the Pope has a power of infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra, and then to say that this has only been done twice or three times. Has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard for something to not even have been in use for 1800 years and then all of the sudden it has a supreme authority. If you want tradition to be infallible I am ok with this even though I disagree. But have a united list of infallible documents and traditions otherwise infallibility looks like a smoke screen. People like me need something to grasp, and saying that your way of interpreting is the traditional way does not convince me and you really just end up sounding like a protestant(for lack of a better phrase but I think you can see what I mean).

 

[PRmerger]

Source please saying that is what this father meant ?

Why do I need a source for this? It’s simply logic.

What is a monstrance, poco, save that which contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?

And what is it we Catholics receive when we receive the Eucharist?

What then do we become?

We become…

wait for it…
wait for it…



…

monstrances!

Incidentally, does your church even monstrances? I don’t think so. So it would seem that the Catholic faith, which has retained that which the ECFs referenced, is a bit closer to the church of the early Christians than your church.

 

[PRmerger]

Correct me if I am wrong. You can have faith in a set of beliefs, but to say that faith is a set of beliefs is a stretch. I have never seen it defined as such.

Then perhaps you have never read St. Thomas Aquinas?

Peter Kreeft, philosophy professor at Boston College, says this

Faith is the act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe the truth of all that God has revealed on the basis of the authority of the one who has revealed it. This is essentially the definition used by Saint Thomas Aquinas and medieval scholastic theology.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you guys freaking out because one faith in different beliefs sounds so weird. I would say that we have one faith in a core set of beliefs.

What is this “core set of beliefs”, and where does the Bible say that “A” is a core belief, but “B” is not?

For example, is belief in One God a core belief? If so, where does the Bible say this? (Or, where does the Bible say it is not a core belief?)

What about belief that baptism saves you? If so, where does the Bible say this? (Or, where does the Bible say it is not a core belief?)

But, firstly, if you could offer this core set of beliefs that would be helpful. Also, how you know that it’s a core belief (chapter, verse for this please!)*

NB: I don’t need the chapter and verse that says, for example, that there is One God. I need the chapter and verse that you use to tell you that belief in One God is a core belief.