second question for our non-catholic brethern

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which Father says this?

N.
 
pocohombre said:
Wellllll, I think the bible does say it is authoritative.I think the writers knew it was going to be authoritative. i think a few even said it was authoritative. Right it solidifies authority in itself and in all other things.
Click to expand...
Nobody even knew that the Bible was even going to exist, until the early 300s AD, and the Bishops of the world were disputing its precise contents for 80 years beyond that. It was not until the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome, later ratified by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, that the Bible as Catholics know and love it today came into existence.

(The current Protestant Bible is less than 300 years old, just fyi.)
 
Kliska said:
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Click to expand...
Just fyi, the “word of God” is the Person of Jesus Christ; it is not the Bible, nor any written text.
 
jmcrae said:
Just fyi, the “word of God” is the Person of Jesus Christ; it is not the Bible, nor any written text.
Click to expand...
So, now it’s the Roman Catholic position that the Bible is not the word of God? Jesus is the Word of God, the Logos, and the Bible is the word of God.
 
jmcrae said:
Nobody even knew that the Bible was even going to exist, until the early 300s AD
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty extreme position to take, even as an example of the argument that you’re trying to make…
 
Protestor said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s what the word “faith” means - “belief.”

We have “the Catholic faith” which is the set of beliefs pertaining to Catholicism.

We have “the Jewish faith” which is the set of beliefs pertaining to Judaism.

We have “the Islamic faith” which is the set of beliefs pertaining to Islam.

But to “have faith” without at the same time believing something makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
Novocastrian said:
Are you saying that the Bible isn’t the word of God?
Click to expand...
In the sense that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is the written Word of God, and in the sense that the Church has defined it as such, certainly it is - but we must never confuse the Bible with Jesus, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelled among us.

When the Bible refers to “the Word of God” it is not being self-referential, nor is it referring to written works - ask any believer in the first century for “a Bible” he would send you to Alexandria and point out the library (Bibliotek) there, but you wouldn’t find very much of what we would consider Sacred Scripture in it.

Ask for “the Scriptures” and you’d get a bit closer - synagogues had repositories of books called “Scriptoria” that contained any number of what we would consider Old Testament writings - anywhere from just the five books of the Penteteuch up to 50 or even sometimes 60 books of prophetic and historical writings. Even in the late first century, though, they would not have included any of the New Testament books in any of those collections.

Ask them for the Word of God, and they would send you to Mass; they wouldn’t give you a book.
 
Novocastrian said:
That’s a pretty extreme position to take, even as an example of the argument that you’re trying to make…
Click to expand...
In the second and third century, they were still reading from “the books of Moses and the memoirs of the Apostles” - the word “Bible” doesn’t begin to appear until the early 4th century.
 
Kliska said:
So, now it’s the Roman Catholic position that the Bible is not the word of God? Jesus is the Word of God, the Logos, and the Bible is the word of God.
Click to expand...
When we find the term “word of God” in the Bible, it isn’t referring to itself. It’s talking about Jesus. It is Jesus who became flesh and dwelled among us; not the Bible. 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
In the second and third century, they were still reading from “the books of Moses and the memoirs of the Apostles” - the word “Bible” doesn’t begin to appear until the early 4th century.
Click to expand...
What are we talking about here? Just the use of the words ta biblia? The compilation/acceptance of the canon? The notion of those books as together constituting hai graphai, spoken of within the Bible and the early church?
 
PRmerger said:
I gave you two. Do a word search for the word “tabernacle”.
Click to expand...
In the Tertullian you gave me, we have an unimpressive reference in chapter ix, which lists the tabernacle as one of the things which can be seen as figures of the Church/the Christian.

The closest I can find in the Clement is a reference in Stromata 5.14 to the Platonic notion of the body being the tabernacle of the soul.

Neither of these have anything to do with monstrances or the Real Presence…
 
Novocastrian said:
What are we talking about here? Just the use of the words ta biblia? The compilation/acceptance of the canon? The notion of those books as together constituting hai graphai, spoken of within the Bible and the early church?
Click to expand...
Pope Innocent I gave us the canon of the New Testament in 405 AD. The canon of the Old Testament was finally settled at Trent, for the Western Church in the late 1500s AD. The Eastern Church still uses a different longer canon, and Protestants use a much shorter canon, so in terms of universality, the canon of the Old Testament is still not completely settled, other than for Catholics in the Western Rite.

The protocanon of the New Testament was accepted before the entire canon was accepted, and the four Gospels were certainly in use universally, but the entire canon - no. It took a long time to settle the details, and even then, the codex itself didn’t begin to exist on paper until after St. Jerome completed the translation and called for copies to be made.

He certainly had nothing like the little pocket Bibles or hand Bibles that we can buy at any religious supply house - in fact, what we today call “a Bible” meaning a book you can hold in your lap or put on a table and read from, only began to exist in the mid-1800s.
 
Novocastrian said:
In the Tertullian you gave me, we have an unimpressive reference in chapter ix, which lists the tabernacle as one of the things which can be seen as figures of the Church/the Christian.

The closest I can find in the Clement is a reference in Stromata 5.14 to the Platonic notion of the body being the tabernacle of the soul.

Neither of these have anything to do with monstrances or the Real Presence…
Click to expand...
Here it is again: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02. where you can read for free online.
 
Novocastrian said:
In the Tertullian you gave me, we have an unimpressive reference in chapter ix, which lists the tabernacle as one of the things which can be seen as figures of the Church/the Christian.

The closest I can find in the Clement is a reference in Stromata 5.14 to the Platonic notion of the body being the tabernacle of the soul.

Neither of these have anything to do with monstrances or the Real Presence…
Click to expand...
I can’t give you any more references, Novo.

Perhaps you can ask poco, who also has read the ECFs.
pocohombre said:
That is right .We are His temple,even his monstrance (early father said that).
Click to expand...
 
jmcrae said:
In the sense that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is the written Word of God, and in the sense that the Church has defined it as such, certainly it is - but we must never confuse the Bible with Jesus, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelled among us.
Click to expand...
It’s not either/or it is both/and. The word of God is indeed all those things listed in Hebrew as well as Jesus. The word of God is the word given from God to man, those things of divine origin are referred to as the word.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

The word of God, the wisdom of God is given by Him to humanity in written, oral, and Incarnated form. This verse should be right us the RCC alley, as it is about the spoken word. 😉 The word is scripture, as scripture is inspired by God. In Hebrews, when it is described as living, it IS referring to the teachings, and that includes the teaching of the Word.

God’s word doesn’t return void, and the idea of God’s word being powerful is recorded in the OT and NT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top