L
lanman87
Guest
There is no indication that he changed his view, or that the others changed their views. To say that they did or didn’t is pure speculation.
- Status
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Beats me. So to say that the Church didn’t always believe in the Real Prescene is false.
A
annad347
Guest
You are not rejecting Christ, when you follow the Holy Spirit who will always lead you to God.
G
goout
Guest
You are selectively dismissing passages of scriptureJulius_Caesar:
Yes they did, thru and by the gospel of Christ Jesus. The gospel is powerful and remedies the ancient and present universal reality of sin.
“Then Peter said unto them (after using his keys to preach the first gospel after/at Pentecost), Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 2:38 KJV
This is explicit use of keys and power to forgive sins. As one reformer put it, to the glory and honor of the preaching of the gospel, of the call to be preachers not confessors.
The rationalization here doesn’t work. Might it be better to simply say you disregard that passage of scripture?
But that causes a conundrum because it requires reference to an authority authorizing the dismissal of the clear message of the passage.
“You gotta serve somebody”.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I didn’t say the church didn’t always believe in the Real Presence. What I said was that there was difference of opinion within the church on “how Christ was in the Eucharist”. The Real Presence and transubstantiation are different things. By their own words, those who disagreed with Radbertus described a spiritual or symbolic “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. And explained in Spiritual or Symbolic terms how the bread and cup become the Body and Blood of Christ.
And their explanations were never condemned by the church during their lifetimes. A few hundred years later, when Transubstantiation become the dominate belief of the church their teachings would be dismissed.
And their explanations were never condemned by the church during their lifetimes. A few hundred years later, when Transubstantiation become the dominate belief of the church their teachings would be dismissed.
M
mcq72
Guest
No but why do you dismiss anothers different understanding and working out of same said scripture? The forgiveness of sins is paramount to an ambassador of Christ in this fallen world.
Again, we have a different understanding of being “apostolic” but apostolic we are to be.
T
TULIPed
Guest
Only Catholics are Christians then?
M
mcq72
Guest
We, including the CC, should be sour towards bad doctrine or practice.
M
mcq72
Guest
In CC priest is in persona of Christ and God is the forgiver
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Is that what I said?
Jesus makes the rules. I follow them. If you have a problem understanding the rules, then :man_shrugging:t6:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Except the Church has always had this doctrine. It’s been handed on by Jesus. So unless you want to call Jesus’s words bad…
T
TULIPed
Guest
Here’s what you said:TULIPed:
Is that what I said?
Jesus makes the rules. I follow them. If you have a problem understanding the rules, then :man_shrugging:t6:
I don’t think you can be a Christians and reject Christ, no? So it sure sounds like you’re saying you can’t be a Christian unless you’re Catholic.
(BTW is this @steve-b incognito? Steve used to say things like this. I miss Steve sometimes.
)
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Then that’s own you for taking the statement that way.
Do you believe God contradicts Himself?
Do you believe what Jesus said, “He who rejects you, rejects Me, and he who rejects Me, rejects He who sent Me?”
So why is my statement so offensive?
A
annad347
Guest
He who sent me is God.
Don’t about their beliefs on the real prescience, but their beliefs on the importance of the Eucharist changed as time changed… so its highly unlikely their beliefs/understanding didnt change as well as with everything else in the world.
R
Raxus
Guest
Certainly true, but the priest is a needed part of that forgiveness. God works through people more often than not.
M
mcq72
Guest
I was speaking in general terms. Yes, Calvin was specifically sour towards Catholic practice and doctrine on this issue ( penance), just as the CC is sour on some P practice/ doctrine or other deemed heresies from the beginning of church history.
T
TULIPed
Guest
Ok good. I got it wrong then. You meant to say that non-Catholics can be Christians. Fair enough.
No.
Yes.
Not offensive. It just sounded like you were saying that Non-Catholics aren’t Christians. Now I understand you weren’t saying that.
R
Raxus
Guest
It’s prettymuch meaningless, because you have no way to tell if it’s actually the Holy Spirit coming to you (Here’s a hint: He usually doesn’t show up on command. God isn’t a gumball machine that you stick a quarter into and get a treat out of), or of it’s just your mind “telling” you want you want to hear. You have no accountability, which is dangerous. God gave us the means to KNOW we’re forgiven through His priests.
T
TULIPed
Guest
My understanding is that confession is done anonymously, no? How does personal accountability figure in in that case? (I like accountability - just curious how you look at it. I’ll hang up and listen)
R
Raxus
Guest
It can be anonymous, or it can be face-to-face. Generally speaking, it’s a better idea for someone who has a continuing problem with a specific sin to see the same priest as much as possible when they confess, so that the priest has a better idea of what they continually struggle with and so better help them out.
But even anonymous confession has an element of accountability to it; that is, a living, breathing human knows what you did, but also knows that you’re sorry for it and trying to do better. That accountability (and the shame that people naturally feel from knowing that someone else knows what they’ve done) is a big step for many in being able to resist sin in the future.
- Status