Seeking forgiveness of sin from God

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZemD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Julius_Caesar said:
The sacrifice of the Mass is the one sacrifice for the sins of the world. So you’re wrong there.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am wrong now from a CC standpoint, but as you know many feel this is a “development”, from a remembrance to an actual sacrifice. That to me is like if the Jews today during passover actually think they are being passed by the angel of death and fleeing Egypt the next day. In a sense of remebrance that is fantastic, but as an actual present circumstance oblation also, no. As one writer put it, too much emphasis on the present, doing the past, we lose some focus of that new covenant, which is still a bridge of a better thing to come, His return and we being changed even more.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Yes, I am wrong now from a CC standpoint
Click to expand...
No. From a standpoint that existed from the beginning.

We share in Christ blood when we drink the Chalice and in His Body when we eat the Bread.

That’s how it’s always been understood. As a participation in the One Sacrifice.
 
The CC (and the Orthodox. Why does everybody forget the Orthodox?) was the standard standpoint for over 1500 years and remains the same. Which makes the ‘change’ by some look a lot more like THEY are the ones who decided to ignore a constant teaching and invent or ‘develop’ if you like that terminology something ‘new’.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
Once you refuse to go through His ambassadors, you are guilty of rejecting Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes we are ambassadors, whoever doth proclaim the gospel, and blessed are the feet thereof…so ministers of the gospel are ambassadors…whomever listens to such listens to Jesus …a binding loosing.

I disagree with doctrine that channels or forces the issue of ambassadorship apart from obedience to the gospel. Paul uses the kinder truer word of “entreat”, to be always reconciled to God by Christ.

Here is some Calvin commentary:

( the Catholic doctrine) that, after baptism, we merit the remission of sins by penitence, through means of the aid of the keys, as if baptism itself could confer this upon us without penitence. By the term penitence, however, they mean satisfactions. But what does Paul say here? He calls us to go, not less after baptism, than before it, to the one expiation made by Christ, that we may know that we always obtain it gratuitously. Farther, all their prating as to the administration of the keys is to no purpose, inasmuch as they conceive of keys apart from the Gospel, while they are nothing else than that testimony of a gratuitous reconciliation, which is made to us in the Gospel.

Isaiah 66:20 KJV

 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Yes we are ambassadors, whoever doth proclaim the gospel, and blessed are the feet thereof…so ministers of the gospel are ambassadors…whomever listens to such listens to Jesus …a binding loosing.
Click to expand...
And those feet were those of Paul and co.
mcq72 said:
I disagree with doctrine that channels or forces the issue of ambassadorship apart from obedience to the gospel.
Click to expand...
I disagree with doctrine that truncates the Gospel and reduces it to just believe and makes Christians lone rangers.
mcq72 said:
Farther, all their prating as to the administration of the keys is to no purpose, inasmuch as they conceive of keys apart from the Gospel, while they are nothing else than that testimony of a gratuitous reconciliation, which is made to us in the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Calvin was making a strawman.

Keys are a reference to authority. Peter also exercised these keys in Acts 15.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
The CC (and the Orthodox. Why does everybody forget the Orthodox?) was the standard standpoint for over 1500 years and remains the same.
Click to expand...
Technically, there was no standard viewpoint on how Christ was present in the Eucharist until the Lateran Council in 1215.

Paschasius Radbertus in 831, was the first to really make a case for Transubstantiation, even though he didn’t use that term.

It is clear that Radbertus’s opinion was not held by everyone as several notable theologians rejected his conclusions. Including John Scotus Eriugena

As this website describes

This view did not win immediate acceptance. A distinguished teacher, author, and scholar, Raban Maur (Hrabanus Maurus), a pupil of Alcuin and abbot of the famous monastery of Fulda, denied that “the sacrament of the altar is truly the body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, and was raised from the tomb,” but he held that the body of the risen Lord is present, even though not physically, and that to receive the body of Christ is to be united with Christ by faith in such a manner as to form with him a single body. Gottschalk, a former monk of Fulda, now imprisoned in a monastery for views which we are to note in a moment, indignantly rejected the suggestion of Radbert that the Christ on the altar suffers anew and dies anew, but he also differed from Raban Maur who seemed to say that the Eucharist was only a sign of grace, and maintained that the body and blood of Christ are mysteriously present as an objective reality, quite independent of the faith of the communicant. Ratramnus, like Radbert a monk of Corbie, in a brief treatise written at the request of Charles the Bald, held that the view of Radbert worked harm to the religious life, for since the effects of partaking of the Eucharist are spiritual, the bread of the Eucharist must be spiritually and not physically the body of Christ. To hold that Christ is physically present would negate the spiritual power and healing which are the true fruits of the sacrament. In spite of these criticisms, the position set forth by Radbert was nearer to that which was eventually endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church than was that of his opponents. Final official action, however, was to wait until the thirteenth century.

So, as you see, the church has always held the Christ is present in the Eucharist in some way, but there was no standard viewpoint until the late middle ages. But even then there have been those who held other views than Transubstantiation. The protestant reformation, and the loss of the secular government enforcing Catholic Theology, renewed the debate that started in the 9th Century and it continues even today.

But to say that Catholic understanding of Transubstantiation is what everyone has believed for 1500 is factually and historically inaccurate.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
I disagree with doctrine that truncates the Gospel and reduces it to just believe and makes Christians lone rangers…Calvin was making a strawman.

Keys are a reference to authority. Peter also exercised these keys in Acts 15
Click to expand...
First, strawman is to go from the narrow ritualized confession to a valid priest for absolution, to " lone rangers".

No one denies the church, the presbyter or preacher or the gospel. Furthermore, any self examination before the Lord, (as is done also in CC before confession) is just that, before the Lord, and nothin “lone” about that. And no one denies a confessing one to another, even to a presbyter/ priest, as per James. We just differ on the narrower understanding of CC absolution, that Christ only absolves thru the priest, and that a Catholic presbyter only.

So here is Calvin debunking any “lone ranger” approach.

To impart to us this benefit, the keys of the church have been given. When Christ gave the command to the apostles and conferred upon them the power to forgive sins [Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23], he did not so much desire that the apostles absolve from sins those who might be converted from ungodliness to the faith of Christ, as that they should perpetually discharge this office among believers. Paul teaches this when he writes that the mission of reconciliation has been entrusted to the ministers of the church and that by it they are repeatedly to exhort the people to be reconciled to God in Christ’s name [2 Corinthians 5:18,20]. Therefore, in the communion of saints, our sins are continually forgiven us by the ministry of the church itself when the presbyters or bishops to whom this office has been committed strengthen godly consciences by the gospel promises in the hope of pardon and forgiveness. This they do both publicly and privately as need requires. For very many,on account of their weakness, need personal consolation. And Paul mentions that not only in public preaching, but from house to house as well, he has attested his faith in Christ, and has individually admonished each man concerning the doctrine of salvation [Acts 20:20-21]. (IV, 1:22)
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
First, strawman is to go from the narrow ritualized confession to a valid priest for absolution,
Click to expand...
A strawman which Chrysostom believed. So Calvin knew better than Chrysostom?
mcq72 said:
We just differ on the narrower understanding of CC absolution, that Christ only absolves thru the priest, and that a Catholic presbyter only.
Click to expand...
Christ explicitly said WHO HAS POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. You choose to ignore this.
mcq72 said:
When Christ gave the command to the apostles and conferred upon them the power to forgive sins [Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23], he did not so much desire that the apostles absolve from sins those who might be converted from ungodliness to the faith of Christ, as that they should perpetually discharge this office among believers
Click to expand...
Lotta eigesis by Calvin.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
Ignatius, Irenaeus, Augustine, Cyril, and Justin Martyr would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well, there were several prominent Catholics in the middle ages who disagreed. Therefore you can’t say it is what “everyone” believed or it was the universal conclusion. It is also clear that disagreeing didn’t hurt you any in the eyes of the church. Raban Maur, even after publicly disagreeing with Radbertus when he was an abbot, became a highly respected Archbishop. The logical conclusion is that, at that time, holding differing views about how “Christ is in the Eucharist” was acceptable.

I doubt the Catholic church would allow a “heretic” to become an Archbishop.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Lotta eigesis by Calvin.
Click to expand...
If so, lotta of that going around at that time, a gift from their parent church?

At least the CC and Calvin agreed on history. At the beginning confession was public with laying on of hands as a confirmation of Christ’s forgiveness, which Calvin cited he wouldn’t mind such a thing again . Both he and CC do not see as laying on of hands for forgiveness as effectual/necessary ritual (that it was symbolic?).
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Christ explicitly said WHO HAS POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. You choose to ignore this.
Click to expand...
Not about who has power but what is the power and how is it used. Is it wielded over, lording over, or entreating one to his service?

Do the apostles really forgive the sins, or do they declare or bring you to, entreat you to the table of the Lord for such?
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Um, Arius?
Click to expand...
I don’t think Arius was ever a Bishop. He wasn’t allowed to attend the council of Nicaea because it was “Bishops only”. However, there were a couple of bishops who presented his case to the council. Would they have been made bishop if they had denied the Trinity before becoming bishop? I doubt it.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
Not validly.
Click to expand...
That is my point. Raban Maur became an Archbishop after disagreeing with Radbertus on how the Eucharist is “the Body and Blood” of Christ. It didn’t cause a controversy and I can find no indication that Maur was ever considered anything other than in good standing with the church. The same is true of Ratramnus and the others who spoke against Radbertus. None were excommunicated, there was no huge controversy, no need for a council or church discipline. They were simply allowed to hold different opinions.

Of course that change in later centuries as Radbertus’s opinion became the dominate belief in the Catholic church as it became to be understood with Aristotelian logic.
 
lanman87 said:
Raban Maur became an Archbishop after disagreeing with Radbertus on how the Eucharist is “the Body and Blood” of Christ.
Click to expand...
Do we know whether the said archbishop kept his view or not? No. So I wouldn’t make that assumption that the Church didn’t hold to the Real Prescene, also known as trans-elementation in the Early Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top