SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[IanGE]

Check out these threads which explain it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573270&highlight=quote+feature
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6675&highlight=quote+feature

Anyone who is Catholic is Born Again, Ian, when he is baptized.

That’s a judgement call that’s above your pay grade I’m afraid. You don’t have the capacity to know who’s rejecting God’s gifts and who’s not. You ought not be judging others here.

I stand on God’s Word, Jesus’ promise that “these signs shall accompany all those who believe (Mark 16: 17, 18, 19)” The Lord Himself told me I can know if HE had accepted the heart of someone if I witnessed (and discerned by my own indwelling Holy Spirit) anyone demonstrating at least one of those signs I could bet top dollar “he is one of Mine, Ian”. I took it that if anyone did NOT demonstrate the signs I simply could not judge. But the signs are a confirmation of a true, believing Christian. The last verse of Mark’s Gospel: “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed HIS word by the signs that accompanied it.” Paul’s letter are peppered with the gifts of the Spirit: they were so common he had to teach about use and abuse of them.
In John Chapter 3, Jesus tries to explain Born Again to Nicodemus, who clearly fails to understand. Verses 6 to 11: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit. The wind (pneuma agios) blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
“You are Israel’s teacher”, said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen but still you people do not accept our testimony.” And then one of the BIG promises that changed my life ( and all those who understand), verse 14: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the deserted so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in HIM will have eternal life.” Hallelu-JAH! As Paul trimphantly proclaims: “O death, where is thy sting?”

 

[PRmerger]

Eusebius was a CHRISTIAN Bishop in the new religion adopted for The Roman Empire by Constantine.

There was only One Church at the time of Eusebius, Ian: the Catholic Church.

And Eusebius *as bishop *would have heard confessions, celebrated the Divine Liturgy, prayed for the dead, venerated Mary, deferred to the pope, met at councils…

I don’t know of any other Protestant Church that does this along with their bishops.

At any rate, are we agreed that since the early church had bishops that the modern day churches ought to have bishops as well? And that churches that don’t have bishops have departed from the One True Faith?

 

[adrift]

I was quoting the words that Jesus said (John 3:3 - 6). If Jesus is a false witness Then we may as well pack up and become Buddhists!

The question was

Can you offer a quote from the hierarchy that demonstrates this suspicion of the Holy Spirit?

Your answer

I am a septuagenarian, ex-computer designer/lecturer but simply don’t know the correct way to reply

It is the ABSENCE of support for the Jesus/scriptural way to the Father and the Holy Spirit, ie "UNLESS you are Born Again you will not see/enter the Kingdom of God. This forum also radiates not just suspicion but rejection of God’s gifts and fruit to ALL in the ecclesia.

You were asked for a quote that demonstrated suspicion of the Holy Spirit. You didn’t answer that instead you make a a half quote of Jesus. What you left out was unless you are born again of water and the Spirit(Baptism). If you are going to make an accusation at least back it up with some sort of documentation instead of misusing scripture. Even the devil quoted Scripture.

 

[adrift]

Eusebius was a CHRISTIAN Bishop in the new religion adopted for The Roman Empire by Constantine. Protestantism (against CATHOLIC church dogma, doctrine and corruption) hit the fan 12 or 13 Ccenturies after Eusebius coughed his clogs. However, he could be considered a Protestant since he clearly rejects the Holy Spirit - or at least the “tongue speakers” who were prominent in his day. I took that as a sign that the early CHRISTIAN church in Rome (or should that be Constantinople) chucked out the Holy Spirit with the bath water, but I read somewhere that Eusebius was an Arian.

There were two Eusebius. One was Bishop of Verceli and the other of Antioch one was a saint and one a heretic so which one are you referring to. The Holy Spirit was not Chucked out only the misuse.

I can’t find “confession” in any of Jesus’ words. His brother, and leader of the CHRISTIAN church in Jerusalem says “confess you sins to EACH OTHER and pray for each other so that you be healed.” (Jas. 5:16). Jesus speaks of repentance and forgiveness of each one of us for those who have sinned against us as conditional to the Father forgiving our own sins. Forgiving others is a rema (COMMAND) from Jesus Himself as, indeed, is the Command to LOVE one another. And he uses “agape” here, A high level God’s love.

Really let us not play word game here. Jesus established that the Apostles would forgive sins. That power was passed down to the priest of today.
From Church Militants Bog

Reconciliation (Confession):Leviticus. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 (even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.). Matthew 3:6,18:18, 9:6 & 8, Mark 2:7, John 20:21-23, Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10.

Oops I should add more Bishops Eusebius
Bishop of Caesarea
Bishop of Doryleaum

 

[adrift]

I stand on God’s Word, Jesus’ promise that “these signs shall accompany all those who believe (Mark 16: 17, 18, 19)” The Lord Himself told me I can know if HE had accepted the heart of someone if I witnessed (and discerned by my own indwelling Holy Spirit) anyone demonstrating at least one of those signs I could bet top dollar “he is one of Mine, Ian”. I took it that if anyone did NOT demonstrate the signs I simply could not judge. But the signs are a confirmation of a true, believing Christian. The last verse of Mark’s Gospel: “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed HIS word by the signs that accompanied it.” Paul’s letter are peppered with the gifts of the Spirit: they were so common he had to teach about use and abuse of them.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In John Chapter 3, Jesus tries to explain Born Again to Nicodemus, who clearly fails to understand.

And it is clear that you have failed also to understand. Jesus demanded baptism Matthew 28:19:Mark 16:15: Acts 2:38: Romans 6:3: Ephesians 4:5 1st Peter 3:21:
Again from the blog

Baptism: John 3:3,5, & 22-23, 2nd Kings 5:14, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 16:15 & 33, 22:16, )Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.). Romans 6:3, 1st Corinthians 1:16, 6:11, and 15:29

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why is that your criterion for declaring whether the papacy existed?

If not for inffalability, the Pope is just another bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If I am correct in my understanding of Catholic dogma, you are failing to recognize the difference between things declared as dogma and subjects to which no formal declaration was ever made, which turn up later.

We teach that everything was transmitted at the Deposit of Faith, right? So how can things “turn up later”?

As for the Pope speaking infallibly, we have Peter declaring that Gentiles could join the Church without circumcision.

Read Acts, James made the declaration, not Peter.

Acts 15
13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

And while the nuances or methods of a sacrament may change (more added to the Liturgy of the Eucharist (NOT the prayer of Consecration, but overall Liturgy), Confession in public versus Confession in private, Baptism as an adult vs as an infant), the sacrament or dogma itself is in no way contradicted. There is a HUGE difference in completely contradicting formal dogma and establishing dogma based off of Tradition. Nothing will be contradicted, and nothing will be spontaneously created by an individual (it must come from God and coincide with Scripture, Tradition, and the authority of the Magisterium; how else could any real doctrine be made by any Christians, ever? It would become like the Protestant denominations, who declare personal interpretation).

Sacramental theology has evolved. I don’t know why we are afraid to admit it. Even the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayers) have changed over time. In fact, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari have shown us that the spoken words aren’t even a necessity.**

 

[thesmiter1]

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

This is from the Didache, from around 70 AD. How much earlier do you want to go?

How about some Barnabas:

“You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Or would some Ignatius be helpful:

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).

You would benefit greatly from actually learning what the early Church teaches, rather than what you selectively wish it taught.

Let me ask you something (and all non-Catholic Christians): Do you really, truly believe that Christ would leave the operation of His Church to the individual interpretation of every man who became Christian? If so, then why are there so many different Christian belief systems? And why, before Luther, was there only one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (the Orthodox are schismatic, and adhere to the dogma of the Church, but refuse to acknowledge the Roman Bishop as the pastoral head of the Church).

Can you answer me? Can you explain why the Church Fathers and the earliest Catechism are so blatantly obvious about sacraments? Can you explain why the Catholic Church has existed firmly for so long, while non-Catholic Christians have already split into about 30,000 denominations? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME.

Once again, this has been ignored. Can anyone answer these questions? And I’ve got another one: why would Jesus, who adhered to the traditional methods of prayer and reverent worship of the Jews, suddenly advocate a religion without any form or order? God instituted the hierarchy of the Davidic Kingdom. If Christ is the fulfillment of this, why would He do a 180? Anyone?

 

[thesmiter1]

We teach that everything was transmitted at the Deposit of Faith, right? So how can things “turn up later”?

Read Acts, James made the declaration, not Peter.

Acts 15
13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment**, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Sacramental theology has evolved. I don’t know why we are afraid to admit it. Even the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayers) have changed over time. In fact, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari have shown us that the spoken words aren’t even a necessity.

Exactly, our theology evolves. We learn more and more about the faith we were given. Things that ‘turn up’ do so out of necessity, such as the recent developments of in vitro fertilization. ‘Turn up later’ was a poor choice of words. ‘Are revealed to us later’ would be better.

I was mistaken about Peter declaring it through infallibility, but he did have a direct revelation when it came to this subject (the animals of the earth before him and the invitation to eat). Peter was key in making this decision, but his heart had to be changed first. It would be more an example of bishops determining something together.

And again, I did say that the nuances of a sacrament may change, but the sacrament itself (the gift given to us from Christ) does not.

I did mention that I may not have stated everything clearly or accurately, so I pointed to the Catechism, which states it quite clearly. Did you read those sections?

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t find “confession” in any of Jesus’ words.

I can’t find in any of Jesus’ words where he says that it is required that we find all of our doctrine in “any of Jesus’ words.”

Incidentally, where do you see the hypostatic union in Jesus’ words? Or the Trinity?

Or are you not a trinitarian? And you don’t believe in the union of Christ’s divinity and his humanity?

His brother, and leader of the CHRISTIAN church in Jerusalem says “confess you sins to EACH OTHER and pray for each other so that you be healed.” (Jas. 5:16). Jesus speaks of repentance and forgiveness of each one of us for those who have sinned against us as conditional to the Father forgiving our own sins. Forgiving others is a rema (COMMAND) from Jesus Himself as, indeed, is the Command to LOVE one another. And he uses “agape” here, A high level God’s love.

Amen! This is very Catholic, Ian.

 

[PRmerger]

I stand on God’s Word, Jesus’ promise that “these signs shall accompany all those who believe (Mark 16: 17, 18, 19)”

Amen!

The Lord Himself told me I can know if HE had accepted the heart of someone if I witnessed (and discerned by my own indwelling Holy Spirit) anyone demonstrating at least one of those signs I could bet top dollar “he is one of Mine, Ian”.

Which of Jesus’ words tell you this? Chapter and verse, please.

I took it that if anyone did NOT demonstrate the signs I simply could not judge.

Well, since you are not infallible, remember that “fallible” means, by definition, you’re going to be in error. Going. to. be. in. error.

So remember that whenever you have the urge to judge whether someone could be “in the spirit.” The fallible man will say, “I may be wrong about this.”

The last verse of Mark’s Gospel: “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed HIS word by the signs that accompanied it.” Paul’s letter are peppered with the gifts of the Spirit: they were so common he had to teach about use and abuse of them.

Indeed.

In John Chapter 3, Jesus tries to explain Born Again to Nicodemus, who clearly fails to understand. Verses 6 to 11: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit. The wind (pneuma agios) blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Amen!

“You are Israel’s teacher”, said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen but still you people do not accept our testimony.” And then one of the BIG promises that changed my life ( and all those who understand), verse 14: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the deserted so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in HIM will have eternal life.” Hallelu-JAH! As Paul trimphantly proclaims: “O death, where is thy sting?”

Amen!

And you can thank the Catholic Church for preserving these words for us!

 

[PRmerger]

If not for inffalability, the Pope is just another bishop.

Nope. The Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly, our theology evolves. We learn more and more about the faith we were given. Things that ‘turn up’ do so out of necessity, such as the recent developments of in vitro fertilization. ‘Turn up later’ was a poor choice of words. ‘Are revealed to us later’ would be better.

Further, we teach that the age of revelation has ended with the close of the Apostolic Age. There are no new revelations.

I was mistaken about Peter declaring it through infallibility, but he did have a direct revelation when it came to this subject (the animals of the earth before him and the invitation to eat). Peter was key in making this decision, but his heart had to be changed first. It would be more an example of bishops determining something together.

It was in the beginning and how it should be for all times.

And again, I did say that the nuances of a sacrament may change, but the sacrament itself (the gift given to us from Christ) does not.

I never said the Sacrament itself change. But there is sufficient change. Like one other example I stated, in the early Church we do not even have a marriage rite. People get married however their culture or government deems they should get married. Today if you don’t get married in the Church, the Church doesn’t consider it marriage. That is a huge and radical change.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nope. The Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ.

And the other bishops are not?

 

[PRmerger]

And the other bishops are not?

They are the servants of God.

And, as stated earlier, the pope is the servant of the servants of God.

Now, why do we have to provide an example of the pope making an ex cathedra statement to prove the existence of the papacy in the first century?

That’s like saying, “Doctors did not exist in the 1800s. Otherwise, provide me an example of a doctor offering the polio vaccine in the 1800s.”

Why would we have to do that to prove that doctors did exist in the first century.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They are the servants of God.

And, as stated earlier, the pope is the servant of the servants of God.

Now, why do we have to provide an example of the pope making an ex cathedra statement to prove the existence of the papacy in the first century?

That’s like saying, “Doctors did not exist in the 1800s. Otherwise, provide me an example of a doctor offering the polio vaccine in the 1800s.”

Why would we have to do that to prove that doctors did exist in the first century.

Infallability is a dogma. If a dogma did not exist in the early Church, then it is an innovation. Remember, we cannot invent any new dogma or doctrine of the faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Infallability is a dogma. If a dogma did not exist in the early Church, then it is an innovation. Remember, we cannot invent any new dogma or doctrine of the faith.

Perhaps this analogy will be helpful to you to see how the faith can be “whole and entire”, given once for all to the saints, yet also develop.

Take this analogy:

It has been the constant teaching in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to put all their school supplies away.

Sometimes questions arise that did not need defining earlier, but because of the development of our family further refinement is necessary.

Example: for the first 4 years of my children’s schooling they did not use a backpack.

Thus, when they started in the upper grades coming home and throwing their backpacks on the floor we had to have a “council” to announce: ALL BACKPACKS NEED TO BE HUNG ON THEIR RESPECTIVE HOOKS.

Now, this is not a new command. The ever-present command was: ALL SCHOOL SUPPLIES NEED TO BE PUT AWAY WHEN YOU COME HOME.

However, as there were no backpacks for the first 4 years, there was no need to say, “And that includes backpacks, of course!”

While the fullness of our message existed from the very beginning, it sometimes became necessary to call a family council to explain, defend and define our message.

So, while infallibility has existed from the very beginning, it only became necessary to define it, at some historical point, when the Holy Spirit discerned that it was necessary.

 

[adrift]

I never said the Sacrament itself change. But there is sufficient change. Like one other example I stated, in the early Church we do not even have a marriage rite. People get married however their culture or government deems they should get married. Today if you don’t get married in the Church, the Church doesn’t consider it marriage. That is a huge and radical change.

You are talking about discipline not the marriage itself. I know that the Eastern Church regards marriage differently than the Latin rite. In the Latin rite, marriage is administered by the couple. When you speak of people marrying according to their culture, it does not effect that marriage is administered by the couple. The Church could say make a document of commitment and bring it to the Church signed and your married. It would not change the basic concept of marriage. That is a commitment of a man and woman to serve each other to vow to be married. Remember in the Latin rite the priest acts only as a witness more to safe guard the sacrament than to accomplish the marriage. To restate you refer to discipline changing which it has but not the actual Sacrament.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps this analogy will be helpful to you to see how the faith can be “whole and entire”, given once for all to the saints, yet also develop.

Take this analogy:

It has been the constant teaching in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to put all their school supplies away.

Sometimes questions arise that did not need defining earlier, but because of the development of our family further refinement is necessary.

Example: for the first 4 years of my children’s schooling they did not use a backpack.

Thus, when they started in the upper grades coming home and throwing their backpacks on the floor we had to have a “council” to announce: ALL BACKPACKS NEED TO BE HUNG ON THEIR RESPECTIVE HOOKS.

Now, this is not a new command. The ever-present command was: ALL SCHOOL SUPPLIES NEED TO BE PUT AWAY WHEN YOU COME HOME.

However, as there were no backpacks for the first 4 years, there was no need to say, “And that includes backpacks, of course!”

While the fullness of our message existed from the very beginning, it sometimes became necessary to call a family council to explain, defend and define our message.

So, while infallibility has existed from the very beginning, it only became necessary to define it, at some historical point, when the Holy Spirit discerned that it was necessary.

Disagree. If something is dogmatic then it should have existed there for all time. Like all these dicussions about the evolution of Sacramental Theology. Did baptism change? Yes. What changed? There is still water and there is still the Trinitarian formula. Those are dogmatic. But whether you were baptized completely naked, as was done in the early Church, or clothed in white, that is not dogmatic.

The same with the topic of this thread and why I interjected this example on the Papacy. There are things dogmatic about the Eucharist. Bread and Wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. That never changes. Whether we use golden vessels or wooden, even the Anaphora itself could change and have in fact changed. But the bread and wine becoming Christ is dogmatic, it doesn’t change.

Now for the Papacy, if infallability is dogmatic, it should have been there from the start. But it wasn’t. If something came along later, fine. We can all agree to change. But it also is not dogmatic. Mary’s Assumption is dogmatic. Its not like she just assumed in 1950. the belief she assumed was there from the early Church. The Holy Trinity is dogmatic. Even though we never had that term from day one, even though we didn’t have the theological formula for it, we have always believed in One God and that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God. We have believed that from day 1 and that is essential. The understanding of the Holy Trinity did not introduce something that was not there from day 1. If you look at every definition of the faith from each of the first seven Ecumenical Councils you will see that nothing was defined that didn’t already exist. They were clarifications because there was a dispute, a contrary argument. Nothing was ever, “oh, we didn’t know it was there but the Holy Spirit suddenly, from out of nowhere, revealed something new to us.” That is not true because we already said the age of revelation has ended.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are talking about discipline not the marriage itself. I know that the Eastern Church regards marriage differently than the Latin rite. In the Latin rite, marriage is administered by the couple. When you speak of people marrying according to their culture, it does not effect that marriage is administered by the couple. The Church could say make a document of commitment and bring it to the Church signed and your married. It would not change the basic concept of marriage. That is a commitment of a man and woman to serve each other to vow to be married. Remember in the Latin rite the priest acts only as a witness more to safe guard the sacrament than to accomplish the marriage. To restate you refer to discipline changing which it has but not the actual Sacrament.

The fact that you wouldn’t recognize a marriage done outside of the Rite of the Church is more than a discipline. We are talking about a marriage vs. a non-marriage here. Before there was no marriage Rite and therefore a civil marriage by two Christians is a Christian marriage. To say today that two Catholics getting civil marriage is not at all a marriage in the eyes of the Church is a radical change to the basic theology of what is a marriage.