SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[ncgolf]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.
It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

I hesitate to get into this too much because one man who was involved in our discussion some time back backed out, saying he thought I was doing a terrible thing, that I was trying destroy his faith. I hope you all recognize that I am not trying to destroy your precious faith in Christ, only refine it for the sake of unity between us and for the sake of your own spiritual growth. (I also expect to grow in the Lord as I am challenged.)

As long as we don’t let bitterness creep into our spirits toward each other, we can all benefit, I believe. God will be the judge of that in the end.

Love to all.

I always wonder why this passage is so difficult while other things Christ did seem almost routine:

Changing water to wine at Cana. He didnt even touch it … just said draw some out and give to the steward, bam … it was wine.

Feed thousands with a few fish with lunch the next day.

Raised a guy who had been dead a few days.

Taking a bunch of ordinary fishermen, a tax collector and others and turning them into people they never dreamed of becoming.

It is obvious Jesus can do what had never been done. No matter how difficult or seemingly impossisble He made it so by merely willing it to be.

If I can ask … why the difficulty with this one? What makes it so much different than the other seemingly impossible things Jesus did?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,
That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.
It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood…

See my exegesis of John 6 please (sorry for the blatant plug)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=697712

 

[Linda_Marie]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.
It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

I hesitate to get into this too much because one man who was involved in our discussion some time back backed out, saying he thought I was doing a terrible thing, that I was trying destroy his faith. I hope you all recognize that I am not trying to destroy your precious faith in Christ, only refine it for the sake of unity between us and for the sake of your own spiritual growth. (I also expect to grow in the Lord as I am challenged.)

As long as we don’t let bitterness creep into our spirits toward each other, we can all benefit, I believe. God will be the judge of that in the end.

Love to all.

Bullinger is flat out wrong. He did not believe so he had to interpret it in such a way as to twist it to his own understanding.

As a Charismatic, do you believe that the Spirit lives in you? Do you get to pick and choose which bits of the bible are binding on you and which aren’t? If you come across something with which you disagree, can you just dismiss it saying, this bit isn’t binding? or do you rather seek to understand what it is that is being said and bend your own will to the Lord’s?

Most widely known for The Companion Bible–the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Critical, Explanatory, and Suggestive Notes and with 198 Appendixes (Kregel), Bullinger’s copious notes contain vast amounts of technical information, typically overwhelming the average reader today. He clearly and faithfully believed that the original canon of Scripture was the inerrant Word of God. However, his views on biblical inspiration contained subtle error, which in turn caused anomalies in his views regarding interpretation. While he acknowledged the Holy Spirit as “guide and teacher of His own Word”,** he did not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the new-creation believer** and thus the biblical doctrine of the Spirit’s illumination was conspicuously absent from his theology.

Hyperdispensationalism

In the 19th century, Anglican clergyman E. W. Bullinger was the father of a system of theology that claimed that the gospel of grace was unknown until it was revealed to Paul. He claimed that the church age as we know it did not begin until Acts 28, when an offer to immediately institute the kingdom of God on earth was withdrawn from Israel. Bullinger claimed that only the prison epistles were binding on the church. Thus Bullinger relegated most of Scripture to a category similar to the book of Leviticus: inspired, but not directly binding on Christians in all of its details. One implication of this teaching is that Jesus’ own teachings, including the Great Commission, are not binding or applicable to the church. I label as hyperdispensational this and any other doctrine that claims that the gospel as we know it was first given to Paul sometime toward the middle or the end of Acts.

Why would you believe someone who thought that Jesus did not reveal or teach the Truth to his Apostles while He was with them?

Furthermore, Hyper-Dispensationalism’s doctrines contradict the Scriptures as interpreted by the historic church. Hyper-Dispensationalism teaches that there are two gospels in the New Testament,** that Jesus** and Peter taught works-righteous salvation, that all forms of water baptism are unnecessary and “dangerous,” that the Great Commission in Matthew’s gospel is inapplicable for anyone today, and that the teaching in Paul’s epistles are the only relevant sources for doctrine in the church.

It would be better for you to throw that book away. It will lead you astray.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1Timothy 6:3-5)


THE SCOTT HAHN CONVERSION STORY:
Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic

The Eucharist in the New Testament
by Scott Hahn, PhD


The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture

 

[Miriam1947]

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself–He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

(Thank you Cat)

Of course hosts will look the same and have the same characteristics. It’s called a mystery.

You either believe Christ or you think he is a liar.

Your choice.

And yes those are your choices.

gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+6

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

So, how much do you believe of what Jesus said? 36 verses just here to tell you to eat His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you.

Tell me, is he nuts, is he a liar? Or is He God?, and He is telling you the Truth.

 

[Linda_Marie]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.
It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

I hesitate to get into this too much because one man who was involved in our discussion some time back backed out, saying he thought I was doing a terrible thing, that I was trying destroy his faith. I hope you all recognize that I am not trying to destroy your precious faith in Christ, only refine it for the sake of unity between us and for the sake of your own spiritual growth. (I also expect to grow in the Lord as I am challenged.)

As long as we don’t let bitterness creep into our spirits toward each other, we can all benefit, I believe. God will be the judge of that in the end.

Love to all.

What figure of speech was being used to tell people they had to eat human flesh and drink human blood?

If Jesus were using a figure of speech, why did He let them walk away?
Why did He not clarify to the crowd that He was speaking figuratively? After all, their eternal life depends upon it. If Jesus loves each and every one of us, why would He let people leave Him simply because they misunderstood His figure of speech?

Why did He not clarify it to His Apostles later (as He was wont to do with parables) if it were hyperbole?

Answer:
Because He was not speaking figuratively.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:54[/BIBLEDRB]
drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm
note on this verse:

[54] Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

 

[Linda_Marie]

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:54[/BIBLEDRB]

Just what does He mean by “Amen Amen I say unto you”?
that what follows is hyperbole, a figure of speech?

He has been telling the crowd that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood, and they objected strenuously. If He were speaking figuratively, this is the point where He would say, ""Oh, I only mean figuratively, symbolically, " but is that what He says?

No, He repeats what He has been telling them prefixed with the figure of speech, “Amen Amen I say unto you” you must Eat My Body and Drink My Blood if you want eternal life.

“Amen, Amen” Sayings in the Fourth Gospel

It is sometimes translated literally: “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” (KJV); “Truly, truly, I say to you” (RSV); “Amen, Amen, I say to you…” (NAB);

but other English Bibles render it more colloquially: "**Very truly**, I tell you" (NRSV); "**I tell you the truth**" (NIV), etc.

Peter and the other Apostles don’t understand how He will give them His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, but they accept His word and refuse to leave Him.

At the Last Supper, all is made clear when He says, “This is My Body” and “This is the chalice of My Blood.”

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

He renames him from Simon to Cephar/Peter. Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received

And further says how apostolic tradition is preserved, in writing against the Gnostic heresy:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Lots of interesting info here. Thanks, pablope.

So Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, was the second pope.

And popes are infallible but not impeccable (sinless).

You said God “renames him from Simon to Cephar/Peter. Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed.”

That is a good point. However, I can’t conclude from the Bible alone that the name change was unto pope, or unto the top leader among the 12, and I don’t have a revelation of the authority of the succeeding popes.

Thanks again.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

The title isn’t an open invitation to discuss everything Catholic but only the teachings about the Eucharist. The Eucharist in -]Scripture and /-]Catholic Teaching.
Another topic should be for other threads.

Good thing you had your vacation when you did. The fire has closed much in Colorado Springs.

Okay, I’ll try to stay on topic.

Fires, and now the massacre in Aurora. Colorado has been really hit.
Prophets are saying God’s judgment is approaching a backsliding America.
(I’m not meaning to suggest that victims of the disasters are more sinful than those who escaped. In fact, I heard of a Christian who was shot in the theater. He prayed that he could live. He credits God with answering his prayers by jamming the shooter’s gun, etc. Here I am, off topic! )

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Cal this shows that you have no understanding of the Eucharist.
Here is a definition of the Eucharist

No the Eucharist could never be an idol. Jesus is true God and we owe Him our worship. The Eucharist is Jesus Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

So among other things, the Eucharist is an expression of gratitude, you said. That’s a part I was missing.
You also said something about the high priesthood of Jesus which I thought was very good—and very Protestant. I was missing that, too.

I have a Catholic article given to me by my Catholic son-in-law by a Father Kerper. The article is titled “My son goes to CCD, Why does he have to go to Mass?” Here’s stuff from Father Kerper’s article that I liked:

“A person could acquire a huge amount of knowledge but not have faith at all. . . . Religion and faith are not the same. . . . Consider the educational “style” of Jesus himself. He imparted very little religious information to the people he encountered. Instead, he invited people into a personal relationship with himself.”

Does that line up with your thinking?

God bless. . . .

 

[adrift]

So among other things, the Eucharist is an expression of gratitude, you said. That’s a part I was missing.
You also said something about the high priesthood of Jesus which I thought was very good—and very Protestant. I was missing that, too.

I have a Catholic article given to me by my Catholic son-in-law by a Father Kerper. The article is titled “My son goes to CCD, Why does he have to go to Mass?” Here’s stuff from Father Kerper’s article that I liked:

“A person could acquire a huge amount of knowledge but not have faith at all. . . . Religion and faith are not the same. . . . Consider the educational “style” of Jesus himself. He imparted very little religious information to the people he encountered. Instead, he invited people into a personal relationship with himself.”

Does that line up with your thinking?

God bless. . . .

Very interesting article of which I mostly agree especially this comment

Parents who regularly partake of the Eucharist in the presence of their children powerfully witness to the
Lord. Through their constant example, parents “form”
their children in faith and make Church doctrine
believable. Without example, faith can wither away and
the doctrine, though perhaps known perfectly, is never
really believable.

What I would quibble about is the personal relationship with Jesus not that it isn’t true but it isn’t complete. We worship not alone but in communion with others. It isn’t an individual thing. So that we must have an relationship with Jesus but not to the exclusion of everyone else. We are a Communion of Saints which are those here on earth(called the Church Militant), those who are in purgatory and those in heaven.

Here is better definition from the Catholic Dictionary

COMMUNION OF SAINTS
The unity and co-operation of the members of the Church on earth with those in heaven and in purgatory. They are united as being one Mystical Body of Christ. The faithful on earth are in communion with each other by professing the same faith, obeying the same authority, and assisting each other with their prayers and good works. They are in communion with the saints in heaven by honoring them as glorified members of the Church, invoking their prayers and aid, and striving to imitate their virtues. They are in communion with the souls in purgatory by helping them with their prayers and good works.

 

[jmcrae]

So among other things, the Eucharist is an expression of gratitude, you said. That’s a part I was missing.

In Genesis 14 we read that Melchizedek, the priest of God, offered bread and wine in thanksgiving on behalf of Abram and his men.

In the Letter to the Hebrews, we read that Jesus is a priest according to the Order of Melchizedek.

In what context is Jesus offering the sacrifice of Melchizedek - bread and wine?
The Last Supper.

What is the significance of this?

We see that Jesus is the Lamb of God, offering Himself as a sacrifice for sins on the Cross. But at the Last Supper, Jesus offers bread and wine, saying, “This is my Body.” and “This is the chalice of my Blood.” The writer to the Hebrews is emphasizing that the bread and wine is the significant element in Christ’s Sacrifice - but if the bread and wine were mere symbols, this would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Rather, the blood sacrifice of Christ fulfills (and ends) the covenant with Aaron for blood (meat) sacrifices, and we are restored to the original sacrifice of bread and wine in thanksgiving for what Christ has done for us - Melchizedek’s sacrifice, rather than Aaron’s sacrifice.

 

[adrift]

Very interesting article of which I mostly agree especially this comment

What I would quibble about is the personal relationship with Jesus not that it isn’t true but it isn’t complete. We worship not alone but in communion with others. It isn’t an individual thing. So that we must have an relationship with Jesus but not to the exclusion of everyone else. We are a Communion of Saints which are those here on earth(called the Church Militant), those who are in purgatory and those in heaven.

I need to correct or add to what I have written. I should have written "We are a Communion of Saints which are those here on earth(called the Church Militant), those who are in purgatory and those in heaven united in the Body of Christ.
It is in the definition provided but I wanted to make sure it was in my own statement as well.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

A question popped up from something I read this morning. When the 2nd Vatican Council refers to “our separated brethren,” what do they mean?

I can see that I’m more than a month behind in reading comments to me! I will try to catch up soon. When I get smart, I’ll be able to keep you all in line. :manvspc:

 

[adrift]

A question popped up from something I read this morning. When the 2nd Vatican Council refers to “our separated brethren,” what do they mean?

The term was first used, I believe in Unitatis Redintegratio. That Document talks about the sad division in Christianity. It names two divisions, one with the East and the Reformation. I would say that separated brethren are Christians who are not in union with the Catholic Church.

I can see that I’m more than a month behind in reading comments to me! I will try to catch up soon. When I get smart, I’ll be able to keep you all in line. :manvspc:

:egyptian:

 

[jmcrae]

A question popped up from something I read this morning. When the 2nd Vatican Council refers to “our separated brethren,” what do they mean?

Baptized persons who are not in full communion with the Church, and typically referring to people who were born into that condition, rather than persons who left the Church voluntarily.

I can see that I’m more than a month behind in reading comments to me! I will try to catch up soon. When I get smart, I’ll be able to keep you all in line. :manvspc:

May I make a suggestion - rather than reading and replying one message at a time, what about reading through the whole thing (or skimming for main ideas), and then replying to one idea at a time (thus covering several replies at the same time) and that way, it doesn’t feel like we’re having the same conversation over and over again - and you don’t end up asking one person questions that are answered by someone else in a subsequent message. I think this would help to speed up the process a bit, especially since it seems like you are under a bit of time constraint.

It would also give you a chance to get a view of the whole picture, instead of trying to react to just one small pixel of it at a time.

 

[PRmerger]

May I make a suggestion - rather than reading and replying one message at a time, what about reading through the whole thing (or skimming for main ideas), and then replying to one idea at a time (thus covering several replies at the same time) and that way, it doesn’t feel like we’re having the same conversation over and over again - and you don’t end up asking one person questions that are answered by someone else in a subsequent message. I think this would help to speed up the process a bit, especially since it seems like you are under a bit of time constraint.

It would also give you a chance to get a view of the whole picture, instead of trying to react to just one small pixel of it at a time.

And there’s a feature that allows you to “view first unread” post. Click on that and it will take you to that post. The icon is at the top left of the page, right above the first post featured on the page.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I think as long as it’s understood that we are simply defining our terms so as to continue the original discussion, [discussing what the church is] should be just fine.

That’s good.

There are two Gospel passages that are traditionally used in support of the ancient tradition that Peter was the head of the Church, and that his successors, the Bishops of Rome, succeed him in this office.

The first is Matthew 16:18-19, which clearly shows Jesus (as the second David) appointing Peter to the Davidic role of “key holder.” What Peter opens is opened, and what Peter shuts is shut - that is to say, in the Kingdom of God, Peter (and his successors after him) has the authority to establish the discipline of the Church, and that his decisions are ratified by God. (It’s like when your parents hire a baby-sitter and tell her, “You can feed the children anything you want,” and then you complain to your father, “The baby-sitter is making us eat vegetables,” your father says, “You will eat whatever she sets on your plate, and you will smile and thank her for it,” instead of taking your side against her. In the same way that fathers can invest baby-sitters with certain authority, God has invested Peter (and his successors) with certain authority.

The Davidic reference is in Isaiah 22, which shows us with no uncertainty whatsoever that this is an office that takes successors.

The second passage shows Peter being appointed Chief Shepherd of the whole flock - the entire Church. We find it in John 21:15-19. Three times, Jesus asks Peter to “feed my lambs,” and “feed my sheep.” Three is an important number - it signifies completion. Peter’s authority is complete.

That the Bible exists at all is my support that all of the Apostles were infallible - if not, then the Church had no basis upon which to select the 27 books of the New Testament, nor to compile them into a codex to be distributed to every church in Christendom, by order of Pope Innocent I in 405 AD after the completion of the work of the Councils of Chalcedon, Hippo, and Rome.

“Infallible” simply means that he cannot teach error regarding the moral and doctrinal precepts of the Church, and that he is to be obeyed on matters of discipline.

Long before we had a Bible, we knew that Pope Linus was his successor. St. Irenaeus recounted the entire list of the Popes up to his own time some 100 years before the first Bible emerged from St. Jerome’s little cave.

If [the church] visible, then it has buildings and it has people in charge. If it has a former glory to which it may be restored, we won’t find it in any religion or spiritual system that didn’t exist yet at the time of that glory.

All who are in good standing and full communion with Christ’s Vicar in Rome, together with all of those who would be, if they knew it were necessary, and all who are consciously striving to get there.

Thank you. The same to you.

Thanks for the info, JM.

Where does the idea of infallibility come from? We believe that the freewill God gave us (free choice, free agency) requires that we are all, including any Pope, allowed to teach error regarding the moral and doctrinal precepts of the church (not that God ever wants us to teach error, of course), and that no one is to be unconditionally obeyed on matters of discipline.

The Bible tells us to obey government officials, yet when Peter and John were under arrest, they told . . . well, I’ll just quote the verses:

Acts 4:18-20 (NIV1984)
18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Paul’s account (in Galatians 2:11 & following) of his rebuke of Peter would be evidence, in my mind, that Peter was not infallible—what Peter taught with his actions in separating himself from Gentiles would no doubt be at least as impacting as what he taught with his mouth. In fact, we can be forever grateful that Paul did not recognize Peter as infallible. If the church down through the ages followed Peter’s example of separating from the Gentiles, where would we be now? I’m a Gentile.

Are you getting enough rain in Calgary? We received a bunch of needed rain a couple days ago, thanks to our Lord.

Have a great day, JM.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

have you been with us so long and still do not understand?

It’s not that I don’t understand. I do understand how you interpret John 6 and so on.

I think we’ve hit a brick wall. I think perhaps it will be best to talk now about what we agree on.

 

[PRmerger]

Where does the idea of infallibility come from? We believe that the freewill God gave us (free choice, free agency) requires that we are all, including any Pope, allowed to teach error regarding the moral and doctrinal precepts of the church (not that God ever wants us to teach error, of course), and that no one is to be unconditionally obeyed on matters of discipline.

And yet, Cal, you believe that men, multiple men, were able to enjoy this charism of infallibility. You proclaim this each and every time you quote St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. Mark, or St. Luike.

When you refer to their teachings you are not proclaiming that there is any error in what they say, correct?

Then, I daresay, you acknowledge the infallibility of these men.

So it must be said that even you believe in the charism of infallibility.

Unless, Cal, you want to proclaim that there is some error in the teaching in the Bible?

 

[jmcrae]

That’s good.

Thanks for the info, JM.

Where does the idea of infallibility come from?

We believe that the freewill God gave us (free choice, free agency) requires that we are all, including any Pope, allowed to teach error regarding the moral and doctrinal precepts of the church (not that God ever wants us to teach error, of course), and that no one is to be unconditionally obeyed on matters of discipline.

What about parents? Parents don’t have a charism of infallibility, and yet their children are certainly bound to obey them in every matter of discipline within the household. When they set a bed time, the children have to go to bed at that time, regardless of their personal wishes, right? It’s not a matter for debate, unless the parent opens the subject for discussion on a child’s milestone birthday.

T

he Bible tells us to obey government officials, yet when Peter and John were under arrest, they told . . . well, I’ll just quote the verses:

Acts 4:18-20 (NIV1984)
18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Peter and John saw that the government officials were acting outside of their jurisdiction. They disobeyed man and obeyed God, because they were operating within God’s jurisdiction. No government has the authority to limit the exercise of free speech or the freedom of religion, and when a government arrogates to itself that power, it is operating outside of itself, and without authority. Therefore, they were free to disobey. Now, if it had been a matter of traffic regulations, or housing standards, they could not have disobeyed, since that is well within the realm of government jurisdiction.

Paul’s account (in Galatians 2:11 & following) of his rebuke of Peter would be evidence, in my mind, that Peter was not infallible—what Peter taught with his actions in separating himself from Gentiles would no doubt be at least as impacting as what he taught with his mouth. In fact, we can be forever grateful that Paul did not recognize Peter as infallible. If the church down through the ages followed Peter’s example of separating from the Gentiles, where would we be now? I’m a Gentile.

I see it the opposite way - and in fact, this situation shows me that the Pope is even above the Scriptures when he speaks with divine authority, because Peter, speaking with divine authority, gave to the Gentiles what is forbidden to them in the Hebrew Scriptures - membership in the Kingdom of God.

St. Paul was so convinced of Peter’s infallibility in this matter that even when Peter himself disobeyed his own infallible commandment in a moment of weakness, St. Paul rebuked him as a Pharisee - a teacher of the divine law! Yes! St. Paul (a Pharisee by training and occupation) heard the words of Peter and recognized them to be Divine Law, because they were issuing forth from the mouth of the Chief Shepherd (John 21:15-19) of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But if St. Peter’s word was not divine law, and not above the Scriptures, then St. Paul would have had no reason to rebuke him for contradicting his own human opinion on a matter that in any case had already been settled in the Scriptures - he would have left well enough alone, and said, “Thank God he has come to his senses.”