SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[PRmerger]

** It wasn’t until two or three centuries later** that someone spotted Jesus’ words (John 20:23): “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall not forgive they are not forgiven.” Note that Jesus said these words AFTER he breathed on the disciples and said “receive ye the Holy Spirit.”

Even if this is true, it’s irrelevant, esp. when one considers that “it wasn’t until two or three centuries later” that the Church “spotted” the concept of the Trinity.

You do believe in the Trinity, right, even if it wasn’t “spotted” until the 3rc century?

At first the church claimed this right to forgive for Bishops only. Only later still was “confession” conferred on all priests.

Nothing objectionable in that change at all, Ian.

Every day at Mass, Catholics say "in the words that Jesus taught us, “Our Father, forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us.” Jesus qualifies this with a terrifying warning in Matthew 6:14/15: “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive YOUR sins.” He speaks here to ME, to YOU, US.

Amen! This is very Catholic of you to say, Ian.

Passing the buck to a priest is not enough!

Indeed. We are all commanded to forgive.

We are dead lucky Jesus simplified the sin thing.

Yes.

[SIGN] And you know that Jesus did this courtesy of the Catholic Church.[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

CHRISTIANS (those who followed Christ) wrote the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The headquarters of the church nestled in Jerusalem, constantly sniped at by Paul, who even had a go a Peter. The Jerusalem church, in turn, weren’t happy with Paul taking Christianity to Greece, Turkey and Rome. Paul’s letters and the synoptic Gospels were dusted and done before the Romans zapped Jerusalem and kicked everybody out. Only the beloved John wrote his Spirit-filled Gospel later, possibly AD90.

Ok.

For the first 45 years of my life the Church held me in thrall to Catechism, dogma and doctrine and kept me ignorant of the Bible, except children’s gospel stories,

That’s too bad. You didn’t attend Mass, then, for the 1st 45 years of your life? Otherwise, I can’t imagine how you could have been kept ignorant of the Bible.

My Spanish Catholic wife believed it was sinful to read the Bible, until she was Born Again.

She may have believed that, but the Church never told her that. In fact, if she had been well-learned in her faith she would have known this:

The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

And that last quote (ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ) is from the 4th century.

Prior to that I never even read the Old Testament, never understood the sheer Majesty of God speaking through a prophet until I prophesied myself and vibrated with others who also did.

Slept through Mass, did ya, Ian, during your 1st 45 years? You don’t recall hearing the OT proclaimed there? Did you purse your lips during the Responsorial Hymns?

Religion makes dogmatic rules condemn people who don’t agree. I myself grovelled in condemnation because I never went to mass for 21 years and, according to Church, was steeped in Mortal Sins. Jesus says (Luke 6:37): "Do not condemn and you will not be condemned.

And yet here you are making dogmatic proclamations and condemning.

Why do you reserve for yourself that which you don’t give to others?

I would hardly think the Holy Spirit is narrow-minded: that one breath of God (pneuma agios) powered ALL humans from Adam to the baby born one minute ago.

Yes, this is very Catholic of you to say.

But there ARE Spiritual rules: a person MUST surrender his/her God-given free will to Jesus, declaring full trust and love for HIM before the triune God will come and make their abode with him.

Is this another dogmatic proclamation you are making, while condemning others for proclaiming dogma?

No good sitting on the fence.

This is another dogma you are offering?

 

[ConstantineTG]

A read of Eusebius’ History of the CHRISTIAN church, written about AD338-ish, reveals that there was NO formula for the forgiveness of sins. Christians believed sins (repented by the sinner - and that doesn’t just mean “sorry” but a whole change of lifestyle) were forgiven at baptism, at which the repentant one accepted Jesus AND His supreme sacrifice for the riddance of sin. People who sinned AFTER baptism were declared blasphemers that rejected Jesus. It wasn’t until two or three centuries later that someone spotted Jesus’ words (John 20:23): “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall not forgive they are not forgiven.” Note that Jesus said these words AFTER he breathed on the disciples and said “receive ye the Holy Spirit.” At first the church claimed this right to forgive for Bishops only. Only later still was “confession” conferred on all priests.
Every day at Mass, Catholics say "in the words that Jesus taught us, “Our Father, forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us.” Jesus qualifies this with a terrifying warning in Matthew 6:14/15: “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive YOUR sins.” He speaks here to ME, to YOU, US. Passing the buck to a priest is not enough!
We are dead lucky Jesus simplified the sin thing. In the OT a sinner had to take a sacrifice to the temple; a turtle dove for a small sin, a perfect white bull for a biggie. The sinner laid hands on the sacrifice to transfer his sins to the animal. The priests then ATE the meat and took on board the sins of the people all year. One day of the year, Yom Kippur, all priests would lay hands on a perfect sacrifice, thereby transferring the tribal sins for the year onto the prize bull. This was then sacrificed and burnt on the altar table behind the holy of holies veil by the High Priest. God himself breathed in the smoke and fumes, thereby taking earthly sins from earth, completing the sin/forgiveness ritual.
There is also the lamb sent out into the wilderness bearing tribal sins, but I don’t know too much about that.

The bishop-priest thing is another conept that people gloss on. I found most people today believe that presbyters were priests from day 1. That is not true. Whenever we find presbyters in the Bible, they are not the same as the priests we have today. In the early Church the sole priest of the Liturgy is the Bishop, the chief elder/presbyter, or episkopos. When St. John Chrysostom wrote about the priesthood, we has talking about the Bishop (which he himself is) and not the presbyters. Back then every city had only one church where Liturgy was celebrated. There would be other shrines or chapels around town, but Liturgy was celebrated in the main church by the bishop. As cities grew and more people lived in the city, the necessity came about to confer the role of the priest on the presbyters so they can assume that role without the bishop, who is at the main church celebrating as well. So even our current understanding of Holy Orders was quite different back then.

And what you relate here is consisted to what is preserved by the Eastern Churches to this day with regards to Confession. Though I believe Confession did exist much earlier in the Church, what you pointed out was to be the formalization of the Rite of confession. The elders of the Church would consel the flock through their process of repentance, which is still the main use for Confession. The main objective of Confession is to reform the sinner, not merely forgive one’s sins.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The theology is the same. The application may be different.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire, given once for all to the saints, from the first century onwards. While the fullness of our theology existed from the very beginning, our practice of it developed as the need arose

Even for a Roman Catholic as yourself, this is not true. There is the “Deposit of Faith” which the Church sees as the seed of the faith planted by Christ on the Apostles, then passed on by the Apostles to us. Doctrine cannot be added, but its understanding can evolve.

If your statement is true, then we wouldn’t have the Papacy today (not that I agree with it, but that is the explanation used for it).

 

[PRmerger]

There is the “Deposit of Faith” which the Church sees as the seed of the faith planted by Christ on the Apostles, then passed on by the Apostles to us. Doctrine cannot be added, but its understanding can evolve.

That’s exactly what I proclaimed, Constantine.

If your statement is true, then we wouldn’t have the Papacy today

How so?

 

[adrift]

A read of Eusebius’ History of the CHRISTIAN church, written about AD338-ish, reveals that there was NO formula for the forgiveness of sins. Christians believed sins (repented by the sinner - and that doesn’t just mean “sorry” but a whole change of lifestyle) were forgiven at baptism, at which the repentant one accepted Jesus AND His supreme sacrifice for the riddance of sin. People who sinned AFTER baptism were declared blasphemers that rejected Jesus. It wasn’t until two or three centuries later that someone spotted Jesus’ words (John 20:23): “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall not forgive they are not forgiven.” Note that Jesus said these words AFTER he breathed on the disciples and said “receive ye the Holy Spirit.” At first the church claimed this right to forgive for Bishops only. Only later still was “confession” conferred on all priests.

You have accepted uncritically a protestant history here from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Among the modernistic propositions condemned by Pius X in the Decree “Lamentabili sane” (3 July, 1907) are the following:

•“In the primitive Church there was no concept of the reconciliation of the Christian sinner by the authority of the Church, but the Church by very slow degrees only grew accustomed to this concept. Moreover, even after penance came to be recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament, because it was regarded as an odious sacrament.” (46)
•“The Lord’s words: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained’ (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, whatever the Fathers of Trent may have been pleased to assert.” (47)

These beliefs that you are promoting as true were condemned.
The belief in confession was from the Apostles.

According to the Council of Trent, the consensus of all the Fathers always understood that by the words of Christ just cited, the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors (Sess. XIV, c. i). It is therefore Catholic doctrine that the Church from the earliest times believed in the power to forgive sins as granted by Christ to the Apostles. Such a belief in fact was clearly inculcated by the words with which Christ granted the power, and it would have been inexplicable to the early Christians if any one who professed faith in Christ had questioned the existence of that power in the Church. But if, contrariwise, we suppose that no such belief existed from the beginning, we encounter a still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have been regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have shown little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to draw men to Christ; and it would have raised a protest or led to a schism which would certainly have gone on record as plainly at least as did early divisions on matters of less importance. But no such record is found; even those who sought to limit the power itself presupposed its existence, and their very attempt at limitation put them in opposition to the prevalent Catholic belief.

 

[adrift]

I don’t believe anyone is infallible in the area of faith and morals except the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (By the way, my computer’s dashboard defines infallible as “incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.” That’s an oversimplifying or overreaching definition of “infallible” as it pertains to the Pope, am I right?)

You asked about this before and was answered. I would suggest that you read the thread as whole or at least post 637

I think your point is that you would rather, if you had to make a choice, meet Jesus in the Eucharist than have him in your heart.

If that’s what you’re saying, then it must follow that you believe meeting him in the Eucharist will get you to heaven even if you don’t have his Spirit in your heart. Am I on your track? Am I catching you?

Again this has been addressed. No you have derailed. The only one being caught is your inattention to the answers being given to you.
Posts:
464
473

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s exactly what I proclaimed, Constantine.

Theology is the understanding of the faith, not the faith itself. That is why theology changes as it evolves.

How so?

Because it didn’t exist in the early Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Theology is the understanding of the faith, not the faith itself. That is why theology changes as it evolves.

Ok. That doesn’t change at all what I said, which was the fullness of our theology existed from the very beginning.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire from the earliest days of the Church.

Because it didn’t exist in the early Church.

When did it start? It didn’t start with Peter?

 

[jmcrae]

Because it [the Papacy] didn’t exist in the early Church.

Yes it did.

Irenaeus:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

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 from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[adrift]

Theology is the understanding of the faith, not the faith itself. That is why theology changes as it evolves.

Because it didn’t exist in the early Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) defended theology as a science because it investigates the contents of belief by means of reason enlightened by faith (fides quaerens intellectum), in order to acquire a deeper understanding or revelation.

PRmerger was using a wrong terminology but the point was right on.

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
No, it is not. I mean, it is not completely different, but it is sufficiently different than what we have today. For example, Confession isn’t a strict “if you do this then you must absolutely go to Confession prior to Communion” thing.

The point by saying it is the same theology(even though it is an incorrect term) was that your
“sufficiently different”
is not a difference in belief of what confession is. That core belief has been there from the beginning. I am not sure about your example. You don’t believe that there was not a belief that you shouldn’t receive communion unworthily?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ok. That doesn’t change at all what I said, which was the fullness of our theology existed from the very beginning.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire from the earliest days of the Church.

When did it start? It didn’t start with Peter?

Yes it did.

Give me one instance in the First Millennium where the Pope exercised infallability and proclaimed something Ex Cathedra.

 

[ConstantineTG]

PRmerger was using a wrong terminology but the point was right on.

The point by saying it is the same theology(even though it is an incorrect term) was that your
“sufficiently different”
is not a difference in belief of what confession is. That core belief has been there from the beginning. I am not sure about your example. You don’t believe that there was not a belief that you shouldn’t receive communion unworthily?

The concept of what constitues unworthy reception has also changed. Moreso that even today the practice between Orthodox and Catholics are different. And this is brought about by the evolution of the understanding and the fact that our Churches have been in schism from one another for 1000 years. I think that the only Sacrament that has been relatively unchanged from the beginning is Baptism. Although some would argue that the RC practice of making pouring the norm rather than the exception is a big change.

 

[PRmerger]

Give me one instance in the First Millennium where the Pope exercised infallability and proclaimed something Ex Cathedra.

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

 

[thesmiter1]

The concept of what constitues unworthy reception has also changed. Moreso that even today the practice between Orthodox and Catholics are different. And this is brought about by the evolution of the understanding and the fact that our Churches have been in schism from one another for 1000 years. I think that the only Sacrament that has been relatively unchanged from the beginning is Baptism. Although some would argue that the RC practice of making pouring the norm rather than the exception is a big change.

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.

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

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).

I always hope I’m not explaining things inaccurately, so instead of taking my word for it, I have an idea. Read the Catechism:

Sacred Tradition: Sections 80-90

GROWTH IN UNDERSTANDING OF FAITH: Sections 94-95

In Summary (of Scripture + Tradition): Sections 96-100

 

[PRmerger]

The concept of what constitues unworthy reception has also changed. Moreso that even today the practice between Orthodox and Catholics are different. And this is brought about by the evolution of the understanding and the fact that our Churches have been in schism from one another for 1000 years. I think that the only Sacrament that has been relatively unchanged from the beginning is Baptism. Although some would argue that the RC practice of making pouring the norm rather than the exception is a big change.

Yes, all of our “concepts” have developed over these 2000 years.

As certain theological issues arise, the Church needs to address them, and may often change the disciplinary practices.

 

[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.

So can any Protestants explain this to me? Particularly my last two paragraphs. It seems apparent that most ‘Bible’ Christians will not accept context when reading the Bible (from historical and Apostolic disciple theologians, no less), but will you at least explain to me the last two paragraphs? I am so confused as to why the Lord, who is Truth, would lead us to conclusions that completely oppose one another in many subjects. Unless, of course, He had a Plan that even fallible humans could abide by and yet understand Truth…

 

[adrift]

The concept of what constitues unworthy reception has also changed. .

How does this answer this?

You don’t believe that there was not a belief that you shouldn’t receive communion unworthily?

The bases of belief is the same but there has been development. It isn’t a change of belief that God is a Trinity but a development. It isn’t a change of belief how confession is administrated. There is a difference between practice and belief. We may practice the sacrament differently but the belief is the same. The forgiveness of sins, Baptism that makes us members of the Church, The union in Matrimony, the blessing of the sick, the imposition of hands for Holy Orders, the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Jesus. How the Eucharist is received has changed but not what the Eucharist is has not changed.

 

[IanGE]

So the answer would be that you have no evidence but merely bearing false witness?

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!

 

[IanGE]

You have accepted uncritically a protestant history here from the Catholic Encyclopedia

These beliefs that you are promoting as true were condemned.
The belief in confession was from the Apostles.

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.
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.