SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[thesmiter1]

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

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

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.

I’m not sure on revelations, and as for sacraments, our understanding of the sacrament can change. As I said, our faith is further unfolded and revealed to us as we journey onward.

But for the bolded part, it STILL IS like this. The pope rarely speaks infallibly. Councils are still the primary means of determinations on dogma. I really don’t see the issue here. Do you disagree where the pope has spoken infallibly thus far? How does the Assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception conflict with the deposit of faith? These are the only two times the pope has spoken ex cathedra of which I am aware.

 

[PRmerger]

Disagree. If something is dogmatic then it should have existed there for all time.

That’s the Catholic POV.

And infallibility, and the papacy, “existed there for all time.”

Just because it wasn’t formally proclaimed, like my backpack analogy, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not sure on revelations, and as for sacraments, our understanding of the sacrament can change. As I said, our faith is further unfolded and revealed to us as we journey onward.

But for the bolded part, it STILL IS like this. The pope rarely speaks infallibly. Councils are still the primary means of determinations on dogma. I really don’t see the issue here. Do you disagree where the pope has spoken infallibly thus far? How does the Assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception conflict with the deposit of faith? These are the only two times the pope has spoken ex cathedra of which I am aware.

Pastor Aeternus has also been declared dogmatic even though it is by council.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s the Catholic POV.

And infallibility, and the papacy, “existed there for all time.”

Just because it wasn’t formally proclaimed, like my backpack analogy, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed.

It wasn’t there for all time. It never existed in the First Millennium.

 

[thesmiter1]

Pastor Aeternus has also been declared dogmatic even though it is by council.

If it was declared dogmatic by council, then what is your objection to it? If the Church in its teaching authority is infallible as a whole, how could an entire council declare something to be true that is actually false? It sounds like you have a far greater issue than merely infallibility of pope.

Also, read this:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox

It goes over the primacy of the pope throughout the early Church. It has been this way since the first century. Besides papal infallibility, what is your objection to the primacy of the Roman bishop? It certainly can’t be Biblical (Christ gives Peter the keys). It can’t be historical (the primacy of the Roman bishop has a long history). So what is it?

It sounds like you have far greater issues than just the primacy of the pope. You don’t even think an entire council can declare dogma infallibly, and want to look passed the Tradition of submitting to the Roman bishop found in history. My friend, you are starting to sound Protestant.

 

[adrift]

It wasn’t there for all time. It never existed in the First Millennium.

Because you say so? It existed the moment Jesus said

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.”

 

[adrift]

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.

1. You have established that Theology is the understanding of the faith.
2. You have established that the understanding of the faith can be developed.
3. You have not established that the understanding of Marriage has radically changed.
4. You have established that how Marriage was contracted has changed.
5. You have not established that a change in how Marriage was contracted constituted a change in Theology.
6. What does this have to do with the Eucharist?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It wasn’t there for all time. It never existed in the First Millennium.

Says whom? Besides:

Here’s something to ponder. In vitro fertilization. It’s wrong, isn’t it?

Didn’t exist in the first millennium but it’s still wrong.

Ah, you’ll say, but sexual sins are always wrong and just because we come up with new technology and new ‘ways’ doesn’t mean the ‘seed’ wasn’t there in the first millenium.

BINGO.

IN the first millenium, first 400 years, the Catholic Church was persecuted. So, did anybody go around stating, “gee, Festus and Gallio, I’m just not sure that the bishop of Rome when he is talking about this “Arian” stuff isn’t wrong. I mean, there are other bishops who support old Arius, so why can’t THOSE bishops be right? They’re part of the hierarchy, they’re all equal, so when it comes to a split, why should we expect that ONE bishop in Rome would be the one to go to, to determine what the truth is??”

Um. . .infallibility, first millenium style, IMO. The ‘seed’ is there. The people of the Church trust not only that their leaders will be able to teach authentic and correct teaching in faith and morals, they ALSO expect that in the event of a ‘Judas’ (and there was precedent for apostles, um, blowing it) here and there that the Church would be able to provide ONE SOLID VOICE to say ‘yay’ or ‘nay’. . .and that voice was the Bishop of Rome.

 

[PRmerger]

It wasn’t there for all time. It never existed in the First Millennium.

Of course it did.

Unless you consider 1 Peter or 2 Peter fallible encyclicals?

 

[Linda_Marie]

What does this have to do with the Eucharist?

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, Mosaic miracles and Jonah in the whale. My Spanish Catholic wife believed it was sinful to read the Bible, until she was Born Again.

I suspect a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Too many myths about Catholic beliefs being presented as truth. Born Again, indeed.

Since this thread has been derailed, I am sure the moderators will shut it down shortly.

 

[thesmiter1]

What does this have to do with the Eucharist?

I suspect a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Too many myths about Catholic beliefs being presented as truth. Born Again, indeed.

Since this thread has been derailed, I am sure the moderators will shut it down shortly.

There has been plenty of evidence presented in the form of Scripture (including the Greek words used), and Traditional teaching (in the form of early Church Fathers speaking of the Eucharist). It has been proven to the point that Scripture, history, and Tradition point to a literal True Presence. I feel that the thread has served its purpose.

 

[jmcrae]

Catch 22: Jesus’ church is the body of all Christians, lay or clerical. Luther said, “if the clergy will not work with the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit will work with the laity.” This was while he was a Catholic priest: the Charismatic renewal has demonstrably proved his words. Sadly, the hierarchy are STILL suspicious of the Holy Spirit. Why?

Because of people like you who claim to be “born in the Holy Spirit” who contradict pretty much every teaching of the Church, commune with heretics, and actively, consciously lead others astray.

It’s one thing to have your head in the clouds; it’s another to say that whatever occurs to you in your dream-state is “from God” and that anything the clergy tells you is “of the devil.” Heck, if you were in my house and telling me that I am of the devil, I’d boot you out the door, too.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

That’s discipline; not theology. The theology is, “When you confess your sins one to another, Jesus will forgive you.”

The discipline (which changes from age to age, depending on the need and circumstances) is the “how” of confessing to one another. In one era, people made their Confessions before the whole assembly of the Church just before Mass, and received the forgiveness of Christ through the priest.

Today, we confess our sins privately to the priest in a Confessional or Reconciliation Room. Today, we are required to make a good confession at least once a year. That’s also something that could change.

The distinction between mortal and venial sins, and the understanding of sin in general, is something that grows and changes over time. The Church still requires that we confess our mortal sins, but the definition of “mortal” is probably more refined today than it was in the first century. Penances have also changed - people no longer go around in sackcloth and ashes for years at a time.

 

[thesmiter1]

Because of people like you who claim to be “born in the Holy Spirit” who contradict pretty much every teaching of the Church, commune with heretics, and actively, consciously lead others astray.

It’s one thing to have your head in the clouds; it’s another to say that whatever occurs to you in your dream-state is “from God” and that anything the clergy tells you is “of the devil.” Heck, if you were in my house and telling me that I am of the devil, I’d boot you out the door, too.

Doesn’t Paul say to disregard revelations and even angels if they speak false things? I don’t remember the exact verse, though…

 

[thesmiter1]

That’s discipline; not theology. The theology is, “When you confess your sins one to another, Jesus will forgive you.”

The discipline (which changes from age to age, depending on the need and circumstances) is the “how” of confessing to one another. In one era, people made their Confessions before the whole assembly of the Church just before Mass, and received the forgiveness of Christ through the priest.

Today, we confess our sins privately to the priest in a Confessional or Reconciliation Room. Today, we are required to make a good confession at least once a year. That’s also something that could change.

The distinction between mortal and venial sins, and the understanding of sin in general, is something that grows and changes over time. The Church still requires that we confess our mortal sins, but the definition of “mortal” is probably more refined today than it was in the first century. Penances have also changed - people no longer go around in sackcloth and ashes for years at a time.

Good post! Thank you for the clarification on discipline vs theology. I was trying to explain it, but was insufficient.

 

[jmcrae]

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.”

Jesus is allowed to condemn you for your sins, though, right?

The Catholic Church is the present-day incarnation of Jesus. Be assured that if the Church condemns you, as you claim, then that is Jesus condemning you - not mere man.

But the Church actually doesn’t condemn anyone. She simply says, “here’s where you’re going wrong. Here’s how to fix it. Do better! Become a Saint!” Because only Saints get to go to Heaven, Ian. Sinners don’t.

 

[jmcrae]

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

We know from the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians that the Bishop of Rome was the highest authority in the Church, since he writes with authority to the Corinthians. If the Bishop of Corinth were his equal in authority, then the words written by Clement should by rights have been written instead by the Bishop of Corinth - but instead, the Bishop of Rome takes it upon himself to discipline the Corinthians “as if” they were under his authority, and not only that, but also “as if” the Bishop who had authority over them was also charged with obedience to the Bishop of Rome.

Ex Cathedra pronouncements have never been a regular occurrence; they are also not the defining feature of the Papacy. The defining feature of the Papacy is that the Church at Rome, together with its Bishop, is the model to be followed by all faithful Catholics - we are to say Mass in the way that they say Mass, and follow the same liturgical calendar that they follow, with the exceptions that are permitted to each region by the Bishop of Rome.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

St. Peter was infallible. He didn’t have to make any dogmatic pronouncements in order to be infallible. Neither do any of his successors.

 

[IanGE]

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?

Eusebius himself gave as title to his book: “The History of the CHRISTIAN church.” I don’t know when the word “Catholic” superseded Christianity. It may have been in Eusebius’ time, because his history highlights an eulogy to Constantine read by himself. Possibly the start of the assumption of temporal power by the church. But Eusebius’ list of the lay and clerical helpers in the Church of Rome does not include “Pope”.

“Confession” wasn’t invented until the sixth century, so Bishop Eusebius would not have “heard confessions”: in fact it was Eusebius himself who explains that the only way to forgive sins in his time was at Baptism. He appears to be one of the prime movers to condemn those who, after baptism, “denied Jesus” by keeping a low profile during the Persection (unlike our hero, Eusebius!). He even scoffs at those who provided a get-out by suggesting a second baptism to get shot of post-baptism sins. This was rejected by the Council of Nicea (“one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”) at which no pope presided: Constantine presided, even though he was not baptised at the time.
The veneration of Mary as Theotokos (God Bearer) wasn’t proclaimed until the third council of Ephesus (AD 431) nearly a hundred years after Eusebius’ death. This indirectly led to a great schism, so whether Eusebius would have “venerated Mary” is conjectural. Also there were no popes during his time for him to defer to.

 

[IanGE]

St. Peter was infallible. He didn’t have to make any dogmatic pronouncements in order to be infallible. Neither do any of his successors.

If Peter was infallible, then Paul, who told Peter off, must have been fallible. Strike all Pauline testimony out.

BTW Papal Infallibilty was only pronounced dogma on July 18, 1870. Strike out Peter, too!