The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jackthelutheran:
Yah, every person who ever contributed to the writing of the Bible was fallible, and yet authority was placed in their hands. Sounds okay to me.
Click to expand...
And…
 
40.png
jackthelutheran:
Authority is placed in the hands of the church, but it isn’t infallible. God placed the fallible Apostles ahead of everyone else. Didn’t he. The Apostles also passed down their offices, giving at least some of their authority to bishops succeeding them.
Click to expand...
At least some of their authority? As the Church grew and faced a changing world, they were only left with **some **of the authority?!? Where is that in the Bible?
 
Doesn’t the Catholic Church say that the pope is the infallible representative of Christ on earth?
 
NotWorthy said:
At least some of their authority? As the Church grew and faced a changing world, they were only left with **some **of the authority?!? Where is that in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Historically speaking, the bishops who followed the Apostles recoginized that they held some authority. It claims in the NT that people aside the Apostles don’t have the same authority that they do, and yet that’s exactly what the church claims about the pope!
 
jackthelutheran said:
Fine. My point is that the Bible is the only infallible authority that we can use to determine doctrine. The New Testament never gives any indication that the church will carry out further revelation. If we thought that, we’d be Pentecostals.
Click to expand...
Fine, I agree the sun will rise tomorrow.

But the Bible, the infallible Bible, gives that authority to the Church.

Wouldn’t an infallible authority claim that authority? How could an infallible Bible give authority to the Church, but still maintain absolute authority?

That’s just crazy talk!
 
You don’t understand, the Church isn’t given any new revelation. Everything that needs to be known or taught on faith is in the Bible. The church only has authority over believers.
 
jackthelutheran said:
You don’t understand, the Church isn’t given any new revelation. Everything that needs to be known or taught on faith is in the Bible. The church only has authority over believers.
Click to expand...
So when has the Church given any new Revelation? The only new Revelations I’ve seen has been during the Reformation.
 
In essence: The church (those successors of the apostles) have the authority to forgive or to not forgive sin. This has absolutely nothing to do with revelation. The church has become accustomed to inventing new doctrines over the years, and made up the idea that the pope could speak infallibly on matters of faith. Nowhere is the idea of a pope found in scripture. Nowhere.
 
NotWorthy said:
So when has the Church given any new Revelation? The only new Revelations I’ve seen has been during the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Indulgences, celibacy of priests, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption. Just to name a few things the church has made up over the years.
 
Sorry I can’t chat more, but I need to balance homework and fun. Start a new argument with someone else.
 
jackthelutheran said:
In essence: The church (those successors of the apostles) have the authority to forgive or to not forgive sin. This has absolutely nothing to do with revelation. The church has become accustomed to inventing new doctrines over the years, and made up the idea that the pope could speak infallibly on matters of faith. Nowhere is the idea of a pope found in scripture. Nowhere.
Click to expand...
Threepoints:
a) You allow that the authority to forgive or not forgive sins resides in the Church? Does your church practice something akin to confession?
b) You reduce the authority to bind and loose to strictly forgiveness? I don’t think the Jews treated binding and loosing that way.
c) It sounds like you’ve already adjusted your thoughts on the Pope, admitting that “he could speak infallibly”.

As to the validity of the Pope charism of infallibility, lets throw that one to another thread.
 
jackthelutheran said:
Indulgences, celibacy of priests, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption. Just to name a few things the church has made up over the years.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm…

Maybe we can study the Bible together on another thread, and you and I can come to agreement that these are all sound Biblical teachings.
 
NotWorthy said:
Threepoints:
a) You allow that the authority to forgive or not forgive sins resides in the Church? Does your church practice something akin to confession?
b) You reduce the authority to bind and loose to strictly forgiveness? I don’t think the Jews treated binding and loosing that way.
c) It sounds like you’ve already adjusted your thoughts on the Pope, admitting that “he could speak infallibly”.

As to the validity of the Pope charism of infallibility, lets throw that one to another thread.
Click to expand...
A. Yes and yes
B. As the Bible teaches, “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven…” Who cares what the Jews thought, it’s in the NT not the OT.
C. I don’t see where you get that.
 
jackthelutheran said:
A. Yes and yes
B. As the Bible teaches, “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven…” Who cares what the Jews thought, it’s in the NT not the OT.
C. I don’t see where you get that.
Click to expand...
If “Binding and Loosing” was a term used to apply to an authority that the Jews had, and Jesus gives an authority called, “Binding and Loosing” to a group of Jews who would form His New Church, shouldn’t Jesus and/or the Bible declare that there is a difference, instead of letting Reformers declare 1500 years later that its different?

That sounds like a New Revelation to me.

The Binding and Loosing that the Catholic Church utilizes, for example, is Biblical. Simply look at Acts 15 and see where James imposes some disciplines on Gentile Christians. Later in Galatians, we see that these disciplines are lifted.

Now, either:
a) One of those authoritative edicts was wrong and then corrected.
or
b) This is an example of Binding and Loosing, one that fit the traditional Jewish custom of Binding and Loosing.
 
NotWorthy said:
Sure, but only if someone else wants to play! 😉

Good night, my brother!
Click to expand...
I’m thinking about playing. I’m fairly good at bible quotes like those in 3 Corinthians.

In addition, I know the difference between public revelation and private revelation and when public revelation closed so that there is no further so-called new revelations. I also know how doctrines develop from the period of public revelation. It’s those famous words “as has always been taught.”

So keep me informed. I may be off the forum for a while due to commitments. However, I love being around people who like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Good night, your sister.
 
jackthelutheran said:
What I said this morning was that under Aristotelian philosophy, transubstantiation was developed.
Click to expand...
I ask again:

Could you clarify this statement? If not for Aristotle, are you saying the Church never would have named “Transubstantiation”? And we should presume Luther was influenced by the Holy Spirit, is that correct?
 
jackthelutheran said:
I actually think that if something is God-breathed then it has to be infallible.
Click to expand...
Catholics would agree. Catholics would not agree “only” the Bible has God’s authority, nor does the Bible limit God’s authority to writing. For example:

*Matt 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
+
Luke 10:16 He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.*And of course He breathed on them to receive the Spirit, which will teach the Church all truth, until the end of the age, etc…
 
jackthelutheran said:
Doesn’t the Catholic Church say that the pope is the infallible representative of Christ on earth?
Click to expand...
Good morning, Jack the Lutheran and the rest who are interested in the above question,

Chirst was on target about the fig tree in different seasons.
Does that mean that the Pope (as a representative of Christ on earth) is infallible about gardening and weather? 😉

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out what infallibility applies to? Also how is infallibility determined? Hint: On the morning after his election, the Pope doesn’t wake up and say “Hey. All of you listen up. I’m infallible.”

Note to Jack. Understanding infallibility is difficult for a lot of Catholics especially those under 50 who surf the net. Thus, I’m really glad you posed the question. Thank you and have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
jackthelutheran said:
Indulgences, celibacy of priests, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption. Just to name a few things the church has made up over the years.
Click to expand...
Jack, no wonder you are a Lutheran – you have no clue about what the Catholic Church teaches!

You honestly should do some research: scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

Why not open up the Catechism or go on www.catholic.com or www.scripturecatholic.com and then we’ll talk.

So who has the authority to interpret Scripture?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top