Yes, he is. And just as powerful, “[we]…have come to know…”. What a wonderful statement of faith!!!
Jon
- Status
Jon
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Indeed. But St Peter is the one who speaks for the whole body and not the Faith. Can God really trust our faith? I cant say that I trust my own faith. I rely on the Mercy of God and not my own faith. How would one measure faith?
I absolutely agree here. Grace is the foundation of faith, of our works, and inteed our salvation. When Peter makes his statement of faith in Matt 16:16, Jesus replies:
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Jon
P
panevino
Guest
thanks for bothering!
I tried to read through the thread u pointed me to, you guys had a deep discussion that was a little over my head. It was interesting and ur right he/she was a nice catholic fellow
but they are aren’t they given Exo 19:5-6?
I guess what I’m saying is that at the very least *believers(known as priests under Exo 19 and 1peter2:9.) offer spiritual sacrifies, I can’t see how you can say “no”.
Can a non believer offer sacrifices? No right, I mean not efficacious ones anyway.
So if it’s only believers , and they are called priests, then …?
Augustine and Justin martyr clearly see the Eucharist in terms of an offering/receiving even if u disagree about what is being offered/received
agree, and its only possible/efficacious/valid (cant think of word) because of the true High priest and His sacrifice/offering, which is why our offering of self can only be made through His offering. For Catholics this is revealed the most in the Eucharist. It is true outside of the Eucharist also too ofcourse, ie contrite heart etc, seeking forgiveness…
sure
role *of bishops and deacons? They r priests under 1peter2:9 and have a role set apart in the priesthood/body
And to become one, you need to receive laying of hands.
you acknowledge that they r ministerial.
U just dont like *the term “ministerial priest”
But it’s very obvious that they r, they r shepards right ?pastors, participating in the role of the true Shepard/Bishop Jesus(1peter 2:25). Ie :don’t u see a parallel with the OT High priest and his lower tier priests (ie aarons sons) and then the general priesthood(Exo 19:5-6)
these sons helped the OT High priest, in a ministerial role for /with the general priesthood(ie believers)
That’s the strength of it though. I mean if they require apostolic appointment and laying of hands just to wait tables?
one of these “waiters” was stephen
See acts 6;8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
And Phillip, he also did some things right*
Acts8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Acts 8: 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Cont’d
P
panevino
Guest
The daily ministration…?
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers…45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 4:35 And laid [them] down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
This daily ministration was more than merely feeding people, ie without a spirituAl meaning or only food.
It included "breaking bread/prayers and distribution to poor according to need
The connection isn’t loose.
Given this it may not be out of the question to consider he held the same view as Ambrose, but expressed it differently, or placed emphasis on other aspects of the Eucharist.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers…45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 4:35 And laid [them] down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
This daily ministration was more than merely feeding people, ie without a spirituAl meaning or only food.
It included "breaking bread/prayers and distribution to poor according to need
sure thanks.
Ok?this seems shaky to say the least. *
*i know you are concerned with the baggage you have said exists with the title Bishop, but your avoidance of it appears a bit overzealous when it may not need to be (ie the title being biblical). the ultimate herarchical (sp?)nature of it is expressed/revealed in 1pet2:25
an outsider apostle/bishop takes recommendations from the congregation, sure. That does not mean they make the appointment. It is the apostle/bishop that makes the decision to lay hands.
** repugnant things will happen, just as it did from the begining.
Jesus is refered to as the “firstfruits”’& “passover” in the NT
The connection isn’t loose.
sure, do you agree that he sees an offering of self through/with/in the sacrifice that jesus made? Do you agree that he sees a receiving of Jesus at the same time?.
I have not read enough of the references your quoting to comment. All i can say is that i know Augustine was quite a fan of Ambrose, with his preaching being a factor in Augustines conversion. he discusses this in his book “confessions”.*
Given this it may not be out of the question to consider he held the same view as Ambrose, but expressed it differently, or placed emphasis on other aspects of the Eucharist.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Indeed. that is the revelation from God that St Peter is the chosen one to feed the sheep of God. The leader of His Church which we must follow and obey.
Currently, our 2 communions don’t exactly agree on what that means, but I pray some day we will.
Jon
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
It is what it is. One can deny all they want.
We know that Our Lord built only One Church. We also know that it is not your church that our Lord built. your community did not exist for 2000 yrs. we know that your community is not the Catholic Church with the all the witnesses of the Saints. that much we know. therefore draw your own conclusions. We know that all the Saints of the Church spoke of the CC and spoke against those who separated themselves from the Church. We also know that St Paul describe how we are to live in the church. Be of one mind, one Faith, One Spirit, One Baptism, One church. He also warns to stay away from who causes dissentions in the Church. One Church with the promises of Christ. God does not work against Himself. Jesus is not going to build His Church then move to another to come against His own. this much we know.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Wisdomseeker.
We give you thanks, our Father…
You have graciously given us
spiritual food and drink
and life eternal
through Jesus your servant.
To you be glory for ever!" (cf. Didache).
God Bless All
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
He made His Covenant with only One Church where we celebrate His covenant in the Eucharist every day from East to West, a New and Everlasting Covenant. This fullfils the Prophecy of the Old. Amen.Hi, Wisdomseeker.
We give you thanks, our Father…
You have graciously given us
spiritual food and drink
and life eternal
through Jesus your servant.
To you be glory for ever!" (cf. Didache).
God Bless All
E
elvisman
Guest
**One of my *favorite *verses in all of Scripture!
**And of course, we disagree on the term “Church”. There is no doubt that the Church was founded by Christ - the entire Christian Church, of which Lutherans are a part. As are the Orthodox, and Anglicans, etc. This Church which we share is wounded by division and schism, but we are confess one, holy, catholic Church.
The Catholic Catechism acknowledges the wounds to unity of the Church (singular), and expresses the truth that there was blame enogh for both sides - that includes your side and mine.
My expressed hope is that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, our communions may once again be unified, as Christ calls us to be. I know you share that wish, though we differ on how that can and will be accomplished, as we have conversed about it before. And that’s ok, because there are Lutherans who share your approach - “the other side must repent their heresy” - which has failed for 500 years.
Instead, I believe Pope Benedict’s approach, as he expressed in his vist last year at the Lutheran Church in Rome, was that we must seek together the power of the Holy Spirit, as only He can bring unity.
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Yeah, we know that unity can only be accomplished in the Catholic Church. Catholics have humbled themselves enough for the sake of unity, some people just dont seem to see that. We are suffering great pains and loss of Faith and all kinds of troubles in teh Church just to bring all those outside the back into her. Make no mistake my friend our Lord sees all. One day our Lord will close the doors and no one will be able enter just like in the days of Noah, our Lord said that. Those outside hanging on the borders of the boat probably wont be able to make to the end. We all must be under the authority of the holy father, there is no argument about that. If not,you guys can stay exactly the way you are right now. I know one thing that the Church has opening arms right now accepting anyone who wants to coming in.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this. I don’ think there is any doubt regarding the centrality of Rome within the Christian Church.
I see that. I thank God for it. The very existence of the current ecumenical movement has its initial roots in Vatican II.
Loss of faith? Perhaps the wrong thread, as we are off topic now, but I’d appreciate a thread in this regard.
ISTM, that may be the biggest argument of all. But overall, I just don’t believe what you state here is current Catholic Church teaching.
This is of course true.
Jon
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
This is MY body,This is my blood what else do you need its what Our Lord said do you THINK He was lying
R
Radical
Guest
no bother
It seems that WRT a priesthood, we may be talking past each other. I had said that Cain and Abel weren’t priests and you responded:
yes and no. In the NT I am said to be a child of Abraham. In one sense I am a child of Abraham and yet, I am not really a child of Abraham. “Priest” works the same way.
and you are right, I don’t…perhaps you could clarify for me, what it is that you understand that a Catholic priest does for you with regard to a sacrifice (at the Eucharist?) that no one but a Catholic priest can do. When I said: I think 1 Peter calls us (all) priests b/c 1) we all offer spiritual sacrifices; and 2) we all are set apart to become a spiritual temple and to serve God…I don’t see anything that requires or establishes a priesthood beyond that.…the bit that is now in bold means that I don’t see that the Catholic priest does something that no one but a Catholic priest can do. Do we differ on that point? If so, that is the distinction that I hope to make…and what I would request from you is some express statement from scripture that specifies that “X” can only be done by a priest/bishop etc. I know where Ignatius declares a bishop to be necessary (though he doesn’t specify that the bsihop must do anything more than be present), but I am looking for something with more authority than Ignatius’s opinion.
not sure what you mean by “through”
why…where is that requirement expressly stated by Jesus or an apostle? Where is it recorded that Jesus appointed the apostles by the laying on of hands? Laying on of hands was done to bestow a) a blessing; b) healing; and c) an ordination (there’s another word which carries some baggage). One can be healed and one can be blessed w/o the laying on of hands so why can one only be ordained by the laying on of hands?
please be reminded that it isn’t just me who isn’t fond of the term “priest”…grab a concordance and look up the words “priest”, “priests”, “priestly” etc and you will see that the term is rarely used in the NT WRT the Church (or some member of it, apart from Christ) and that absence of use continues for a long time afterwards…contrast that with the OT and the NT usage WRT the Levites. You want to see a parallel between the Levitical OT priests and the Catholic priests. Well when the author of Hebrews wanted to draw the parallel between the OT high priest and Christ he simply called Christ our high priest. When the author of 1 Peter wanted to draw the parallel between the OT general priesthood and the NT general priesthood, he simply called us a royal priesthood…what we don’t see being made, is the parallel between the Levitical priesthood and the church hierarchy…it isn’t stated.
No I don’t. We all are to minister (in one way or another) and we all belong to the general priesthood, so you could argue that we are all ministerial priests. Christ obviously is our high priest who offered a single sacrifice once and for all…that eliminates the need for the lower tier priests between him and the general priesthood. The author of Hebrews (chapt 7) notes the inadequacy of the Levitical priesthood and indicates that is why another priest needed to still come…**one priest ** still needed to come…one from the order of Melchizedek (not from Aaron or the Levites). We simply don’t need further sacrifices or any parallel to the lower tier priest, and that is why that term isn’t utilized much in the earliest church.
I don’t see the “requirement”. It appears to have been the common practice, but I can’t find where it is a commanded requirement.
I had said: It does say Paul gave Titus that task in that instance. It doesn’t say Paul didn’t give that task to the general congregation in any other instance.
…and you said:
that is exactly what is recorded in the Bible…it says one thing and it doesn’t say the other…so then, what is shaky about it? Why would you presume that what was given to Titus (an apostle’s co-worker) would have been given to someone who wasn’t an apostle’s co-worker? Even if you make that assumption, why would you assume that Paul always did things in exactly the same way from one place to the next? Even if you make that assumption, why would you assume that all apostles did things exactly the same way? I expect that the answer is b/c you think that the Catholic manner of appointing bishops is ordained by God himself and as such, you must make those assumptions. That is fine, but I find it odd that someone basing a view on a number of assumptions would call another possibility “shaky”.
R
Radical
Guest
can you refer me to an instance where the NT overseer exercised his alleged authority in a fashion that went against the will of the congregation…if not, on what basis do you think that authority existed?
sure it is, that is the nature of typologies. Jesus is referred to as our Passover Lamb and you have referred me to a passage in Exodus that speaks about the eating of the passover lamb in trying to make a connection to your Eucharist. Exodus requires the blood of the lamb to be spread on the doorposts and the lamb to be eaten with bread and bitter herds after it is roasted. Do you roast Christ’s flesh before you eat it? Do you spread his blood on the doorposts? This is what I mean by loose…you work off of those aspects of the type that suits your purpose as in: At the passover a lamb was eaten, therefore we must eat a “Lamb” at the Eucharist…but you then ignore those things which don’t have a corresponding parallel. When you are picking and choosing what you will use, it is a loose connection. The parallel (from my POV) is that at the passover they ate a thing that symbolized (pointed to) the Lamb of God and his ultimate sacrifice. At the Lord’s Supper we eat a thing that symbolizes (points to) the Lamb of God and his ultimate sacrifice.
I haven’t read Augustine with those questions in mind so I am not in a position to provide a precise answer.
R
Radical
Guest
two things…I agree that we must consider it a good possibility that Augustine held the same view as Ambrose, but we then must explore that possibility with reference to the many, many things that Augustine wrote. You would have to read the passages that I have referenced to make that assessment and so, until that is done, I would suggest that you are not really in a position to offer an opinion. Secondly, I haven’t given you all of the passages that speak against a real bodily presence (RBP). Ironically, those passages are often in the very same works that the copy and paste crew use to try and support a RBP…but I suspect that the crew hasn’t actually read the entire work. Sermons 227 and 272 are good examples that I believe that I have touched upon in the two threads where we have interacted. Here is another example from Exposition on Psalm 98/99. This is the bit that the Catholic copy and paste crew normally quotes:
And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life?
It is assumed that one can only worship Christ’s flesh if one is faced with it at a Eucharist and therefore, this passage from Augustine is presented as endorsing worship of the host of the Eucharist. Since I don’t make that assumption, I don’t see this passage as promoting worship of the Eucharistic host. A sentence later Augustine continues with:
It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken.
Please note the bold bit. At the Last Supper Jesus identified the Cup as his blood which is poured out for us. I understand that figuratively, but you think that the Cup (or rather what is in it) actually became his blood which is poured out. Yet Augustine said we are not to drink that poured out blood. He calls for us to undertsand the drinking spiritually. For Augustine there was a carnal understanding and a spiritual understanding, but it seems (IMHO) that Catholics seek to force a transubstantial understanding upon him. If such was actually Augustine’s position, then the bold bit should have read something like this: Understand non-carnally what I have said; ye are to eat this body that you see, but it won’t appear as my body; you are to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth, but again, it won’t appear as blood, but will it still appear as wine. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; properly understood, it will quicken.
The OPoster wants to know if it is RBP or Symbolic. For Augustine it was either Carnal or Spiritual…the RBP option didn’t seem to even be on his radar
R
rinnie
Guest
Radical you ask where our proof is that only a Catholic Priest can offer the Eucharist. We have showed you the scripture of the laying of hands. The Scripture said not to be too quick of the laying of the hands on just anyone. The Laying of the Hands is called Holy Orders.
Now you claim that any Priest can give the Eucharist, then if any Priest not only a Catholic Priest can change wine and bread into the living Christ, why don’t they, Why do they claim it a symbol.
Also if any Priest has the gift of the Holy Spirit to do Certain gifts, why has no Other Priest except for a Catholic Priest claimed to give Absolution speaking in the name of God from the Power of the Holy Spirit? Does your Preacher do this? Can he offer you forgiveness for your sins in he name of Christ?
If Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood, why would he choose those words. Why would he not say this is a symbol of my body and blood. Also how can a symbol give us everlasting life. How do we eat a symbol?
Another problem, Do you feel that Baptism is the actual pouring of the Holy Spirit, Just as Jesus said, or do you believe it is also a symbol?
Now if you do indeed accept Baptism of the actual pouring of the Holy Spriit, how can you accept those words of Jesus, but then turn around and reject the words of the Eucharist being the actual Christ. What makes one any different from another?
Now you claim that any Priest can give the Eucharist, then if any Priest not only a Catholic Priest can change wine and bread into the living Christ, why don’t they, Why do they claim it a symbol.
Also if any Priest has the gift of the Holy Spirit to do Certain gifts, why has no Other Priest except for a Catholic Priest claimed to give Absolution speaking in the name of God from the Power of the Holy Spirit? Does your Preacher do this? Can he offer you forgiveness for your sins in he name of Christ?
If Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood, why would he choose those words. Why would he not say this is a symbol of my body and blood. Also how can a symbol give us everlasting life. How do we eat a symbol?
Another problem, Do you feel that Baptism is the actual pouring of the Holy Spirit, Just as Jesus said, or do you believe it is also a symbol?
Now if you do indeed accept Baptism of the actual pouring of the Holy Spriit, how can you accept those words of Jesus, but then turn around and reject the words of the Eucharist being the actual Christ. What makes one any different from another?
- Status