The Universal Church

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Now you see why that Protestant communities don’t have the fullness of the Faith.

 

[lanman87]

Ignatius learned that from the apostles. BTW, Ignatius was ordained before many of the NT books were written, including Gospels.

If the Bishop is teaching another gospel or making up things that were not taught by the Apostles and teaching them as “Gospel truth” then we have an obligation to be faithful to God and not to man. I’m sure Ignatius would agree.

 

[lanman87]

Christ’s divine nature perfected his human nature.

I agree. I’m saying that if Christ human body was not bound by “being human” then He really didn’t come as a human was only fully God. The Church (both Catholic and Protestant) hold that Christ was fully God and fully Man. What I’m saying is that if Christ fully human body could be in two places at once then it violates the “fully Man” part. You can say the “fully God” part is in two places at once and I’m fine with that. However, if His human body is in two places at once then that means He wasn’t really “fully man”.

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

Here’s my question:

If Christ limited Himself to just His fully human nature; how could He have done any of His miracles?

The walking on water, healing the sick, forgiving sins, multiplying the loaves and fishes and living sinlessly; never violating the Law. As example.

 

[lanman87]

The walking on water, healing the sick, forgiving sins, multiplying the loaves and fishes and living aimlessly; never violating the Law. As example.

I’ve already answered that. All of those things were done to others/outside His flesh. He was showing that He is fully God by doing miracles that are witnessed by others. If He had turned himself into a burning bush or something then you would have a point.

At what point the God part starts and the Man part stops and vice versa has always been a topic of debate among theologians.

 

[mcq72]

You didn’t read the definition behind Jesus words "DO THIS"

" Definition:
(a) make, manufacture, construct, (b) do, act, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,"

I am wondering if all your sacraments, and if all the jewish rituals and rites and ceremonies qualify by definition a “doing”… it is definitely doing “an act”

Per definition a remembrance act and changing one thing into another are both “doing”… we " do" a eucharist.

By the way, just realized you are giving definition of “do this”, not “do” and then " this", leaving it purely subjective.

By the way, one of the Webster’s definition of “do” is to " bring to an end".

 

[mcq72]

By your own logic, @mcq72; you’re seeing the need for the Church Christ founded upon Saint Peter for salvation

That is not my logic, but the CC logic and decree, as you imply here I have stumbled upon.

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

What we see in Scripture is the synergy of the divine and human natures at work.

It’s frankly unnecessary for our salvation to understand the separation and distinction between the two. Interesting diversion as it is.

The point being is what Christ did and said for our salvation. Including the transubstantiation.

 

[Michael16]

But you did stumble upon it, @mcq72.

Doesn’t deny its truth however.

You raise an interesting point though, mcq.

When you examine the history of Catholic theology, you see the rigorous Scripture study and logical reasoning behind everything the Church teaches. We just don’t pull dogma out of thin air, present it to the laity and state: Believe or burn.

When you examine Luther’s writings however; you do see quite a bit of vicious polemics and calling everyone else but him a heretic.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Ignatius learned that from the apostles. BTW, Ignatius was ordained before many of the NT books were written, including Gospels.

If the Bishop is teaching another gospel or making up things that were not taught by the Apostles and teaching them as “Gospel truth” then we have an obligation to be faithful to God and not to man[/u] I’m sure Ignatius would agree.

Ignatius wrote well, about what he agreed with and obviously what was NOT apostolic. Fast forward 1500 years, we have a perfect example of all those revolters from the True Church, Ignatius would write against,

 

[Michael16]

You state a good point, @steve-b.

When you examine the Church Fathers and all the bishops in Church history; we have to take them all in together and draw a consensus of what they’re saying.

Whereas the Protestants just cherry pick and quote mine them and take each Church Father separate from the others and determine the validity of his “ witness “.

 

[lanman87]

What we see in Scripture is the synergy of the divine and human natures at work.

What scriptures make you think the Christ human body wasn’t subject to the same restrictions as any human body?

I can name a few that make me think His body was fully human. Hebrews 2:17 comes to mind.

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

I believe that while Christ had the power of God to perform miracles He also chose to limit himself and be like His brothers in every respect. Meaning He got cold and hungry, needed sleep, felt pain, felt heartache, and yes, was limited (in His human form) by time and space.

 

[Michael16]

But you’re not proving that He couldn’t violate the laws of nature as He wished, @lanman87.

As I said: His divine nature perfected His human nature.

 

[lanman87]

He couldn’t violate

I never said He couldn’t. I’m saying He chose not to, in order to fulfill His role.

 

[Michael16]

But @lanman87:

Denying He could and would transubstantiate bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity denies that He chose to when He instituted the Eucharist.

That’s putting human limitations on God’s power; don’t you see?

 

[mcq72]

To prove the fully human, you’re denying He is fully divine.

Touche! Well then let every man be a liar (misunderstand), only God is true, and as Aquinas said of his words, much straw.

“Let us not suppose that because God can, that He did”…early father

Or how about them Mormons where Christ came to his other flock, in America, to the Nephites around 400 ad

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Jesus said to Saint Thomas Aquinas before he said the straw comment: “ You have written well of Me Thomas… “

Seriously, you’re going to quote the Book of Mormon?

That’s a worse defense than when Luther pulled out Sola Scriptura against Johann Eck in 1519.

 

[mcq72]

Now you see why that Protestant communities don’t have the fullness of the Faith.

Ha ha per your perspective, true.

From ours we don’t consider adding presumptuosly, even in error, as being " fuller".

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

You have yet to provide a reasonable and consistent proof that we’re in error.

Whereas I can prove and have proven that you are.

Like this conversation about the Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, Papal Primacy and the synergy of Tradition and Scripture.

Nothing you’ve said proves us wrong; whereas you’ve had to dance all over the place trying to do end arounds to preserve your positions.

And now you’re doing: Neener, neener, neener?

 

[steve-b]

You didn’t read the definition behind Jesus words "DO THIS"

" Definition:
(a) make, manufacture, construct, (b) do, act, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,"

mcq72:

I am wondering if all your sacraments, and if all the jewish rituals and rites and ceremonies qualify by definition a “doing”… it is definitely doing “an act”

Jewish rituals aren’t included in what Jesus referred to when He instituted the NT sacraments in His Church.

When Jesus said to His apostles DO THIS… Jesus was going off script at the Passover meal liturgy, by instituting the Eucharist.

AND

Jesus, was giving His people, the first recipients of the covenant, first right of refusal for the New and everlasting covenant,

HERE

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…

which in terms of where those words New covenant in my blood are used, in reference to the Eucharist, and His ultimate sacrifice.

mcq72:

Per definition a remembrance act and changing one thing into another are both “doing”… we " do" a eucharist.

By the way, just realized you are giving definition of “do this”, not “do” and then " this", leaving it purely subjective.

By the way, one of the Webster’s definition of “do” is to " bring to an end".

What I posted was from the Greek , ποιεῖτε, which is from a Greek study bible definition.

AND

The beginning of the Catholic Church was there at the last supper