The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Doesn’t deny its truth however.

Well, i cited it as a truth that the CC teaches.

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.

Yes, thankfully so on many fronts, but not all, and that at the very foundation of CC unfortunately.

One has to discern the point of all her exegesis… For instance all the examination of the rock discourse in third century was to what, stop persecutions, encourage the faithful thruout all Christendom, or strenghten the jurisdiction of Rome?

The same could said about the development of transubstantiation. Did it set us free from error and cause us to be more devout and fruitful Christians, or did it take away non consequential freedom of thought to solidify the heirus type priesthood and need for the church, from cradle to grave? How do you know some don’t take it as believe it or burn, a type of legalism above the blessed assurance there is in Christ?

 

[mcq72]

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 “.

There is no unanimous consent of the Fathers.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

The basic problem here is the false narrative told by Protestants.

So far, all of your arguments are 16th century polemics that Protestants try to read into early Church history.

Like for instance: There was never a contest over the Real Presence of Christ from the beginning of the Church, no contest over whether or not we need the Church or justification by faith.

All of these weren’t even thought of prior to the 16th century.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

No, no unanimity. No need for unanimity.

But, there was majority consensus amongst the Fathers and votes in Church councils that decided controversies.

 

[mcq72]

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

Do you have source…i thought he was kind of hush on this , not vey specific, happening three months before he died. He still called it straw, apparently relative Christ himself.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

What Saint Thomas was hush on was what Jesus said to him after Our Lord asked him what he desired as a reward for his writings.

Even if you could eliminate Saint Thomas as a reference, it doesn’t detract 1,500 years of solid exegesis and teaching the Church did.

 

[mcq72]

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

No defense…just saying the Mormons also think Jesus can be somewhere else besides heaven, and dont limit His divinity in such doings, not unlike transubstantiation.

Again,“Let us not suppose because God can, that He does.”

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Your quote is still circular reasoning that doesn’t shake us off our positions.

Again: You haven’t presented anything that would shake us off our position.

You still haven’t refuted transubstantiation.

Scripture is our ground. You guys intrude on it and misunderstand it.

 

[mcq72]

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

Dont see transubstantiate in Greek definition. I believe most English translations have “Do”.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Transubstantiation is from Latin. You’re not going to find it in Greek.

Plus, your guys’ hermeneutics of argumentation on exact wording?

 

[mcq72]

Like for instance: There was never a contest over the Real Presence of Christ from the beginning of the Church

Ahh, now we change gears to Real Presence, away from specific , (nit picky …your word) detailed transubstantiation. Well I would hope it was not contested in first church, never being put forth as such.

no contest over whether or not we need the Church or justification by faith.

Again, straw man, an either/ or fixation. Never said we dont need church, but did critique the fashion in which some put it forth.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

I answered you on the points YOU brought up.

Who’s straw man is it?

 

[mcq72]

No, no unanimity. No need for unanimity.

But, there was majority consensus amongst the Fathers and votes in Church councils that decided controversies.

Ok, thank you staying away from unanimous consent that some banter about, and that on some things a vote, a stand is required.

 

[mcq72]

Even if you could eliminate Saint Thomas as a reference, it doesn’t detract 1,500 years of solid exegesis and teaching the Church did.

And part of that was development, so it is presumptuos to say that across the board things in 1500 were same as 100…so it is to be discerned if something later is indeed apostolic.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

We have been teaching consistently from the Apostolic basis for 2,000 years.

You guys innovated 500 years ago and accused us of making stuff up.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

So your accusation is that doctrine developed over time from the Apostolic Tradition that we constantly refer back to in both Tradition and Scripture and that somehow invalidates this exegesis?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Dont see transubstantiate in Greek definition. I believe most English translations have “Do”.

Isn’t that response a bit desperate? Read the link.

AND

Re: Transubstantiation, = the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.

The word translates into describing what happens after the consecration changes one thing into another…

Read again what Jesus did at the last supper. He changed mere bread and wine into His body and blood. While It looked like bread and wine, after He consecrated them, they changed, in reality yet looked the same

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

IOW, Jesus in that moment, when He said to His apostles, “DO THIS” He ordained His apostles to have the authority and power, (ordained THEM) to DO what Jesus just did, that is to transubstantiate, (change bread and wine ) into His body and blood, while those elements still look like bread and wine. But sacramentally, are completely different realities.

 

[mcq72]

Stop dancing around. Make your stand so we can take you down.

Lol…take me down and i will just have to reverse you and tie the score …I am not working for a pin, impossible, hence the appearance of stalling.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

You haven’t reversed a Blessed thing other than trying to attack our position with another Scripture passage or Greek translation of a word.

We’ve held the position all day.

 

[mcq72]

We have been teaching consistently from the Apostolic basis for 2,000 years.

On some stuff yes

You guys innovated 500 years ago and accused us of making stuff up.

Yes, that is how it seems to some, and may be true on a few things.