The Universal Church

[lanman87]

Where we think you guys have fallen off is the denial of good works and avoidance of sin as no longer a thing, when Jesus clearly preached the opposite.

And yet protestants have historically been vocal about avoiding sin, living holy lives, and have a long history of doing good works.

 

[lanman87]

So it looks like the gates of hell had a field day with us, from a non-Catholic perspective.

Maybe the did have a “field day” but they didn’t prevail over the body of Christ, the people of God. Prevail means much more than to wound or war against. It means to completely overcome. And the church (God’s People) is not limited to a single institution or organization (getting us back to the original topic of this thread). As long as God’s people are trusting and serving him then it means the gates of hell haven’t prevailed.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Some do. Others tout OSAS and will tell you to your face you can kill a thousand people and doesn’t matter, once saved always saved. Disgusting doctrine loved by the evil one because it ultimately leads the lukewarm into a life of debauchery and false hope instead of truly living for the Messiah.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

As long as God’s people are trusting and serving him then it means the gates of hell haven’t prevailed.

I’d say that’s a very loose interpretation of Matthew 16.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wannano:

So we are heretics, apostate and schismatic and at the same time brothers and sisters in Christ

What makes us “brothers and sisters in Christ” is baptism

That doesn’t mean brothers and sisters aren’t or can’t divided from the family… and with no consequence

Let’s not forget the story of the Prodigal son.

While that prodigal son was away, what did his father say about him?

"this son of mine was dead … he was lost Lk 15:24
SO

Even while he was away,

Was he still brother to his brother? Yes

Point being,

If the prodigal remained away, he was dead to the father. Let’s not forget who is telling the story…It’s Jesus

Wannano:

whose communities provide salvation for the souls of mankind.

Who can take such doublespeak seriously?

As the Church teaches from Vat II (Lumen Gentium)

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

So

anyone who says after being given the truth, that one can remain in heresy, schism, and outside the Church, etc, and be saved ?

Now THAT would be double speak

Steve, you have a fine way of arguing by twisting words and concepts to suit your purposes and seemingly win your debates with impressive academic requirements.

However, your misapplication of the story of the Prodigal son is just too revealing. In all your ego centered superiority do you not realize that you have placed yourself as the older son?

NOPE

The application was looking at the son who left.

AND

The Church celebrates when people come home. There are TV programs titled "Coming Hone Network" & "Journey Home " celebrating such an event.

 

[mcq72]

Paul is talking to a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus wants everyone to be perfectly one in. Jn 17:20-23

Whatever we call paul and titus, ORAR is “Disgusting doctrine loved by the evil one because it ultimately leads the lukewarm into a life of debauchery and false hope instead of truly living for the Messiah.”, to use words from Lenten ashes against OSAS.

ORAR is “once right always right”, that is , the teaching that first apostolic disciples were Catholic ( obviously not Orthodox and Protestant per teaching), and therefore any successor equally as authoritative in any teaching, ad infinitum . That is, if you have the name," Catholic", you are as right in every teaching as the apostles 2000 years ago.

 

[mcq72]

The words may not have been around forever but Relativism and indifferent thinking, has been around forever.

Citing relativism is a dodge of the truth . The fact is we are what we eat, physically and spiritually. That is absolutism.

We both ecuhcarist. We are both nourished by the Lord in such.You claim our eucharist invalid, our food invalid, yet we are not spiritually anemic or spiritually ill that you can quantitatively measure, and even benchmark against valid eaters.

Was Jesus being relative when saying we will be known by our fruits, even fruits of the Spirit?

The best you can say is what about the fruit of following elders, to which i cite another fruit or
teaching, to follow your conscience, or what you believe to be right, one’s conviction.

 

[lanman87]

I’d say that’s a very loose interpretation of Matthew 16.

I would say that Matthew 16 teaches that the church (God’s people) are indefectible. Just to be sure, I looked up the greek work for “prevail” and it is katischuō, which means to overcome or overpower.

The Roman Church defining something as a dogma that was not taught by Christ and the Apostles in no way causes God’s people to be overcome. Being a member of the church isn’t defined by Rome. It is defined by Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit who convicts, calls, empowers, gifts and seals believers until the day of redemption. As long as the Holy Spirit is still convicting, calling, empowering, gifting and sealing… then the gates of hell have not prevailed.

 

[mcq72]

in context, not out of context, Augustine was talking about a valid Eucharist.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) steve-b:

Please cite where Augustine sets context of what constitutes a valid Eucahrist explicitly as CC does now.

 

[mcq72]

I’d say that’s a very loose interpretation of Matthew 16.

two words have to be applied properly, “prevail” and “church”, not to mention “gates of hell”

in my opinion, sectarian concerns (righteousness of CC) probably lead to narrower application of all three.

For sure you can suggest others apply terms loosely due to reformation concerns.

Prevail is the least "religious word’ here and i believe the correct and general understanding of the word has been applied by reformers.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Calvin couldn’t make the Eucharist happen. So your question?

The post wasn’t about Calvin. It was about how you (and other Catholic apologist) see transubstantiation every time a church father writes that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ.

Protestant understandings, is what the ECF’s wrote AGAINST.

lanman87:

Therefore, whenever you quote a Church Father calling the wine the blood of Christ and the bread the body of Christ it doesn’t necessarily mean the writer believed in transubstantiation.

When Jesus said

“DO ποιεῖτε this in memory of me”

DO WHAT?

The Catholic Church was at the table when that was said by Jesus.

Jesus ordained His apostles, the future bishops of the Church, giving them the power and authority to do what Jesus did.

lanman87:

It is also important to note that believing the the “Real Presence” of Christ in the bread and wine also doesn’t necessarily mean the writer believed in transubstantiation. Luther and Calvin both believed in the “real presence” of Christ and yet didn’t hold to transubstantiation.

Luther was a validly ordained Catholic priest who became a heretic. Calvin wasn’t ordained. He had no capabilities to consecrate

AND

Neither could ordain

lanman87:

If you are trying to use early church writing to prove the church always believed in transubstantiation then you need to prove more than they believed in the bread to be the body of Christ and the wine to be the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation explains what happens in real presence. It doesn’t change ANYTHING re: belief in the real presence.

lanman87:

You also need to show that their concept of the “real presence” was different than Luther’s, Calvin’s, or even the Eastern Orthodox churches concept of the “real presence”.

In short, while the Orthodox went into schism from the Catholic Church, they kept valid consecrations because they didn’t invalidate the consecration with word or action. Schism, makes there sacrament illicit, not invalid.

Re: Luther, Calvin, etc etc, no Protestant group has valid ordinations ergo no valid consecrations

lanman87:

This is where the Roman Church falls short. Historically, there were several concepts of how the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in the early church.

THAT gets answered quickly and thoroughly when quoting ECF’s, properly referenced,

Bottom Line

he Catholic Church was there in the beginning**. It was instituted by Jesus Himself. It is the Church that has all HIS promises. Outside of which no one is saved.

And THAT is from scripture and Tradition.

ALL THAT IS HUGE

 

[SyCarl]

You didn’t previously qualify that it is receiving in the Catholic Church

AND

If one receives the Eucharist in mortal sin (for example) THAT is illicit

Jesus didn’t give any example of when the Eucharist would be invalid. Remember everything Jesus says is true and here He made an unequitable statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life.

Augustine would NOT disagree with Jesus saying

Jn 16:
12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now . 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

So

Paul clarifies Jesus teaching because there are ALREADY those abusing the sacrament with their corrupt thinking and actions

Paul would not be clarifying Jesus statement, he would be contradicting it. Jesus said that whoever eats and drinks has eternal life. Paul is saying not every one who eats and drinks would have it. The Catholic Church says that every one who receives the Eucharist, whether licitly or not eats His flesh and drinks His blood. Ergo any one who receives the Eucharist would have eternal life according to what Jesus said. This is not a problem though if transubstantiation does not take place.

Dissension / division / schism / heresy From the Catholic Church = disaster for those, once they know their error(s) AND won’t change

I gave a link giving links to answer that
HERE

That Ignatius may have been taught by the apostles does not make him immune from error. The Corinthians and Galatians were taught by Paul but fell into error soon afterwards. Ignatius does not seem to understand apostolic succession when he says after his death the Church in Syria would have only God as their shepherd.

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].-Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

 

[lanman87]

THAT gets answered quickly and thoroughly when quoting ECF’s, properly referenced,

Bottom Line

Except it doesn’t.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The words may not have been around forever but Relativism and indifferent thinking, has been around forever.

Citing relativism is a dodge of the truth . The fact is we are what we eat, physically and spiritually. That is absolutism.

We both ecuhcarist. We are both nourished by the Lord in such.You claim our eucharist invalid, our food invalid, yet we are not spiritually anemic or spiritually ill that you can quantitatively measure, and even benchmark against valid eaters.

Was Jesus being relative when saying we will be known by our fruits, even fruits of the Spirit?

The best you can say is what about the fruit of following elders, to which i cite another fruit or
teaching, to follow your conscience, or what you believe to be right, one’s conviction.

220 more posts and we’re seeing 2000 posts in this thread

I’ve answered all this previously. No need to repeat

 

[SyCarl]

It is you who couldn’t accept the clear language Augustine used. Besides, Augustine is a Catholic saint and doctor of the Church. He wouldn’t go contrary to Church teaching.

It is a very weak argument to say Augustine must have believed everything the Church has said because he was Catholic.

1. It assumes that the exact meaning of transubstantiation, as later defined, was understood at the time and was the only allowable view.
2. It assumes that Augustine could not have meant what Protestants say when they refer to the elements as the body and blood of Christ. That is that he could only have been saying the same thing as the Catholic Church says now.
3. It ignores what Augustine says elsewhere.

“It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you 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. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
(Enerations, Psalm 99, Paragraph 8)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,” although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. … For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.
(Letters, Number 98, Paragraph 9
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

 

[mcq72]

220 more posts and we’re seeing 2000 posts in this thread

I’ve answered all this previously. No need to repeat

lol…aint that the truth, for both of us, even many of us

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

in context, not out of context, Augustine was talking about a valid Eucharist.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) steve-b:

Please cite where Augustine sets context of what constitutes a valid Eucahrist explicitly as CC does now.

Augustine puts Holy Orders as one of the 7 sacraments. Without that sacrament, there is no valid ordinations.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It is you who couldn’t accept the clear language Augustine used. Besides, Augustine is a Catholic saint and doctor of the Church. He wouldn’t go contrary to Church teaching.

It is a very weak argument to say Augustine must have believed everything the Church has said because he was Catholic.

1. It assumes that the exact meaning of transubstantiation, as later defined, was understood at the time and was the only allowable view.
2. It assumes that Augustine could not have meant what Protestants say when they refer to the elements as the body and blood of Christ. That is that he could only have been saying the same thing as the Catholic Church says now.
3. It ignores what Augustine says elsewhere.

“It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you 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. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
(Enerations, Psalm 99, Paragraph 8)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,” although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. …

[snip for space]

(Letters, Number 98, Paragraph 9
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Who is Augustine addressing?

And while there are other associations, to get a point across, he knows the consecrated bread and wine changed after the consecration. Otherwise it would be idolatry to have exposition (worship) of the sacred host… exposed on the altar

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

THAT gets answered quickly and thoroughly when quoting ECF’s, properly referenced,

Bottom Line

Except it doesn’t.

I’ve given the quotes

 

[MichaelP3]

Steve-b

I have wondered and believe I may have asked this question some time back but I do not recall an answer.

Do you have a CAF database on your computer with many many saved documents relating to certain topics and whenever you get a question/statement/whatever you go “there” and post what you have saved there? I ask this because of the monotonous responses I see from you .

This is not a theological question so I prefer to see something new in your response. I am just asking?