The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Who specifically is Paul referring to as "the Pillar and foundation of truth"?

Just as one has to be a real authentic Christian, in truth and Spirit as opposed to not, so to a church must also be in truth and spirit as opposed to not.

Of course I would hope you do not think that part of Pauls meaning of “church” is devoid of the mystical element of all believers in Christ.

I would think truth rests on a believer also, or else Augustine would not have said in paraphrase, “to preach (truth) always, sometimes using words.”

 

[Michael16]

Always preach and sometimes use words; is actually from Saint Francis of Assisi; @mcq72.

You wanna misquote the Saints to defend your errors; at least quote the correct Saint please.

Your quote of Saint Francis of Assisi is interesting. The truth of the Gospel doesn’t rest on the believer. That’s narcissistic solipsism. The truth rests on Christ Himself and the authentic Christian follows Christ Himself; Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Me.

The authentic Christian believes in Christ and obeys Him.

Also your position on the mystical Body is worth commenting upon. Christ prayed that we are one as He and the Father are one. To split the Church as Luther and the other reformers did split the Body of Christ.

Also: Your position that you follow a Person, not a specific dogma; is nonsensical. Christ taught what He taught to the Apostles who then taught their successors and so on.

What you’re saying is: You follow Christ, but a misrepresented Christ in erroneous interpretation.

That’s not following Christ in truth but following the misinterpretation of 16th century men; while claiming you’re following Christ in truth and telling us we’re the ones in error.

Paradox.

 

[mcq72]

You wanna misquote the Saints to defend your errors; at least quote the correct Saint please.

Well thank you for the correction but not sure it defends any error of mine or of St. Francis.

The truth of the Gospel doesn’t rest on the believer.The truth rests on Christ Himself and the authentic Christian follows Christ Himself

Lol, now who is being not picky? Of course such further qualification is absolutely correct, and exactly what I tried to portray in Assisi quote, and your latter qualification contradicts your former, that indeed the truth ( the Truth) does also rest in/ on the believer, who constitutes the church, who also may constitute its corporate authority/ magisterium, for all the world to see. A true believer does have the truth resting on him, as He has Christ, the ultimate manifestation of not only Truth, but also Wisdom and Love. We are his monstrance. We are His temple. “For God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching men might be saved.”…so as we agree on all this don’t know where you set up another straw man with, “The truth of the Gospel doesn’t rest on the believer. That’s narcissistic solipsism”?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s valid to associate the Gospel episode [Jn 6] we’re discussing, and THOSE disciples that left Jesus over His teaching on the Eucharist, with those today that are divided from Our Lord’s Church, and don’t accept the true understanding of Jesus in [Jn 6]… correct?

To associate in the same loose/ broad stoke, no, not correct. Not apples to oranges in the least per John 6. We are all associated with the faith and understanding of Peter as portrayed in John 6.

On the contrary

As we see in Jn 6, one is either with Jesus and Jesus is with them, or NOT.

Jesus gave this HUGE conditional understanding.

"“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." [Jn 6:53-56]

meaning that doesn’t happen if that is NOT done.

: men’s love, (charity) in the last link, division from the Catholic Church is ALSO a sin against “charity” , which is WHY Paul condemns that sin in Rom 16:, & Gal 5

mcq72:

Then by your point the CC has been vey uncharitable to those who have a different view of say for example. The Assumption of Mary, where one day as a Catholic you can believe contrary and still go to heaven and the next day in November 1950 to are in danger of hell fire for same belief…that is not very tolerant anymore. Reminds me of early church threatening excommunication, on both sides, over Easter date.

The Catholic Church has been in ecumenical dialogue with

the Orthodox for 1000 yrs.
the Protestants for 500+ yrs

because BOTH of them, by schism & various heresies, left the Catholic Church, and have remained away.

ALL efforts with them over all that time, by the Catholic Church, have not reconciled this.

mcq72:

Point being, one can be dogmatic and cause division unecesarily. And as Paul says , so one can “show who has God’s approval”?

The Catholic Church, is the only Church God established. It has His approval.

AND

As Paul taught, THAT is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth

 

[mcq72]

Also: Your position that you follow a Person, not a specific dogma; is nonsensical. Christ taught what He taught to the Apostles who then taught their successors and so on

Again another straw man/ misrepresentation. We both have already discussed following Christ is to be done in truth and Spirit ( which includes truths to be dogmatic about), and avoid natural tendency to make Him ( and dogmas) in our own image ( man made).

However, you are correct and critique my stand against a sort of institutional salvation, and proclamation (like almost a type of works), relative to the focus on Him. Key word is focus, for indeed we keep our eyes on Him, who besides character has commands and a body/ institution.

To split the Church as Luther and the other reformers did split the Body of Christ.

Well, as has been said before here, takes two to tango. And as some have understood Paul to say, of course their must be said division, “to show who is approved of Christ”… apparently in this dispensation knowing us by our love entails much more.

 

[mcq72]

On the contrary

As we see in Jn 6, one is either with Jesus and Jesus is with them, or NOT.

Jesus gave this HUGE conditional understanding.

I must have missed that steve, please show me Peter’s conditional understanding in John 6 that I and others lack. I have read Peter’s words and don’t seem to see him saying anything about eating Jesus, yet Jesus ceases from the subject after Peter’s statement of understanding in John 6:68-

“And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.”

So, Augustine paraphrased said Peter ate (the Lord) with such a faith proclamation.

I am sure you will show how we are contrary to Peter here, for you (CC) have many words claiming to be as equally authoritative as Christ’s or Peter’s own words.

ALL efforts with them over all that time, by the Catholic Church, have not reconciled this.

And may any true love behind such efforts be noted and appreciated. But let’s be clear, no effort has been made to reform, or change one iota of doctrine/ dogma that splits and prevents truer fellowship like a porcupine barb…on both sides.

As Paul taught, THAT is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth

Did he really?..you know some say Paul was not just “Catholic” but “Roman Catholic”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Who specifically is Paul referring to as "the Pillar and foundation of truth"?

Just as one has to be a real authentic Christian, in truth and Spirit as opposed to not, so to a church must also be in truth and spirit as opposed to not.

Jesus established one Church on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter. …the Catholic Church.

The pillar and foundation of truth

THAT

is what Jesus established. Unlike all the 10’s of thousands of heretical, man made endeavors, coming out of the 16th century.

AND

Jesus gave all His promises to His Church. One such promise is that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against His Church.

point being

NO other institution on earth has, nor will have, such a promise.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus established one Church on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter. …the Catholic Church .

Well then, no better foundation for the Orthodox and Protestants to spring off from.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

There’s so many things to unpack in your statements.

How keep mentioning following Christ in truth and spirit; yet you argue ad nauseam plainly stated truths from Our Lord’s own mouth in favor of your own interpretation.

That’s making Christ into your own image.

Here’s another thing: When you meet Christ when He judges you on your actions; are you going to go into detailed argumentation with Him picking apart His words and then telling Him what He said?

That’s not following Christ.

Every Catholic on this thread has consistently shown you the errors in your positions and yet you ramble on about following Christ in spirit and truth.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

On the contrary

As we see in Jn 6, one is either with Jesus and Jesus is with them, or NOT.

Jesus gave this HUGE conditional understanding.

I must have missed that steve, please show me Peter’s conditional understanding in John 6 that I and others lack. I have read Peter’s words and don’t seem to see him saying anything about eating Jesus, yet Jesus ceases from the subject after Peter’s statement of understanding.

really? You missed it?

In short,

in [Jn 6] Jesus just gave a HUGE condition. IOW He effectively said to all of them (disciples + the 12 as well) DO WHAT I’M TELLING YOU OR ELSE

Jesus disciples (in this case all but the 12) left Jesus never to return…

THEN

Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, (He already knew the answer before He asks it) but He asks the question for their education and ours the readers, "Will you also go away?

BTW, “you” there in Greek, is plural

Peter answers

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; "

Note: Peter answers for the 12, even though Judas was already a question mark.

IOW

Peter understood the point Jesus made about eternal life, and do what I say or else

ALL efforts with them over all that time, by the Catholic Church, have not reconciled this.

mcq72:

And may any true love behind such efforts be noted and appreciated. But let’s be clear, no effort has been made to reform, change on iota of doctrine/ dogma that splits and prevents truer fellowship like a porcupine barb…on both sides.

You’re assuming and taking for granted Protestantism (heretical man made organizations) from the 16th century, are equal to, and carries any authority , that Jesus gave HIS Church.

As Paul taught, THAT is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth

mcq72:

Did he really?..you know some say Paul was not just “Catholic” but “Roman Catholic”.

Are we feeling a bit testy?

All the writers of the NT were by definition, already

in the Church, they were writing to and for. That is the Catholic Church.

I’ve posted this before many times

From the Greek NT study bible not an English translation

Acts 9:31 “the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς , = the Kataholos Church.

Translation: (links operational)
ἐκκλησία (ecclesia) = church ,
καθ’ (kata)= according to ,
ὅλης (holos)= whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς (ho)= the , = the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

And I showed many times, from the 1st century ECF writings, where the name, Catholic Church is used

AND

While the Church world wide, is headquartered in Rome, Peter’s last see,

"Roman" is a rite within the Catholic Church.

The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus established one Church on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter. …the Catholic Church .

Well then, no better foundation for the Orthodox and Protestants to spring off from.

Heresy and schism are condemned in scripture and those who do it and keep it going.

For some definitions
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

I’ve shown multiple times where schism and heresy is condemned

One reference

Titus 3:10-11 the Greek word there factious αἱρετικὸν for [the English translation factious or “dissension” whichever is on’s translation] can mean schism or heresy

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

If you’re going to follow Christ in spirit and truth; you have to objectively establish what that truth is.

We Catholics have been for days; despite all of your efforts to prove your positions.

Since we’ve established the truth in our positions; all you have left is your belief in yours and the stubborn tenacity to maintain your position.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ordination has always been a thing, though. Since the OT, actually.

And if the person consecrating the Eucharist is not validly ordained then the elements are not really beneficial to the recipient in the first place in regards to sanctifying grace. So his/her stance on anything in the faith (baptism or whatever) is not much of an issue either.

Of course I’m assuming the RCC’s teaching is correct on the Eucharist.

So it’s the age old question. How much doctrinal error is okay…and who determines that and by what authority do they do so.

 

[lanman87]

The Greek word for “elder” is presbuteros, whereas the Greek word for “priest” is hiereus. The word presbuteros is used in Titus 1:5. The Protestant version are the correct translation. The Douay-Rheims used the word Priest instead of Elder in order to get the text to fit Catholic doctrine.

 

[steve-b]

The Greek word for “elder” is presbuteros, whereas the Greek word for “priest” is hiereus. The word presbuteros is used in Titus 1:5. The Protestant version are the correct translation. The Douay-Rheims used the word Priest instead of Elder in order to get the text to fit Catholic doctrine.

May I suggest reading this explanation. It covers Q/A’s as well Why We Have a Ministerial Priesthood | Catholic Answers

 

[Michael16]

Gotta call in the big guns. Calling all the Greeks!!

@Margaret_Ann, @Isaac14, @Vico, @ziapueblo, @George720 and @dochawk:

This guy’s claiming this:

The Greek Word Presbuteros means Elder and Hierus means priest. The Douay-Rheims Bible used the word priest instead of elder to fit Catholic doctrine. The Protestant version is the correct translation.

So he says

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

I know you’re looking at the exact wording to make your case, but look at what is being done in the text:

These presbyters are performing priestly functions by offering the Sacrifice of the Mass as attested in Hebrews 10.

The reality is in the doing; not the naming.

Plus: The word presbuteros specifically means: Those who go before.

The priest and the bishop go before the congregation at Mass to offer the Sacrifice on our behalf to the Father with the priest/bishop acting in Persona Christi.

 

[lanman87]

I’ve been away from the computer for a couple of days spending time with family and watching football. There was a lot that happened in this thread so I’m going to have to reply to one thing at a time.

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

You have an interesting take on the Greek word poieō and are reading something into the text that wasn’t originally there.

The Word poieō means several things depending on usage (just like most words).

Here are some usages in Scripture

• Matthew 17:4 If you wish, I will put (poieō) up three shelters here— one for you one for Moses and kai one for Elijah. Usage- To Make: build or create
• Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave(poieō) a wedding feast for his son. Usage: to both Make and Do: plan/create/prepare
• Matthew 12:33 Either make(poieō) the tree good and its fruit good, or make(poieō) the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. Usage: To Do : cause something to happen
• John 3:21 But whoever does (poieō) what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. Usage: to Do. as in to follow or be devoted
• Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did (poieō) as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife. Usage: To Do: to follow directions/instructions
• Acts 25:3 asking as a favor against Paul that he summon him to Jerusalem—because they were planning (poieō) an ambush to kill him on the way. Usage: To Make: to create plans or intention
• Acts 7:19 He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced (poieō) our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. Usage To Do: to cause by force
• Hebrews 11:28 By faith he kept (poieō) the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. Usage To Do: To follow instruction
• Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention(poieō) you. Usage To Do: to bring to mind

To regulate the word to Change one thing into another is severely limiting the usage of the word. Anytime we plan a meal we are poieō the meal. Anytime we plan a birthday party we are poieō the birthday party. In same way, anytime Christians come together and plan and take the Lord’s Supper we are poieō the Lord’s Supper.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve been away from the computer for a couple of days spending time with family and watching football. There was a lot that happened in this thread so I’m going to have to reply to one thing at a time.

steve-b:

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

You have an interesting take on the Greek word poieō and are reading something into the text that wasn’t originally there.

The Word poieō means several things depending on usage (just like most words).

Here are some usages in Scripture

• Matthew 17:4 If you wish, I will put (poieō) up three shelters here— one for you one for Moses and kai one for Elijah. Usage- To Make: build or create
• Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave(poieō) a wedding feast for his son. Usage: to both Make and Do: plan/create/prepare
• Matthew 12:33 Either make(poieō) the tree good and its fruit good, or make(poieō) the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. Usage: To Do : cause something to happen
• John 3:21 But whoever does (poieō) what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. Usage: to Do. as in to follow or be devoted
• Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did (poieō) as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife. Usage: To Do: to follow directions/instructions
• Acts 25:3 asking as a favor against Paul that he summon him to Jerusalem—because they were planning (poieō) an ambush to kill him on the way. Usage: To Make: to create plans or intention
• Acts 7:19 He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced (poieō) our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive. Usage To Do: to cause by force
• Hebrews 11:28 By faith he kept (poieō) the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. Usage To Do: To follow instruction
• Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention(poieō) you. Usage To Do: to bring to mind

To regulate the word to Change one thing into another is severely limiting the usage of the word. Anytime we plan a meal we are poieō the meal. Anytime we plan a birthday party we are poieō the birthday party. In same way, anytime Christians come together and plan and take the Lord’s Supper we are poieō the Lord’s Supper.

Open the link,. It’s NOT my take. Considering the context of how and when Jesus used that word, we see what Jesus meant when He said that.

 

[lanman87]

I’m know you’re looking at the exact wording to make your case, but look at what is being done in the text:

I’m simply giving why the reason Protestant versions use the word Elder and why it is a better/more correct translation.

These presbyters are performing priestly functions by offering the Sacrifice of the Mass as attested in Hebrews 10.

Where does it say that? Your reading Catholic doctrine to assume something that isn’t stated.

Plus: The word presbuteros specifically means: Those who go before.

Not according to Strongs

GK: G4565

presbuteros: elder

Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo’-ter-os)
Definition: elder
Usage: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.

Can you please give me a source for your translation?