L
Lampo
Guest
googie: Where in the Bible does it state that all Christian doctrines and practices must be found in the Bible?
- Status
M
mark_a
Guest
And how about those pesky Catholic morals teachings?
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well how about the Trinity? Unless you are Unitarian you understand the Trinity the way it is defined by the Church. Scripture certainly does not tell you that God is three persons in one God. In fact the idea of person and substance is completely foreign to the scripture aswell as Jewish philosophical thought. All christians who believe in a Trinititarian Godhead understand the Trinity in Greek philosophical terms that come to us not from scripture but from Tradition.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Says you…however, you give no examples and I suspect that is because you don’t know.
If you actually have a case you wish to make, then cite your examples and let us respond.
You can say pretty much anything…but without proof it’s just you talking, and frankly, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
See… again; rash generalization with nothing to substantiate it.
“most of the articles” ? What you mean is that you looked at a couple and didn’t bother to check them against the Bible references offered or just discounted them because you’re “sure” that we Catholics just can’t be right. Face it…you’re biased and unwilling to even take the time to look for truth objectively. Such a person will never find truth because he wants it to match his expectations and not reality.
You haven’t cited a single Sacred Tradition that you feel is in conflict with the Bible and what little you have offered has been refuted by myself and others using both scripture and facts.
You’ll have to do better than that.
G
googie
Guest
Maybe you should take a look at the scripture yourself. Check these out:Matt 28:19, John 14:26, John 15:26 and 1 John 5:7. These are based on scripture, the word of God, not on tradition. Blessings.
G
googie
Guest
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
1 John 5:7 even has its own name: the Comma Johannium. It is a later addition to the manuscript – the fourth century, if I recall correctly… so, not a good verse to throw around.
Matthew 28:19 does not clearly define a trinity, as it does not say ‘these three are one Lord yet three distinct persons.’
I am not sure what you are trying to evoke by citing John 14:26 or John 15:26. They do not spell out the nature of the triune Godhead.
G
googie
Guest
C
Cruxis117
Guest
The Catholic Church (not RCC, misconception that’s obviously still believed), first of all. Secondly, read the actual CCC before quoting it, as each paragraph mentions the Scriptures.
CCC Paragraphs 610, 611, 621, 1339
610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles “on the night he was betrayed”.429 On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: “This is my body which is given for you.” “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”*430 *
(Footnote 430: Luke 22:19-20)
611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice.431 Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it.*432 *By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.”*433 *
(Footnote 431:1 Corinthians 11:25)
621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: “This is my body which is given for you” (Lk 22:19).
1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:
*Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . .” They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”. . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."166 *
Church teaching is not against scripture, but is aligned with Scripture. There is no contradiction. The Last Supper was a Passover meal, and it was Christ’s blood being poured out in the New Covenant.
I
inkaneer
Guest
But those are the same verses the Unitarians use to support their idea of one God. In fact the Arians used them too as well as the Sabellians and the Paulicians and any number of the modalists heresies. The idea of personhood in the God head is purely Greek philosophically. The same wirh substance and essence. The terms used by the church were Greek, hypostases and homoousios in defining the Trinity as three persons united in one God. Saint Athanasius, who was a participant in the Council of Nicea, stated that the bishops used this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense. They therefore used the non-scriptural term homoousios (‘of the same being’) to safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had been denied by Arius.
G
googie
Guest
So what is “your” reply. Do you think that there are three distinct person in God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit, or that there are three God’s. Blessings.
G
googie
Guest
At the Last Supper, no one there drank any blood or ate any flesh, but they did eat bread and drink wine, which represented His body and blood. He used this as a symbol for He could not have made it “really present” as you say, for He had not gone to the cross yet. He did say that “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. However I would refer you to John 6:48-63, in particular to verse 63, it says: “for they are spirit”. Jesus didn’t say that “this is actually My body”. God is Spirit, and this is the way you receive Him, spiritually. We are born again spiritually. Do you think the apostles would have stayed with Him if He had taken His body and some of His blood and said to them here, eat and drink this. Blessings.
G
googie
Guest
Is the RCC not your handle any more. Blessings
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
I am a Trinitarian according to the Holy Catholic Church’s definition.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Who are you to say what Jesus Christ ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ do?
I
inkaneer
Guest
First of all, who are YOU to say what God incarnate can or cannot do? What box do you have your god in? God exists out of time in the ever present so yes He can change bread into His Body and wine into His Blood. More than one Greek scholar has stated that the words that Jesus used at the last supper were no metaphor, hyperbole nor were they symbolic. The word for 'is" in “This IS my Body…” is the Greek *esti * and it is the third person singular of the verb ‘to be’. It means ‘is truly’ or ‘is really’.
As for John Chapter 6, Jesus compared Himself to the OT manna which the Jews were well familiar with having heard the story repeatedly from their youth. They understood the manna to be literally real food [material food]. So when Jesus tells them that He is the Bread come down from heaven they understood Him both literally and materially as well. But Jesus corrects their thinking saying His words were not material they were spirit. BUT, HE DOES NOT CORRECT THEIR THINKING THAT HIS WORDS WERE LITERAL. Spirit is not the opposite of literal it is the opposite of material. Notice that Jesus always explained his teaching to His disciples but when some of His disciples were walking away He does not try to stop them. Jesus was being very literal but He was speaking of spiritual food not material food. Thus He says, “My words are spirit…”.
P
Pax
Guest
googie in Christ,
I will present something for you to consider on confessing sins to a priest and it is all biblical.
In the book of Genesis we read all about the fall of Adam and Eve and about Cain killing Able. While God knew exactly what had happened and what sins had been committed, God still asks Adam and Eve [see Gen 3:11-14] what they had done. Again, when Cain kills Able in Gen 4:10, God asks Cain “What have you done?” God wants us to confess and it is therefore necessary for us to do so.
So where does the priest fit in? In Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant. In Lev. 5:5-6 it says, “When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.” Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.
In the New Testament we have a number of verses that refer to the authority to forgive sins. In Matthew 9:6-8, we read “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–he then said to the paralytic --“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Notice how scripture says that such authority had been given to men. This is significant and is not merely a coincidence. This is the inspired word of God.
The question of authority and power to forgive sin is given obviously to Jesus and this is further affirmed in Matthew 28:18 where we are told, "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
So just how is this authority transfered to the apostles and their successors? In John 20:21-23 "Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” This is an incredible set of verses. They are rich in meaning and power. Notice that Jesus sends the apostles in the same way that the Father sent Him. The Father sent Jesus with all power and authority which included the power to forgive sins. So also Jesus sends the apostles. Jesus breathes on the apostles and says, “receive the Holy Spirit.” There is only one other time in all of scripture where God breathes on man, and that is in Genesis when God breathes life into Adam. This is a significant moment in the upper room and it is at this moment that Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven: if you retain the sins of any they are retained.”
Later in the new testament scriptures we find additional verses that speak to confession and reconciliation. The most significant are the following:
2 Corinthians 5: 17-20
Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
James 5:14-15
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [priests] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (“presbyter” is the root word from which we get the term priest)
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to one another….
Matthew 18:18
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (In Jewish culture and faith the power to bind and loose carries a juridical dimension and has application to the forgiveness of sin)
I hope this helps. Each of your problem points would require at least this much attention in discussion. Each of your problem areas can and are answered with scripture in Catholic teaching and tradition. You simply need to study up on these.
I will present something for you to consider on confessing sins to a priest and it is all biblical.
In the book of Genesis we read all about the fall of Adam and Eve and about Cain killing Able. While God knew exactly what had happened and what sins had been committed, God still asks Adam and Eve [see Gen 3:11-14] what they had done. Again, when Cain kills Able in Gen 4:10, God asks Cain “What have you done?” God wants us to confess and it is therefore necessary for us to do so.
So where does the priest fit in? In Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant. In Lev. 5:5-6 it says, “When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.” Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.
In the New Testament we have a number of verses that refer to the authority to forgive sins. In Matthew 9:6-8, we read “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–he then said to the paralytic --“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Notice how scripture says that such authority had been given to men. This is significant and is not merely a coincidence. This is the inspired word of God.
The question of authority and power to forgive sin is given obviously to Jesus and this is further affirmed in Matthew 28:18 where we are told, "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
So just how is this authority transfered to the apostles and their successors? In John 20:21-23 "Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” This is an incredible set of verses. They are rich in meaning and power. Notice that Jesus sends the apostles in the same way that the Father sent Him. The Father sent Jesus with all power and authority which included the power to forgive sins. So also Jesus sends the apostles. Jesus breathes on the apostles and says, “receive the Holy Spirit.” There is only one other time in all of scripture where God breathes on man, and that is in Genesis when God breathes life into Adam. This is a significant moment in the upper room and it is at this moment that Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven: if you retain the sins of any they are retained.”
Later in the new testament scriptures we find additional verses that speak to confession and reconciliation. The most significant are the following:
2 Corinthians 5: 17-20
Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
James 5:14-15
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [priests] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (“presbyter” is the root word from which we get the term priest)
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to one another….
Matthew 18:18
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (In Jewish culture and faith the power to bind and loose carries a juridical dimension and has application to the forgiveness of sin)
I hope this helps. Each of your problem points would require at least this much attention in discussion. Each of your problem areas can and are answered with scripture in Catholic teaching and tradition. You simply need to study up on these.
C
Cruxis117
Guest
Never was our handle my good friend. By the way, to be grammatically correct your statement would say “Is the RCC not your handle any more? Blessings.” That’s how it should look. But back to the original point, while the Catholic Church is centered in Rome (primarily the Vatican, obviously), it has never been the “Roman Catholic Church”, as that ignores the many other rites that Catholics can be or are, such as Polish Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, etc. Roman Catholic is simply another rite.
And to your original post concerning my reply, I do believe that Christ was speaking of his Literal Body and his Literal Blood. And as shown in John 6:56-60, many of his followers did leave him after he said what he did of his body, and the Apostles remained.
Furthermore, refer to 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. This speaks of the Lord’s Supper (the taking of the Eucharist), in which many ‘churches’ have ignored communion. This is based entirely on Scripture and on the traditions passed on by the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:23). Peace be with you.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
(You really need to learn to properly use the quote feature.)
So then you figure that the incarnate Son of God was incapable of miraculously doing what He said? This is the same Jesus Christ who fed 4,000 and 5,000 with a few loaves and fish, right? Yet He does not mean what He says when He proclaims that bread and wine to be His body and blood. There is no other even remotely plausible possible meaning to that passage.
That’s not Sacred Tradition, but straight Biblical reality, and the apostles were aware of it and 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 makes that very plain.
23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
The early church knew it as well because we have St. Ignatius of Antioch spelling out what St. John the evangelist taught him in his letter to the church at Smyrna when he says,
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Apparently you didn’t bother to read my article The Eucharist IS Scriptural or you wouldn’t have tried to put forth this error and would have already been familiar with all the clearly Eucharistic passage of the New Testament as well as my citation of St. Ignatius’ letter. You have been gravely misled by someone.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Certainly, because they had already been taught this and had the opportunity to do exactly that.
Look here at John 6.
48] I am the bread of life.
49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53] So Jesus said to them, “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.
57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
It was a make or break point with Our Lord and verse 67 proves that He meant what He said literally and (as I said earlier) St. Paul makes it very clear that this is what he believed and what the apostles taught.
- Status