Two questions regarding institutionalized sacraments

[worldwideweary]

Sometimes what is solemnly defined at an ecumenical council, is NOT necessarily defining something new, but to stop arguing

Most definitely, especially as the quotes show from 1100s the same idea being expressed prior to the “definition”. This has been expressed time and again, as any well informed Christian, especially Catholic should know. The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church was too busy going out into the world to heal people and preach the good news to be writing down schematic definitions, or so it seems to be the case. Nowadays though… we have all sorts of writings coming out left and right For a price + tax

Here are 2 questions for you in return.

What is the pillar and foundation of truth according to scripture?

You’re using the words from 1 Timothy 3:16 ( I quoted the Greek in another post recently ). Paul’s letter states “The Church” founded by Jesus is the pillar and bulwark, or as R Knox has it translated, upon whom the truth rests.

Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as saying He is the truth and the way.

John 17:17 has Jesus saying “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

etc.

Our God is the Truth, with the addition of revelation that there not only ought to be the desire for but also the actuality of a relationship with the holy functioning body founded through Divinity who supports and defends truth, commands demons, and does greater things than Jesus did on earth until the end of time. Sounds pretty hard-core

After all avenues to solve a problem have been taken, where does scripture say to take your problem as the last option?

For instance, make friends with your opponent quickly upon the way, or else your “last option” will be to pay the last farthing while in prison, or again if you have a dispute with your brother, take it to him prior to multiple witnesses prior to going to the apostolic assembly to resolve the issue. The True Church then is the physical body one should turn to if spiritual activity seems to not be effective.

I’m not sure how these questions relate to the forum topic though. Maybe a new forum post would be more appropriate. Anyways. I’m off the boards for a while…
see ya.

 

[steve_b]

Most definitely, especially as the quotes show from 1100s the same idea being expressed prior to the “definition”. This has been expressed time and again, as any well informed Christian, especially Catholic should know. The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church was too busy going out into the world to heal people and preach the good news to be writing down schematic definitions, or so it seems to be the case. Nowadays though… we have all sorts of writings coming out left and right For a price + tax

The name of the Church Jesus established and gave all His promises to is the Catholic Church. It has had that name from the first century. All internal links are operational #27
w:

You’re using the words from 1 Timothy 3:16 ( I quoted the Greek in another post recently ). Paul’s letter states “The Church” founded by Jesus is the pillar and bulwark, or as R Knox has it translated, upon whom the truth rests.

Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as saying He is the truth and the way.

John 17:17 has Jesus saying “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

etc.

Our God is the Truth, with the addition of revelation that there not only ought to be the desire for but also the actuality of a relationship with the holy functioning body founded through Divinity who supports and defends truth, commands demons, and does greater things than Jesus did on earth until the end of time. Sounds pretty hard-core

For instance, make friends with your opponent quickly upon the way, or else your “last option” will be to pay the last farthing while in prison, or again if you have a dispute with your brother, take it to him prior to multiple witnesses prior to going to the apostolic assembly to resolve the issue. The True Church then is the physical body one should turn to if spiritual activity seems to not be effective.

I’m not sure how these questions relate to the forum topic though. Maybe a new forum post would be more appropriate. Anyways. I’m off the boards for a while…
see ya.

The reason for the questions is to show the answer is about authority, authority established by God for our own good. People who won’t follow that authority, and instead choose their own authority in it’s place, creating their own system(s), in opposition to, or think their system is equal to, what God established, will ultimately regret that decision.

 

[worldwideweary]

The name of the Church Jesus established and gave all His promises to is the Catholic Church.

The reason for the questions is to show the answer is about authority, authority established by God for our own good. People who won’t follow that authority, and instead choose their own authority in it’s place, creating their own system(s), in opposition to, or think their system is equal to, what God established, will ultimately regret that decision.

Although the Church is whole, you say the name was given by Jesus. Can you cite a Gospel quotation of his saying so rather than Paul, as it isn’t coming to mind? It has seemed to be a man’s label, although a decent one especially with the proper adjectives as per the creed. What does come to mind is the ending of one of the gospels with the command to go into all the world or all the ends of the earth, which is similar to according to the whole. Although, for some reason, the authorized church altars appear to be made of cut stone in opposition to the divine command in Exodus 20:25. I suppose authority has the power to cherry-pick, eh?
Take care.

 

[steve_b]

Although the Church is whole, you say the name was given by Jesus.

I said the Church was founded by Jesus. The name of the Church, Catholic Church, has been there from the first century.
w:

Can you cite a Gospel quotation of his saying so rather than Paul, as it isn’t comi*ng to mind?*It has seemed to be a man’s label, although a decent one especially with the proper adjectives as per the creed.

I showed you where the name of the Church (kataholos ekklesia) came from (Acts 9:31 from the Greek translation). And then when the name Catholic Church was first used “in writing”.
w:

What does come to mind is the ending of one of the gospels with the command to go into all the world or all the ends of the earth, which is similar to according to the whole. Although, for some reason, the authorized church altars appear to be made of cut stone in opposition to the divine command in Exodus 20:25. I suppose authority has the power to cherry-pick, eh?
Take care.

I’m giving you actual history properly referenced. And there is also a hierarchy of authority here. The OT was speaking in types and shadows, pointing to the fulfillment in the NT

That’s why the pillar and foundation of truth is the Catholic Church that Jesus established and gave all his promises to.

And Jesus made Peter the leader over the Church. And in extension, all who follow Peter in succession. That is Our Lord’s institution. And from the Church, come the sacraments that Jesus instituted

 

[worldwideweary]

I said the Church was founded by Jesus. The name of the Church, Catholic Church, has been there from the first century.

I’m giving you actual history properly referenced. And there is also a hierarchy of authority here. The OT was speaking in types and shadows, pointing to the fulfillment in the NT

That’s why the pillar and foundation of truth is the Catholic Church that Jesus established and gave all his promises to.

And Jesus made Peter the leader over the Church. And in extension, all who follow Peter in succession. That is Our Lord’s institution. And from the Church, come the sacraments that Jesus instituted

These are boring contentions, eh? Everything being expressed is already known by both you and me, at least as it appears. And you’re right, not Paul but the author of Acts (for some reason it’s easy for me to equate Paul with Acts because of his conversion story involved in it). Anyways, maybe I should put “Catholic” in my religion tag so you don’t tell me things so rudimentary in your responses and now the thread has nothing to do with the question of whether the grace of the sacraments (particularized in two questions) was available prior to the incarnation. I mean no disrespect in saying so. The problem was that I interpreted

“The name of the Church” “Jesus established” is “the Catholic Church.” as saying: Jesus established the name of the church, namely, The Catholic Church. To remove all doubt of the meaning in your phrase is to do what you reformulated in your next response: separate the two ideas more distinctly.

Remember by the way that history sometimes doesn’t work for some folks, and I can understand why this isn’t understood by some people. People are given different qualities of faith: faith is a gift after all and not only a choice. After spending years of historical researching and perceiving what seems to be fiction and subtleties, one loses a sort of faith if you will in historical order. This isn’t to say it isn’t worth studying. It’s like turning on the TV and hearing what you hear over and over again. Then again it was said you will hear “rumors” of war etc…

At any rate, have a decent weekend.

 

[worldwideweary]

And maybe it’s out of laziness on my part, but it seems more appropriate to quote directly an article at a particular instance rather than link to it to answer a question. For instance, the links provided are to answer the question of how it was recognized authoritatively that seven is the limit of the outward signs of inward graces. Maybe I glossed over the article, but I still didn’t find a fulfilling answer. That actually could’ve been a different topic post: “By what method was the number seven set for the sacrament-system”. The answer seems to be “Jesus established only seven”, and then the next question is “By what method did the Church recognize these seven, and does she have the authority to institute more outward signs of inward grace besides what are called sacramentals?” But I’m not asking this here. Maybe another thread.

 

[steve_b]

These are boring contentions, eh? Everything being expressed is already known by both you and me, at least as it appears.

You put your religion as “yes”.

The only way I know what you think, is to read what you say in your responses.
w:

And you’re right, not Paul but the author of Acts (for some reason it’s easy for me to equate Paul with Acts because of his conversion story involved in it).

since Luke wrote Acts, and he also wrote a Gospel, I felt the reference I used, answered your question
w:

Anyways, maybe I should put “Catholic” in my religion tag so you don’t tell me things so rudimentary in your responses

That would have been handy.
However, even if one writes they are Catholic as their religion, there are many here calling themselves Catholic who aren’t Catholic.

This is the internet after all, no body AFAIK, checks a person’s references for accuracy, as a prerequisite to posting.
w:

and now the thread has nothing to do with the question of whether the grace of the sacraments (particularized in two questions) was available prior to the incarnation. I mean no disrespect in saying so. The problem was that I interpreted “The name of the Church” “Jesus established” is “the Catholic Church.” as saying: Jesus established the name of the church, namely, The Catholic Church. To remove all doubt of the meaning in your phrase is to do what you reformulated in your next response: separate the two ideas more distinctly.

Remember by the way that history sometimes doesn’t work for some folks, and I can understand why this isn’t understood by some people. ***People are given different qualities of faith: faith is a gift after all and not only a choice. ***

I would add, If people don’t personally and diligently keep adding knowledge to their faith in ever increasing amounts, they will fall. That’s not from me but from St Peter. (see footnote 2 Pet below)

I would add, it goes without saying, knowledge needs to come from qualified and faithful sources.
w:

After spending years of historical researching and perceiving what seems to be fiction and subtleties, ***one loses a sort of faith if you will in historical order. ***

is it possible you’ve been fishing in the wrong pond?
w:

This isn’t to say it isn’t worth studying. It’s like turning on the TV and hearing what you hear over and over again. Then again it was said you will hear “rumors” of war etc…

Again, it depends who you’re reading, and listening to…agreed?
w:

At any rate, have a decent weekend.

Thanks, I plan to. And you the same.

*Footnote from 2 Pet
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; *

 

[steve_b]

And maybe it’s out of laziness on my part, but it seems more appropriate to quote directly an article at a particular instance rather than link to it to answer a question. For instance, the links provided are to answer the question of how it was recognized authoritatively that seven is the limit of the outward signs of inward graces. Maybe I glossed over the article, but I still didn’t find a fulfilling answer. That actually could’ve been a different topic post: “By what method was the number seven set for the sacrament-system”. The answer seems to be “Jesus established only seven”,

And isn’t that enough?
w:

and then the next question is "By what method did the Church recognize these seven, and does she have the authority to institute more outward signs of inward grace besides what are called sacramentals?" But I’m not asking this here. Maybe another thread.

Are you making a distinction between sacraments and sacramentals?

 

[worldwideweary]

And isn’t that enough?

Some protestants might ask “isn’t that enough?” to the Body of Christ and Baptism, but that’s not an issue This again is an aside, but I once read (Irenaeus it was) that the number four for the gospels was due to its correlation to the four corners of the earth. Although this sounds cute, it seems to be sort of a strange reason for the structure of the Gospel narrative set in the New Testament. What I mean to say is that John uses the number seven many times signifying, as many biblical scholars will testify, the number which signifies perfection. It’s that strange recognition that there’s no last supper discourse with a “This is my body” expression in John’s narrative, yet there are seven miracles which are correlated to the sacraments (including Eucharist), and with that it seems fitting that there are seven and only seven.

Are you making a distinction between sacraments and sacramentals?

I don’t have to, they’ve already been distinguished by way of definition.
My point was that sacramentals potentially have the ability to be added to without any qualms as with the finality of the seven sacraments without needing to refer to scripture. In a sense, the Church can tomorrow proclaim some new sacramental and it wouldn’t be doing anything wrong by doing so. The question was regarding the sacraments (At first it was about the temporal moments of instantiation of the understood sacraments, especially as it relates to the Christ as being transcendent to time). Is it impossible that The Church could some how or another recognize that there was an instituted sacrament that has yet to be utilized? (Accordingly with the links it seems finalized, so the answer is no it seems). This seemed a reasonable question because the historical recognition and form of the sacraments took a little bit of time to develop. It’s akin to asking whether or not the Church has the right to define an addendum to the Bible, as if to say “We have three more documents that we declare to be inspired and filled with truth and fitting to be added to the canon”. Some would say the church has no right, yet others would say that if she had the right to do this a few hundred years after Jesus, she has the right to do this here and now as well. So, again, it seems the question is an investigation into the mode of declaration regarding the finality of these pronouncements.

knowledge needs to come from qualified and faithful sources.

Which is why there ought to be a “Seal of Approval” with many communication channels. In times like these, people may start asking for the Holy Roman Empire again (or new and improved). I’ve read works that had a Nihil Obstat marking that still felt sort of cheesy, so we must be diligent.

Talk with you later, God willing.

P.S. Your quoting Peter brings to mind the reason and utility for adding the word “Practicing” in front of the word Catholic.

 

[steve_b]

P.S. Your quoting Peter brings to mind the reason and utility for adding the word “Practicing” in front of the word Catholic.

True