# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

My written words came out ambiguous.

I was asking about the view that considers you fool because you dialog with people like me. Whether it is present in your family, and whether it was once yours own.

I see there are nice guys there, but on CAF I have several thoughtful protestants I like to dialog with, and I feel at present no need to get overstretched.

thanks for the invitation.

No problem! It sounded as though you had never met a Protestant who thought you were deceived, but would like to meet one to see what they are like. Good people, mostly. One by the name of Joker even said he had several Catholic friends.

No, i never had the worry that i’d be deceived by speaking to thoughtful Catholics like yourself. I thought myself too familiar with Sacred Scripture to be duped by any counterfeit. I was surprised, however, to find that certain words of Christ were ambiguous enough to allow for either the Evangelical or Catholic interpretation. Several of the Protestants at the other forum told me i’m already deceived, having allowed you and yours to raise doubts in me, or at least i’m seriously confused. They seem sincerely concerned for my eternal salvation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So why go down all these tangential paths. Focus your attention on establishing which is the appropriate authority to listen to.

I submit to you in all earnestness that there is only one real choice. The Catholic Church can easily demonstrate its doctrinal and organizational continuity back to its Apostolic founders and to St. Peter in particular. And we’ve already demonstrated to your satisfaction that St. Peter was given the keys, I believe.

Consider the Christian alternatives. None of them can even think to claim organizational continuity to the Apostles because every one of them can be traced back to their founders, whether it be John Calvin, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or the inspirational, non-denominational pastor down the block from you. And every one of those founders started his own church based solely on his own authority. Inevitably, these non Catholic Christian Chruch founders claimed that the Catholic Church lost its way but that they, the individual founders would lead their followers back. But what are there actual credentials for making these claims? How could Martin Luther, John Calvin, or that pastor down the block be a more astute, inspired theologian than the combined resources , inspiration, and the tradition of the entire Catholic Church? And what would be their proof?

The claim of many Protestants, such as Evangelicals and Fundementalists, is that the authorities of the Catholic Church–like the authorities of the Jewish faith before it–turned it’s back on the true faith of God. Those who once baked Holy Bread are now making Unholy Pretzels, they say in all earnestness to me when i tell them how i think i might become a Closet Catholic. Catholicism is a highway to hell, they tell me, an expressway to damnation that many travel unaware to their doom. And it would be a great tragedy, and the hight of foolishness, for one like me–having heard the truth–to exit the heaven bound road to travel such a path of eternal destruction.

This is what every Evangelical and Fundamentalist teacher, and those who follow them, tell me. They are consistent and fervent and extremely sincere in this, PC. Tell me, please, how you and i might prove them wrong.

http://img2.allposters.com/images/LPG/51325.jpg

 

[paul_c]

Much of what you said makes sense to me, Ut.



Well, that’s just it, Ut. I’m unsure whether what is reasonable to you should be so to me. I think there are greater degrees of trust given to some than to others. Let me ask you this: How would rate your trust of each of these–with 10 being 100% certainty that everything the person wrote or was quoted as saying as true and 1 being 100% certainty that everything the person wrote or was quoted as saying was false.

1. 
   *]Jesus Christ
   *]The Apostle Peter
   *]The other Apostles
   *]The Biblical authors of the New Testament who were not Apostles
   *]The bishops and elders who were alive at the same time as the Apostles
   *]The bishops or elders who immediately succeeded the Apostles
   *]The bishops who were appointed hundreds of years after the Apostles
   *]The bishops today
   *]The priests today
   *]The average parishioner
   
   My thought is that Christ would deserve a 10, the Apostles would get perhaps a 9 (for they wrote Sacred Scripture), the other Biblical authors might get an 8, and the degree of certainty would decrease with each group lower on the list. But how would you rate the degree of trust each deserves?

1. 
   So this is an excellent way to think about it. I would rate them all 10s in the case of faith and morals if they all said the same thing. And that’s the rub. It can be shown that they all say the say thing in the case of Faith and morals, all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles. Now you can find a poorly catechised parishioner and occassionally a renegate priest or even bishop that deviates from the truth. They can not be trusted. But as long as they are consistent with the Chruch, they are trustworthy.
   
   So if you want to answer your evangelical brother’s concerns that the Church has lost its way, make them show you where it lost its way. The Churchs positions have been well documented for 2000 years. You will find that its doctrines have been well protected and followed for the entire history. And that’s what created credibility for the Catholic Church that can not be demonstrated by any other Religious body.

 

[fhansen]

Several of the Protestants at the other forum told me i’m already deceived, having allowed you and yours to raise doubts in me, or at least i’m seriously confused. They seem sincerely concerned for my eternal salvation.

That’s fear talking-and anyone who’s faith is that sensitive doesn’t really have strong faith to begin with. I’m not speaking of you now because you seem to seek truth boldly enough but many don’t.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So this is an excellent way to think about it. I would rate them all 10s in the case of faith and morals if they all said the same thing. And that’s the rub. It can be shown that they all say the say thing in the case of Faith and morals, all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles. Now you can find a poorly catechised parishioner and occassionally a renegate priest or even bishop that deviates from the truth. They can not be trusted. But as long as they are consistent with the Chruch, they are trustworthy.

So if you want to answer your evangelical brother’s concerns that the Church has lost its way, make them show you where it lost its way. The Churchs positions have been well documented for 2000 years. You will find that its doctrines have been well protected and followed for the entire history. And that’s what created credibility for the Catholic Church that can not be demonstrated by any other Religious body.

Thank you, PC. I suppose Protestant Paul will tell me that the true Church never taught anything like the real body of Christ being present in a loaf of bread, and he’ll say so with a hearty laugh and an exaggerated rolling of the eyes. So how should i respond to him? What is the earliest reference to the real presence outside the New Testament? (For i doubt i’ll be able to convince him even with Christ’s words in John 6, which will only cause him to accuse me of twisting scripture. But perhaps i can make the case that the earliest Christians believed this.)

 

[fhansen]

When you say you are with me, do you mean that the authority of the Apostolic successors have over the Catholics is akin to my authority over my sons? Do you mean that Catholics can, and even should, be encouraged to question and challenge their authority, for they (like me) are prone to sometimes make errors in judgment? That is, do you agree that–unlike the Apostles–their successors are not infallible?

Catholics would agree that we should question and challenge our faith.
From the CCC:
**160 To be human, "man’s response to God by faith must be free, and. . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act."39 "God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus."40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom. . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself."41 **

158 “Faith seeks understanding”:33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God’s plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."36

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Catholics would agree that we should question and challenge our faith.
From the CCC:
**160 To be human, "man’s response to God by faith must be free, and. . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act."39 "God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus."40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom. . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself."41 **

158 “Faith seeks understanding”:33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God’s plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."36

Would you say, FH, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church helps you understand the true meaning of the Sacred Scripture?

 

[PJM]

=Socrates4Jesus;5759707]But if Peter is the only shepherd, then how do you explain these words penned by Peter himself?

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

(1 Peter 5:2-3)

Isn’t Peter speaking to others whom he says are also shepherds of God’s flock?

Does a single farmer own and run every farm in America? [Excluding Uncle S ] No. There are many farmers doing service to there own area. So it is with Bishops who too are Sheperds of there own flock. But all the flocks are uner the rule and guidence of the Earthy Sheperd [the Pope] and all report to the same GOOD SHEPERD, Jesus.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Does a single farmer own and run every farm in America? [Excluding Uncle S ] No. There are many farmers doing service to there own area. So it is with Bishops who too are Sheperds of there own flock. But all the flocks are uner the rule and guidence of the Earthy Sheperd [the Pope] and all report to the same GOOD SHEPERD, Jesus.

Thanks PJ! Are you kicking back awhile, or are you just posting by?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you, PC. I suppose Protestant Paul will tell me that the true Church never taught anything like the real body of Christ being present in a loaf of bread, and he’ll say so with a hearty laugh and an exaggerated rolling of the eyes. So how should i respond to him? What is the earliest reference to the real presence outside the New Testament? (For i doubt i’ll be able to convince him even with Christ’s words in John 6, which will only cause him to accuse me of twisting scripture. But perhaps i can make the case that the earliest Christians believed this.)

The early Church fathers weren’t unanimous in opinion on all things but they were on the Eucharist -and would roll their eyes at Protestant attitudes towards it.

St Ignatius, around 110AD:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor the orphan, nor the distressed, nor for those in prison, nor for the hungry and thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. It would be better for them to have love, so they might rise again. It is right to shun such men, and not even speak about them, neither in public nor in private.

 

[fhansen]

Would you say, FH, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church helps you understand the true meaning of the Sacred Scripture?

Yes, it’s main purpose is to clarify and instruct us on Gods will as revealed through Jesus Christ.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, it’s main purpose is to clarify and instruct us on Gods will as revealed through Jesus Christ.

And are there ever disagreements amount Catholics as to what the Catechism teaches, or are all Catholics always unanimous and in agreement as to the meaning of every one of it’s words?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The early Church fathers weren’t unanimous in opinion on all things but they were on the Eucharist -and would roll their eyes at Protestant attitudes towards it.

St Ignatius, around 110AD:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor the orphan, nor the distressed, nor for those in prison, nor for the hungry and thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. It would be better for them to have love, so they might rise again. It is right to shun such men, and not even speak about them, neither in public nor in private.

Yes, this is that for which i’m looking.



But one quote might not be enough, FH. Do you have any other quotes by some of the earliest of Church Fathers that concur with Ignatius? As Christ said:

“But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’”

(Matthew 18:16)

 

[fhansen]

And is there ever disagreements amount Catholics as to what the Catechism teaches, or are all Catholics always unanimous and in agreement as to the meaning of every one of it’s words?

As with any document, people can disagree on its meaning. This happened with Vat II documents and the Magistereum had to write even more words to help clear up ambiguities there. People often believe what they prefer to believe-and read accordingly. But the CCC greatly reduces the possible meanings and eliminates many ambiguities .

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As with any document, people can disagree on its meaning. This happened with Vat II documents and the Magistereum had to write even more words to help clear up ambiguities there. People often believe what they prefer to believe-and read accordingly. But the CCC greatly reduces the possible meanings and eliminates many ambiguities .

Would you say, then, that the CCC is less ambiguous and, therefore, more reliable than the Bible?

 

[fhansen]

Would you say, then, that the CCC is less ambiguous and, therefore, more reliable than the Bible?

The CCC is not the word of God-not directly inspired by Him in the sense that the bible is-but, as it’s intended specific purpose is to be a tool used for instruction on the faith, then yes, it is less ambigous.

 

[paul_c]

Yes, this is that for which i’m looking.



But one quote might not be enough, FH. Do you have any other quotes by some of the earliest of Church Fathers that concur with Ignatius? As Christ said:

“But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’”

(Matthew 18:16)

Here’s the didache from 80AD:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

And here is Justin Martyr from 150 AD:
The Eucharist

And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

 

[pneuma07]

When you say you are with me, do you mean that the authority of the Apostolic successors have over the Catholics is akin to my authority over my sons? Do you mean that Catholics can, and even should, be encouraged to question and challenge their authority, for they (like me) are prone to sometimes make errors in judgment? That is, do you agree that–unlike the Apostles–their successors are not infallible?

Dear Soc,

we of course believe that every successor of the apostles is prone to sometimes make errors in judgment. Much less than me, i’d add.

We also believe that no single successor of the apostles, but the one on Peter’s chair, is protected from authoritatatively teaching doctrinal or moral error ( this is what infallibility basically means in the catholic context, as you know, and it is dealt with much more care than most people think ). The case of a bishop in communion with Rome starting spreading error with his full authority is nevertheless something as a mutation of genetic material IMHO. In all likeness , if I happen to disagree with my bishop in doctrinal or moral matter, I am the one who is deceived.

And I suppose in most cases you know better than your sons do. How old are they ?

What about these other parts ?

I suppose we’re also together in accepting there is a legitimate authority in the primitive Church outside the Apostles. My point was that authority is transmitted, or more precisely that the process of its transmission did not stop at the Apostles. And, possibly, we are also together is believeing the process had to pass thRough the Apostles.

So: Authority had to come from Christ, through the apostles.

Therefore if we’re looking for christian legitimate authority, we can agree it has to be looked for among those receiving this particular status by the apostles.

If the dispensation had to go on, authority would be passed from those receiving this task from the Apostles, and so on.

We also likely agree, that if a guide we have fo look for, that cannot be outside this legitimate christian authority of apostolic origin.

The next decisive step would be, IMHO, keeping in mind the newmannian statement

A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.,

about which I look forward to your specific insights, coming to identify it with a body of guys which, by virtue of legitimate succession, represent today for us the apostolic authority.
I proposed authority is handed on within the Church, in post 444, trying to show that with scriptural witness.

 

[pneuma07]

No problem! It sounded as though you had never met a Protestant who thought you were deceived, but would like to meet one to see what they are like. Good people, mostly. One by the name of Joker even said he had several Catholic friends.

No, i never had the worry that i’d be deceived by speaking to thoughtful Catholics like yourself. I thought myself too familiar with Sacred Scripture to be duped by any counterfeit. I was surprised, however, to find that certain words of Christ were ambiguous enough to allow for either the Evangelical or Catholic interpretation. Several of the Protestants at the other forum told me i’m already deceived, having allowed you and yours to raise doubts in me, or at least i’m seriously confused. They seem sincerely concerned for my eternal salvation.

thanks for the explanation

Bless you.
P7

 

[fhansen]

St Irenaeus circa 180 AD:

** But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word through whom the wood bears fruit, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain on the ear? How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the Body of the Lord and by His Blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? Let them either change thier opinion, or else stop offering the things mentioned.

For thanksgiving is consistent with our opinion; and the Eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him those things which are His, declaring in a fit manner the gift and the acceptance of flesh and spirit. For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity.

**

The true Church has always taken the Eucharist very seriously. It’s the central focus of the Mass, in fact.