# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[paul_c]

Thanks PC. I think it would be best to start with the quotes of the earliest Church Fathers, for Protestant Paul will find it harder to make the argument that the Church became corrupt in its teaching so early in its infancy. Do you think the passages you and others have quoted are the strongest evidence for the Real Presence and that we have enough to make a convincing argument for the Catholic view? or do you think there are any others prior to the 3rd century that we should add to our list to present to him?

The earliest works of the church fathers include the Didache which is dated before 100AD, St. Ignatius (dated 110), St. Justin Martyr ( around 150 Ad) and St. Irenaeus (around 180 AD). These would be good places to start and we’ve already given you snippets from them in this thread. The first two were based directly on apostolic teaching (I believe Ignatius was a disciple of St. John… St. Justin is one generation removed and St. Irenaues is two, so you can follow the teachings from generation to generation

 

[joe370]

Soc you said:

What do you think the CCC tells us (if anything) is the skill that a priest has more than you or me?



What do you mean when you say “skill?” Priests simply do what all pastors and ministers belonging to the myriad non-Catholic churches do; they teach and they lead the worship procession. Jesus, as per the holy bible, has a perpetual priesthood and His one priesthood is perpetuated by His earthly ministerial priests and bishops. Priests/bishops derive their priesthood from the one high priest - Jesus Christ, Who appears as a slain Lamb in His heavenly kingdom, even after His victory over death, on the cross.

If the sacrifice of the Mass was in fact not a legitimate sacrifice, catholic and eastern orthodox churches would be wrong in calling their ministers, priests, which of course is not the case, in my humble opinion. As far as the Eucharist (Greek word which means thanksgiving) - is concerned the CCC clearly states that the holy spirit is responsible for the miraculous change, just as is the case when non-Catholic pastors baptise their fledgling members, calling down the holy spirit. The pastor has no power to endow him/her with the holy spirit; it’s ALL God…Be it Baptism, confession or the Eucharist, it’s all God…in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Just as the baptismal words of a non-Catholic pastor are necessary for the admission into the church, even more so are the Eucharistic words of a ministerial priest/bishop necessary for the simple fact that Jesus told His first priests (12 Apostles) - to “do this in remembrance of me.” He told just the 12 Apostles who in turn chose men to do the same, (as per the early church leaders) - via the imposition of hands, as per sacred scripture. Jesus said to the Apostles only:

As the Father has sent me, I am sending you…"

Perhaps if Jesus directed the anamnesis from the mount of olives to all the surrounding people, the words, *“do this in remembrance of me,” *would surely apply to the universal priesthood as well. By doing as Jesus commanded, priests/bishops through every century, starting in the first century, participate in Jesus’ one perpetual priesthood.

What are your thoughts?

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing[178]) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis). In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, but that’s not the answer for which i was looking. Please let me explain:



When you and i seek medical attention we trust a medical doctor, for he is trained in medicine. When you and i have a car or truck or motorcycle that does not run properly, we seek out a good mechanic, for he is trained in mechanical repair. When our home is on fire, we call for help from a firefighter, for he is trained in extinguishing fires. In these, and many other occupations, the expertise that each expert has is recognizable: The physician’s expertise is healing the body; the mechanic’s expertise is repairing the engine; the firefighter’s expertise is putting out the fire. Assuming that you are not in one of these professions, i’d say that in each of these examples, you and i would say that we have much less expertise than the professionals whose help we seek. So what i’m wondering is what expertise does a priest have of which you or i have much less? Can you name this area of experience so that i might say, when i hear it’s name, that you and i certainly, and without a doubt, know less than a priest regarding the skill he has.

What do you think the CCC tells us (if anything) is the skill that a priest has more than you or me?

Dear Soc,

       i see the CCC does not adress the focus  of your  specific present question.

I am trying to organize an answer considering three different levels.

1. knowledge.
   Nothing, in any field, is precluded to the knowledge
   of a lay person ,i’d say. . There are lay theologians, Church historians, Bible scholars …who in their respective fields are by far more proficient than the average priest, of course.
   Who is “only” much more proficient in each of the mentioned fields than the average christian in the pews. And can answer better than the vast majority of the flock
   to questions about the teachings of the Church and most questions we’re dealing with on CAF.

Let’s say it’s just statistical consideration here.

1. skill in stricter sense

*the ability, coming from one’s knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: *

His practice is the pastoral one. In preaching he is much more trained than most people.
He knows liturgical practices…

If you look for one thing he has experience in while you and I do not, wou can consider consider confessions . I cannot tell you how difficult it is to become a good or excellent confessor, bur for sure this is a practice I do not share with a priest.

Confession leads us to the third point.

1. what he is as a priest most specifically authorized and required to do.

Ministering sacraments acting
in persona Christi.

Apart from my lack of expertise in it, I am not authorized to minister eg the sacrament of Reconciliation, or confession.

This is the most specific area the ministerial priesthood is about in the Apostolic Churches.
And this is what your non-apostolic teachers of two decades would probably describe as a grave deviation ( or even an abomination ?).

---

I hope this can help .

 

[pneuma07]

Someone once told me something about parenting that i’ve never found a reason to question. (And that does not happen often with me!) If i could recall his name, i’d give him the credit for these words, but i cannot.

He said, “I’ve never heard of a parent on his death bead saying, ‘I wish I had spent less time with my wife and kids.’”

I suppose I am going to remember this quotation of yours.

In Christ
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am aware of what you kindly and usefully are reminding here.

IMHO you could ask those teachers of these two decades, coming after two millennia of Christianity:

“By whom were you sent ?”

They probably have a few generations of predecessors, but ultimately, and if asked whom the first of the latter was sent by, they will likely answer you: “By the Holy Spirit”. Since they no way can tell you they are sent via legitimate appointments by the Incarnated Logos, whom, mind you, they preach as the only Mediator.

Then scrutinize with your great ability the evidence they will give you that they did receive such a special mandate, and that all those who happen to disagree with them ( ie by far most of present and past believers in any time) did not, or at least in lesser degree.

I hope this can help.

Bless you
P7

PS Would all those teachers agree with each other on everything ?

Well, then, we need to know how to answer Protestant Paul, or Protestant Paulette, or whatever his or her name might be, when he or she makes this argument. For when i discussed the Eucharist at length at the Protestant forum, several of them indicated that the truth is received by every Christian via the Holy Spirit. In fact, many Evangelical Churches–especially the large ones in the United States with thousands of members–claim to be non-denominational. They do not claim allegiance to any authority–not Luther, nor Wesley, nor Calvin, nor Moody, nor Graham. They claim, as you say, only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as their teacher.

So how should you and i counter this claim of Protestant Paul or Paulette? What argument can we make to show the impossibility–or at the very least the improbability–that God speaks to each and every member of the pew, and each of them needs no teacher, but only the Bible and a prayer for wisdom?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The earliest works of the church fathers include the Didache which is dated before 100AD, St. Ignatius (dated 110), St. Justin Martyr ( around 150 Ad) and St. Irenaeus (around 180 AD). These would be good places to start and we’ve already given you snippets from them in this thread. The first two were based directly on apostolic teaching (I believe Ignatius was a disciple of St. John… St. Justin is one generation removed and St. Irenaues is two, so you can follow the teachings from generation to generation

Agreed, PC!



Do you think the list of quotes collected in the last few posts of this discussion thread are the best of the best from these venerated patriarchs? Or has a better quote been left out?

 

[paul_c]

Well, then, we need to know how to answer Protestant Paul, or Protestant Paulette, or whatever his or her name might be, when he or she makes this argument. For when i discussed the Eucharist at length at the Protestant forum, several of them indicated that the truth is received by every Christian via the Holy Spirit. In fact, many Evangelical Churches–especially the large ones in the United States with thousands of members–claim to be non-denominational. They do not claim allegiance to any authority–not Luther, nor Wesley, nor Calvin, nor Moody, nor Graham. They claim, as you say, only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as their teacher.

So how should you and i counter this claim of Protestant Paul or Paulette? What argument can we make to show the impossibility–or at the very least the improbability–that God speaks to each and every member of the pew, and each of them needs no teacher, but only the Bible and a prayer for wisdom?

Aren’t there two obvious answers to this?
The first is biblical. Jesus didn’t speak to each and every member in the world and he didn’t appear to everyone at the resurrection, either. He appears to the Apostles and commissions them to spread the Gospel. this is VERY clear in Matthew 28:
16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Now, there is no doubt that Jesus could have simultaneously appeared to every man, woman and child on earth and given the same message, but he didn’t. He chose to work through the Apostles.

The second obvious argument against the Holy Spirit instructing everyone in the pew is that if this was true, wouldn’t they get the same instruction? After all, there can be only one truth. And it is VERY obvious that Protestant Paul and Paulette are not in agreement between themselves on the truth taugh be they Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very easy to argue that the Catholics, with an authoritative teacher, are the only group that is self consistent on Doctrine, and that consistency has survived 2000 years despite scandal and heresy.

 

[paul_c]

Agreed, PC!



Do you think the list of quotes collected in the last few posts of this discussion thread are the best of the best from these venerated patriarchs? Or has a better quote been left out?

I think we gave you the best. Here’s an easy summary of the positions showing continuity of position generation to generation through the year 400…
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

       i see the CCC does not adress the focus  of your  specific present question.

It does say that a priest is one who imitates Jesus Christ. But maybe this is not the expertise they have more than you or i?

I am trying to organize an answer considering three different levels.

1. knowledge.
   Nothing, in any field, is precluded to the knowledge
   of a lay person ,i’d say. . There are lay theologians, Church historians, Bible scholars …who in their respective fields are by far more proficient than the average priest, of course.
   Who is “only” much more proficient in each of the mentioned fields than the average christian in the pews. And can answer better than the vast majority of the flock
   to questions about the teachings of the Church and most questions we’re dealing with on CAF.

Let’s say it’s just statistical consideration here.

1. skill in stricter sense

*the ability, coming from one’s knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: *

His practice is the pastoral one. In preaching he is much more trained than most people.
He knows liturgical practices…

If you look for one thing he has experience in while you and I do not, wou can consider consider confessions . I cannot tell you how difficult it is to become a good or excellent confessor, bur for sure this is a practice I do not share with a priest.

Confession leads us to the third point.

1. what he is as a priest most specifically authorized and required to do.

Ministering sacraments acting
in persona Christi.

Apart from my lack of expertise in it, I am not authorized to minister eg the sacrament of Reconciliation, or confession.

This is the most specific area the ministerial priesthood is about in the Apostolic Churches.
And this is what your non-apostolic teachers of two decades would probably describe as a grave deviation ( or even an abomination ?).

---

I hope this can help .

Thank you, P7! Let me make sure i understand. You are saying the areas of expertise that a professional priest possesses that make him more trustworthy than a novice are:

1. 
   *]Knowledge of theology, church history and the Bible
   *]Skill in applying these areas of knowledge
   *]Experience in administering the sacraments
   
   Let’s focus on (1), for (2) and (3) are the result of (1), and (2) and (3) are not possible without (1), which is their cause, i think. For example, we might say a firefighter has knowledge of the safest way to deal with and extinguish different kinds of fires. This knowledge might tell him when to stay and fight the flames and when to run, and when to use water and when to use some chemical besides water. He might even have expertise in locating and rescuing someone trapped inside a burning building. All of these skills and experiences are the result of the firefighter’s professional knowledge, and without such understanding, he’d have neither the skills nor the expertise of a firefighter. The same is true of a priest, i think. Without the specific knowledge of his profession, he’d have neither the skill nor the expertise of a priest.
   
   So please tell me if i’m understanding you correctly in the knowledge that a priest has that you and i do not have to the same degree. That is, tell me if i’m correct in thinking that you are saying the knowledge that a priest has, which is greater and more trustworthy than anyone outside his profession, is knowledge of theology, church history and the Bible.

 

[paul_c]

It does say that a priest is one who imitates Jesus Christ. But maybe this is not the expertise they have more than you or i?

Thank you, P7! Let me make sure i understand. You are saying the areas of expertise that a professional priest possesses that make him more trustworthy than a novice are:

1. 
   *]Knowledge of theology, church history and the Bible
   *]Skill in applying these areas of knowledge
   *]Experience in administering the sacraments
   
   Let’s focus on (1), for (2) and (3) are the result of (1), and (2) and (3) are not possible without (1), which is their cause, i think. For example, we might say a firefighter has knowledge of the safest way to deal with and extinguish different kinds of fires. This knowledge might tell him when to stay and fight the flames and when to run, and when to use water and when to use some chemical besides water. He might even have expertise in locating and rescuing someone trapped inside a burning building. All of these skills and experiences are the result of the firefighter’s professional knowledge, and without such understanding, he’d have neither the skills nor the expertise of a firefighter. The same is true of a priest, i think. Without the specific knowledge of his profession, he’d have neither the skill nor the expertise of a priest.
   
   So please tell me if i’m understanding you correctly in the knowledge that a priest has that you and i do not have to the same degree. That is, tell me if i’m correct in thinking that you are saying the knowledge that a priest has, which is greater and more trustworthy than anyone outside his profession, is knowledge of theology, church history and the Bible.

1. 
   A Catholic priest typically has 8 years of specific training if he starts after high school and 6 years if he starts after he already has a BS. So they are very well trained. But what really sets them apart is that they have been ordained by a Catholic bishop and thus given the competency to administer the sacraments. They are also authorized, by virtue of their training and ordination to preach to the faithful as representatives of the Bishop

 

[AmbroseSJ]

A Catholic priest typically has 8 years of specific training if he starts after high school and 6 years if he starts after he already has a BS. So they are very well trained. But what really sets them apart is that they have been ordained by a Catholic bishop and thus given the competency to administer the sacraments. They are also authorized, by virtue of their training and ordination to preach to the faithful as representatives of the Bishop

I would have to disagree with you somewhat regarding their education only. I thoroughly agree with the rest of your comment. The first 4 yrs. of college do not require much specialized training. This is the minimum:

• Theology–at least 12 semester hours in courses distributed normally over the areas of Old and New Testament history and literature, World Religions, Catholic Theology and courses in Sacramental Theology.
• Philosophy–at least 24 semester hours normally including courses in contemporary philosophy, ethics, logic or epistemology, metaphysics or natural theology and philosophical anthropology.

This is sufficient for entrance into the Graduate School for the Masters of Divinity program at a major seminary. The Masters of Divinity program is: "The Master of Divinity Program (M.Div.) is the basic program of graduate professional education. The basic sequence of 112 semester hours is organized into five general areas: Biblical Studies, Historical Studies, Systematic Theology, Pastoral Theology, and Liturgical and Sacramental Theology. The course sequences are so arranged that there is a progression from the sources of revelation to the systematic understanding and application of principles to the mission of the Church as required in the parochial ministry. "

You can see from this short summary, that the typical American parish priest is trained sufficiently for his ministry. However, unless he takes a deeper interest in some areas of this training, he will remain basically a generalist, with a good overall picture of the interconnectedness of these basic areas of study, along with their practical application.

That means it is easy to imagine situations in which the average parish priest might be at a distinct disadvantage to someone that has taken it upon himself to learn more in depth in some aspect of these studies. For example keeping up with the latest writings and/or pursuing greater scholarship with respect to Scriptural and Historical matters that may have been briefly touched on in the graduate school program. It is not an indictment by any means, but is just reflective of the parish priest’s ministry, which may have no use for such scholasticism.

In any event, the parish priest that does follow a scholarly inclination would be a treasure indeed! But in my experience a rare one.

 

[paul_c]

I would have to disagree with you somewhat regarding their education only. I thoroughly agree with the rest of your comment. The first 4 yrs. of college do not require much specialized training. This is the minimum:

• Theology–at least 12 semester hours in courses distributed normally over the areas of Old and New Testament history and literature, World Religions, Catholic Theology and courses in Sacramental Theology.
• Philosophy–at least 24 semester hours normally including courses in contemporary philosophy, ethics, logic or epistemology, metaphysics or natural theology and philosophical anthropology.

This is sufficient for entrance into the Graduate School for the Masters of Divinity program at a major seminary. The Masters of Divinity program is: "The Master of Divinity Program (M.Div.) is the basic program of graduate professional education. The basic sequence of 112 semester hours is organized into five general areas: Biblical Studies, Historical Studies, Systematic Theology, Pastoral Theology, and Liturgical and Sacramental Theology. The course sequences are so arranged that there is a progression from the sources of revelation to the systematic understanding and application of principles to the mission of the Church as required in the parochial ministry. "

You can see from this short summary, that the typical American parish priest is trained sufficiently for his ministry. However, unless he takes a deeper interest in some areas of this training, he will remain basically a generalist, with a good overall picture of the interconnectedness of these basic areas of study, along with their practical application.

That means it is easy to imagine situations in which the average parish priest might be at a distinct disadvantage to someone that has taken it upon himself to learn more in depth in some aspect of these studies. For example keeping up with the latest writings and/or pursuing greater scholarship with respect to Scriptural and Historical matters that may have been briefly touched on in the graduate school program. It is not an indictment by any means, but is just reflective of the parish priest’s ministry, which may have no use for such scholasticism.

In any event, the parish priest that does follow a scholarly inclination would be a treasure indeed! But in my experience a rare one.

You sound like you are personally more knowledgeable of the requirements than I am. I was told the 6-8 year requirement by two of our parish priests who were newly ordained in the Archdiocese of NY.

 

[clmowry]

Well, Chuck, i think the question is a fair one. If i cannot trust reason and the Holy Spirit to keep me from deception, to whom should i turn? Do you think the words of the early Church Fathers help, or are they just as unreliable as the Bible? If the words of the Church Fathers are equally susceptible to misinterpretation, then whose words are immune to this defect? I think it’s a fair and reasonable question to ask.

Let me be clear on your first point, I believe you can trust that the Holy Spirit will not lead you astray.

The problem is not with the Spirit, the problem is knowing from whence that little voice leading you to the “truth” comes.

I fear that all to often the voice that one would like to credit as that of the Holy Spirit is really their own (at least I never knew how to be sure I wasn’t giving Him credit for my own silly ideas. That’s why I think it’s nearly impossible for someone to be their own spiritual director.)

That said, the words of the Early Church Fathers will (of course) help us in our pursuit of the truth.

Unfortunately, because the authors are not here to defend themselves from the attack of our reason upon their prose, yes our interpretation of their works will suffer from the same type of perceived ambiguity which we find in scripture.

Now we compound the interpretation problems associated with using “scripture alone” with another even more severe problem, when we start to deal with the Church fathers. Unlike with scripture where every word is the truth and precisely what God intended to have written, when we get to the Church Fathers, some of what they wrote may just be wrong.

In any case, no matter how much data you pile up, you will ultimately find on both sides of any given theological argument are intelligent people of good will with well reasoned positions, but neither will be able to “prove” their point, to you or to each other.

Does this imply that you should abandon your attempt to find the truth? I don’t think so.

Ultimately, I think it will all come down to a single decision.

You will either have to accept that there is no way to “know” the truth (and we are therefore free to believe pretty much anything we want about Christ and His church) or you will have to accept that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and does indeed have the God given mission to know and propagate Christian truth.

So I think you need to take a different tack.

Since I believe you will never be able to “prove” anything from Scripture and / or the writings of the Church Fathers.

I think the best you can do is to take a look at the preponderance of the available evidence and see where your reason and the Holy Spirit take you.

What evidence is there to support that the Catholic Church is “the Church” what evidence is there to refute this claim?

When, where and why a particular doctrine was first put forth and what did the Church proclaim on the subject at the time. How did that doctrine develop over time? When, where and why were did the Church make further clarifications? What does the Church teach on the subject today?

What did the Church Fathers supporting each proclamation (and their theological adversaries) have to say on the subjects? How was scripture used to attempt to support or refute any given doctrine?

Is what the Church has to say self consistent, and consistent with scripture? (Not can everything be proven from scripture, but “can” scripture be reasonably interpreted to support Catholic teaching?)

Chuck

 

[joe370]

Hey Soc…

If you think about it, how does one know with absolute certainty that truth regarding all that Jesus taught can be found at any one particular church? The holy bible codified by Jesus’ established church, provides the answer. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to that one church, in the world today (built by Jesus 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem) - and promised to be with her, as the bride of Christ, until the end of time, and empowered her (Acts 1) - to be Jesus’ witnesses starting in Jerusalem and eventually to the ends of the earth. Jesus commanded His one church, 2000 years ago (which is still in the world today) - to make disciples of of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to teach said disciples all that He commanded, and that He would be with His established church circa 33 A.D, to the very end of the age.

Jesus said to this one church in the world today: *“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.” *

Jesus said to this one church in the world today:* “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” *

Jesus said to this one church in the world today: *"But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning…If I do not go away; the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. " *

Jesus clearly stated that the Holy spirit would/will be with His established church through thick and thin, guiding and teaching His church until His return. If the holy bible is the pillar and foundation of truth via individual interpretation…the authoritative be all and end all, then why the need for the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, sent to Jesus’ one church? Jesus talks specifically to His established church built on the Apostles, as per Saint Paul, and promises that the Holy Spirit will guide and teach His church when he says he will not leave his church as orphans. The Holy spirit brings to mind all of what Jesus accomplished: his redemption and salvation; Only the Holy Spirit makes it possible for believers to grasp the inestimable truths of God and his salvation, through Jesus’ established church, as per sacred scripture. Jesus’ church derives her infallibility, regarding all that Jesus taught, from the spirit of truth! If the catholic church is not the church built by Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, then perhaps someone could point me in the direction of His church, in the world today, and I will gladly join that church in worship.

Only the Holy Spirit prevents Christians belonging to Jesus’ established church, from being orphans, and only the Holy spirit, the spirit of truth, can prevent Jesus’ established church, in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago, on Pentecost, from teaching erroneously. The revelation that Jesus’ church receives, goes back specifically to Jesus and his teachings, and there will be no new revelation. Despite this, Jesus’ promise to guide His church into all truth is put in a future tense, and it is through the Holy Spirit alone, that it is accomplished. As I have illustrated, it is only the Holy Spirit, (spirit of Truth) - Who makes this possible! Jesus has kept His promise to His established church, through the power/guidance of the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, and that alone is what makes the distinction between the ministers of the catholic church and the ministers of non-catholic churches, in the world today, and as I have said before: not to impugn their work, of course.

It’s not that priests are smarter or possess a greater skill set; far from it; they simply, by virtue of the Holy spirit, the spirit of truth, Who is guiding Jesus’ established church in perpetuity, possess the fullness of faith…possess the skills needed (handed down to them through every century, since the inception of Jesus’ one church) - to accomplish the will of Christ, again, through the power of the Holy spirit, Who will be with Jesus’ church, guiding and teaching her, until the end of time, as per sacred scripture.

As I have said often here at CAF, if the C.C. is not the church built by Jesus, perhaps someone could identify His church, in the world today; He only built one, as per sacred scripture, and again, not to impugn the work of any man-made church.

 

[clmowry]

So how should you and i counter this claim of Protestant Paul or Paulette? What argument can we make to show the impossibility–or at the very least the improbability–that God speaks to each and every member of the pew, and each of them needs no teacher, but only the Bible and a prayer for wisdom?

Not that it will be an effective argument but: the preponderance of directly conflicting beliefs by people who all claim this to be true.

Somehow everyone seems to think their holy spirit is a better bible interpreter than the other guy’s holy spirit.

There are of course bible verses I could suggest that say we need someone else to help us to understand scripture but somehow the holy spirit leads them to interpret those same verses to mean just the opposite of what they seem to say to me.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

3.) Experience in administering the sacraments.

This one should read something more like “Empowered” or “Authorized” to administer the sacraments."

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

In any event, the parish priest that does follow a scholarly inclination would be a treasure indeed! But in my experience a rare one.

Our parish priest received his PhD a year or so ago (took him quite a while I think, pretty tuff to be a Pastor and go to school).

I’ve never asked him what the focus of his studies was. I should rectify that.

Chuck

 

[pneuma07]

Well, then, we need to know how to answer Protestant Paul, or Protestant Paulette, or whatever his or her name might be, when he or she makes this argument. For when i discussed the Eucharist at length at the Protestant forum, several of them indicated that the truth is received by every Christian via the Holy Spirit. In fact, many Evangelical Churches–especially the large ones in the United States with thousands of members–claim to be non-denominational. They do not claim allegiance to any authority–not Luther, nor Wesley, nor Calvin, nor Moody, nor Graham. They claim, as you say, only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as their teacher.

So how should you and i counter this claim of Protestant Paul or Paulette? What argument can we make to show the impossibility–or at the very least the improbability–that God speaks to each and every member of the pew, and each of them needs no teacher, but only the Bible and a prayer for wisdom?

Dear Soc,

it looks like you already received good advise on this.

You IMHO could say:

“OK, dear (former teacher), you have the Holy Spirit the Holy Bible and pray for wisdom.
Now I tell you i have the Holy Spirit the Holy Bible and pray for wisdom. Yet we see matters differently. Were are we going ?
Where is Christianity as a whole going, if everybody repeats the same claim, believing differently ?”

The potential infinite fissiparousness of this attitude is controlled by the very existence of smart guys who act as teachers, while teaching precisely … that the Church does not need teachers. .

This imho unbiblical view ( we saw in 1 Peter 3 that there are shepherds, that to each of them a part of Christ’s flock is entrusted, and i’d guess shepherding includes teaching), does not appear then consistently viable.

So:

• the true Church has shepherds.
• These shepherds have to possess a recognizable legitimate christian authority.

Protestant pastors cannot offer credentials.

I hope this can help.

 

[pneuma07]

It does say that a priest is one who imitates Jesus Christ. But maybe this is not the expertise they have more than you or i?

Thank you, P7! Let me make sure i understand. You are saying the areas of expertise that a professional priest possesses that make him more trustworthy than a novice are:

1. 
   *]Knowledge of theology, church history and the Bible
   *]Skill in applying these areas of knowledge
   *]Experience in administering the sacraments
   
   Let’s focus on (1), for (2) and (3) are the result of (1), and (2) and (3) are not possible without (1), which is their cause, i think. For example, we might say a firefighter has knowledge of the safest way to deal with and extinguish different kinds of fires. This knowledge might tell him when to stay and fight the flames and when to run, and when to use water and when to use some chemical besides water. He might even have expertise in locating and rescuing someone trapped inside a burning building. All of these skills and experiences are the result of the firefighter’s professional knowledge, and without such understanding, he’d have neither the skills nor the expertise of a firefighter. The same is true of a priest, i think. Without the specific knowledge of his profession, he’d have neither the skill nor the expertise of a priest.
   
   So please tell me if i’m understanding you correctly in the knowledge that a priest has that you and i do not have to the same degree. That is, tell me if i’m correct in thinking that you are saying the knowledge that a priest has, which is greater and more trustworthy than anyone outside his profession, is knowledge of theology, church history and the Bible.

1. 
   Two points must be precised here:
   • i did not say that the knowledge that a priest has… is greater and more trustworthy than anyone outside his profession. I proposed just statistical considerations on this point.
   • as already noted by Clmowry, 3) is about being empowered, authorized.
   We believe that a priest, being a co-worker of a successor of the Apostles, can remit our sins. Not because of superior scholarship, but as a co-worker of a successor of the Apostles.
   
   John 20
   21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
   
   In Christ
   P7
   
   PS You did not show any surprise when i told you that, in a sense, i too am a catholic priest. Was that obvious ?

 

[PJM]

=Socrates4Jesus;-]Thanks, Pat! Tell me, please, what does the figure of speech “feed my sheep” really mean?

It is no coincedience that Jesus asked Peter this question THREE times in a public forum in the presence and hearing of the other apostles. So in the frist understanding we see the public forgiveness of Peter’s public denial of The Christ [in His Passion] three times. It is at the same time a reaffirmation of Peter’s Leadership role.

The second meaning has to do with the given authority of complete and total Governance of Christ One Catholic Church. We, you and me, all of us are “the sheep” and Peter and subsiquent Popes assume the role of being “the Good Sheperd” who protects, feeds, nourishes and cares for his sheep. And is held accountble by God to do so.

John.10: So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming,' because I said, I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

The Pope [Peter] is given the mandate to [Mt. 28: 19-20] “[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Friend I hope this is suficient? If not please advise and I’ll try again.

Love and prayers,
Pat