# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[truthsilence]

Hello Soc,

Forgive me if this winds up being a drive by posting, but I have something you might wish to ponder along with everything else. I heard something a while back that made me think of you, and reminded of me of your struggle with the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The ‘foreshadowings’ and ‘types’ we recognize from the OT all point to something greater than themselves, not lesser. For example, the necessity of the sacrificial Passover lamb being undefiled, seems to foreshadow Jesus being completely innocent - the perfect sacrifice. Also, the spilled blood of the lamb having been necessary to save the first born sons of the Hebrews from death, is a foreshadowing of Jesus being slain for us, thereby saving us from sin. The bronze serpent is another foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus tells us himself in John 3. In John 6, Jesus points out another ‘type’ - the manna from heaven - and tells us that He is the bread of life. So, the lamb and the bronze serpent are foreshadowing a greater reality, which is Jesus Christ. But if the Eucharist is only bread, then the manna in the desert is pointing to something less than itself - simply bread, made by human hands. Only if the Eucharist is His body, does the manna point to Jesus himself, as do the lamb and the bronze serpent.

I am glad to see you are still investigating the Church.

God bless, and Peace be with you.

Tami

 

[PJM]

=Socrates4Jesus;-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?

Oh really:shrug:
TRANSUBSTANTIATION:

CCC #1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. **Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: **

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.

**And St. Ambrose says about this conversion: **

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.

CCC 1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders,*** acts in persona Christi Capitis: *

[This means “in the very person of Christ.”] So freind, can me and you do that? From you’re lips to God’s ears.

**It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the very person of Christ.

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

1. 
   

   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.

   It is when and ONLY when the priest is teaching in full accord what the Catholic Church Magisterium profess as the SINGLE TRUTH on [and only on] matters of both Faith and Morals.
   
   As evidence of this I share the following words of Jesus Himself: [assuming you accept the Bible as Divinely Inspired?] [2 Tim. 3:16].
   
   **John 14: 16 **And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 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.
   
   John 17: 13 But now I [JESUS Praying to] I am coming to thee [The Father, 1st. Person in the Blessed Trinity] ; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
   
   So yes friend, when a priest, or Bishop speak on behalf of the CC, on matters of Faith and Morals, and what they teach conforms fully to the Catholic Magisterium teaching on the issue at hand [Faith and Morals only] they speak with and for the voice of God Himself. No other faith can support such a claim
   
   It is not so much a matter of “personal knowloedge” but teaching in unison with the Mageristerium that matters. The education is to facilate and aid them recalling and expressing the mind of the CC, not mere subjective and personal “expert” opinion.
   
   Love and prayers,
   
   Pat

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Very well, then. Let’s start with the passage you quoted and see if it stands up to close scrutiny. For i suppose that Protestant Paul will closely examine the written testimony of any Church Father i present as a witness to the defense of the Eucharist. We should imagine any question he might raise so that i know how to answer his objections. Let’s pretend i’m on the witness stand, giving the Church Father’s testimony, and the Protestant prosecutor cross examines me:

PROTESTANT PROSECUTOR: Socrates, i see you have recently come to doubt your once strong Evangelical Christian faith.

SOCRATES4JESUS: Yes, it’s something with which i’m currently struggling, but continue to seek the truth and pray for wisdom. You see, i’ve found some passages of Scripture to be ambiguous–especially those dealing with the Eucharist.

PP: And who was it who confused you?

SOC: Well, i began to see the ambiguity when speaking to thoughtful Catholics.

PP: And what misconceptions did they put in your head?

SOC: I would not call them misconceptions. They explained that, during the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” and “this is my blood,” He meant that the bread and wine were not symbolic of His sacrifice, but literally his flesh and blood.

PP: And have you discussed this with your Protestant friends?

SOC: Yes.

PP: What did they say?

SOC: Some said i was deceived. Others said i was confused. They tried to show me that what Catholics believe cannot possibly be what the Bible teaches.

PP: But you refused to listen to reason, didn’t you?

SOC: No, it’s reason that tells me that what Catholics believe might be true, but reason tells me what they believe might actually be the truth. Reason tells me either possibility is possible.

PP: But only one can be the truth, true?

SOC: True. But which one?

PP: Oh, i’m sure your Protestant friends know.

SOC: Yes, but my Catholic friends know, too. But the truth that one knows is the contrary to the truth that the others knows, so they, as you say, cannot both be true. If only i knew.

PP: So how did you try to put an end to your doubts?

SOC: Well, as i said, i asked many questions of both Protestants and Catholics. I came to the conclusion that Sacred Scripture was indeed ambiguous regarding the Eucharist and so i had to find some way other than the Word of God to discover the truth.

PP: What diabolical path of deception was that?

SOC: Protestants told me to pray and rely on the Holy Spirit and search the Bible for the truth, but doing so only resulted in my being more convinced that the Bible was unclear. Catholics told me that the Bible needed interpretation, and what i needed was an authority outside it’s pages to explain the true meaning of the ambiguities.

PP: And that authority, the no doubt alleged, is the Catholic Church.

SOC: Yes, but i thought that by examining the words of the early Christians–whom they call the Church Fathers–i might be able to surmise what they believed. I could them assume that this is what the early Church taught.

(CONTINUED …)

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

P7:

Yes, i did find the author’s words enjoyable, and i particularly agreed with premise (3). However, my question remains unanswered. The author is speaking of the development of moral doctrine, i think. For example, how should the Church decide matters of cloning human beings? Is it moral or immoral? Here, i think, old doctrine contained in the pages of Sacred Scripture must develop, or be applied to new circumstances. Doctrinal development, then, is to find a new application to an already established biblical principle.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not like this at all. It’s not defined as a new application of an already established principle, because the idea that Mary was conceived without a sinful nature is not a principle found in Sacred Scripture at all. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception is indeed a new doctrine–or at least not one found in the pages of the Bible or (as far as i know) the teaching of any of the Early Church Fathers.

So my question remains unanswered: Is it not true that God must communicate new doctrine to someone in the Catholic Church,[SIGN] since the Immaculate Conception is, in fact, a new doctrine?[/SIGN]

How do you see it that the IC is new doctrine. It was always believed by the Apostles. The church did not have to define Marian doctrine until it was challenged. Why? Because it was never questioned before, there was no one who questioned it. It was believed by the apostles all the time. So how could you say that the IC is new doctrine?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

PP: And what did these Church Fathers say that you found so convincing?

SOC: One said this:And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

PP: “And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed.” That’s what this so-called Church Father said?

SOC: Yes.

PP: Tell me, Socrates, is what is physical the same or different from what is spiritual?

SOC: Different.

PP: The physical blood of Jesus–this is different from the spiritual blood, then?

SOC: Yes, i suppose.

PP: The physical blood of Jesus was shed on the cross; was it not?

SOC: Yes.

PP: And Christ’s death was a sacrifice for your sins; true?

SOC: True.

PP: So it is Christ’s shed blood, or sacrificial death, that redeems you from corruption?

SOC: I suppose so.

PP: And when you drink the wine, you are acknowledging this sacrificial death; aren’t you?

SOC: Yes.

PP: So it is this acknowledgment–not the properties of the wine itself–that saves you from hell! Is it not?

SOC: I don’t know.

PP: YOU DON’T KNOW?

SOC: No.

PP: Who does know? Evangelicals? Catholics?

SOC: That’s what i’m trying to figure out.

PP: How about this Church Father you quote? Does HE know?

SOC: That’s my hope.

PP: Your hope. I see. And you know for certain that this self-proclaimed Church Father knows the truth?

SOC: No, not for certain.

PP: And you know for certain that he was speaking of the wine being the Body of Christ? Or was he speaking of the wine being symbolic of our Savior’s sacrificial death at Calvary? Tell us, Socrates. Which is it?

SOC: I–i cannot say for certain.

PP: You mean, you don’t know; don’t you?

SOC: Yes, i don’t know.

PP: Why not? Could it be that this one the Catholics hold in such high esteem is no more clear than our Lord Jesus Christ?

SOC: I suppose that’s so.

PP: You SUPPOSE? Do you really have the audacity to think, Socrates, that some hero of the Catholic faith would know more than the Son of God?

SOC: No, i’m not saying that at all.

PP: But it’s your HOPE that this mere man will be more clear than Jesus Christ. Isn’t that so?

SOC: Well, i–i suppose i had not thought it through.

PP: Well, i suppose you should; don’t you? Tell the court, Socrates, the truth (and remember you are under oath). Isn’t the truth that this Church Father is just as ambiguous–and more likely much less clear–that Jesus, the Living Word of God?

SOC: I’d have to say your are right.

PP: And if he is more ambiguous and less clear, he’s not going to be much help to you, is he–regardless of his status as early Church Father.

SOC: What you say sounds reasonable.

PP: That’s because you are a reasonable man, Socrates. Perhaps you should stop playing the fool. It really does not suit you well.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You see, PC, what might be? If i bring up this Church Father, then Protestant Paul, or Evangelical Evan–or whatever his or her name might be–will eat me alive on the witness stand! What i need is a quote from a Church Father that is so clear there is no denying it teaches the Real Presence. Otherwise, he is likely to claim the Church Father could also be speaking figuratively instead of literally. So please advise me–as legal counsel might advise a defendant. Should we try to convince the Protestant prosecutor that the Church Father whom you quoted to me was really speaking of the Real Presence? Or should we quote a different Church Father, instead–one whose words cannot possibly be considered ambiguous?

 

[PJM]

=Socrates4Jesus;5816435]You see, PC, what might be? If i bring up this Church Father, then Protestant Paul, or Evangelical Evan–or whatever his or her name might be–will eat me alive on the witness stand! What i need is a quote from a Church Father that is so clear there is no denying it teaches the Real Presence. Otherwise, he is likely to claim the Church Father could also be speaking figuratively instead of literally. So please advise me–as legal counsel might advise a defendant. Should we try to convince the Protestant prosecutor that the Church Father whom you quoted to me was really speaking of the Real Presence? Or should we quote a different Church Father, instead–one whose words cannot possibly be considered ambiguous?

Dear friend,

Allow me to try atleast to lighten your load. Your post are profoundly beautiful! Thank you.

May I humbly suggest that you began your search of The Fathers by reading the Catholic Catechism [numbers 1345 through 1378.] There is a great deal to be gained by doing so.

Because I do not wish to have to edit your post to make room for my comments I ask you to look for a seperate post on this string, as a reply to your “confusion.”

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[fhansen]

You see, PC, what might be? If i bring up this Church Father, then Protestant Paul, or Evangelical Evan–or whatever his or her name might be–will eat me alive on the witness stand! What i need is a quote from a Church Father that is so clear there is no denying it teaches the Real Presence. Otherwise, he is likely to claim the Church Father could also be speaking figuratively instead of literally. So please advise me–as legal counsel might advise a defendant. Should we try to convince the Protestant prosecutor that the Church Father whom you quoted to me was really speaking of the Real Presence? Or should we quote a different Church Father, instead–one whose words cannot possibly be considered ambiguous?

Keep searching, Soc. But if you do, you’ll never be able to reconcile the basic attitude of Evangelical Christianity-or of most Protestants for that matter- towards the Eucharist with that of early Christians-or, coincidentally - with that of the CC.

 

[paul_c]

You see, PC, what might be? If i bring up this Church Father, then Protestant Paul, or Evangelical Evan–or whatever his or her name might be–will eat me alive on the witness stand! What i need is a quote from a Church Father that is so clear there is no denying it teaches the Real Presence. Otherwise, he is likely to claim the Church Father could also be speaking figuratively instead of literally. So please advise me–as legal counsel might advise a defendant. Should we try to convince the Protestant prosecutor that the Church Father whom you quoted to me was really speaking of the Real Presence? Or should we quote a different Church Father, instead–one whose words cannot possibly be considered ambiguous?

Why do you argue so weak-kneed with your Protestant Prosecutor. You started off stating that you were questioning your position but by your second page you were acquieseing without arguement to everything the PP said, as if you were afraid to confront him with the truth… First of all you allowed him to separate the statement of the church Father you quoted into the first sentence in Red, and never called him back to the second sentence in blue.

SOC: One said this:
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

PP: “And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed.” That’s what this so-called Church Father said?

,This is a typical debaters trick - to focus on what you can attack and ignore that which is unassailable. It might win an argument and cost you your soul.

The fact is, there is nothing ambiguous about the statement in Blue.: And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

This is clearly a teaching of the real presence.

And then you allow your hypothetical Prosector to try to make this argument:

PP: The physical blood of Jesus was shed on the cross; was it not?

SOC: Yes.

PP: And Christ’s death was a sacrifice for your sins; true?

SOC: True.

PP: So it is Christ’s shed blood, or sacrificial death, that redeems you from corruption?

SOC: I suppose so.

PP: And when you drink the wine, you are acknowledging this sacrificial death; aren’t you?

SOC: Yes.

PP: So it is this acknowledgment–not the properties of the wine itself–that saves you from hell! Is it not?

This is nothing more than a diversion from someone that doesn’t understand the nature of grace or the sacraments. To which I would answer: We partake of the body and blood of Christ as he told us to in John 6 in order to gain the Lord’s Immortality, as described by the ECF in the blue sentence above. And yes that is an acknowledgement of his sacrificial death.

And why this feeble response to this question?

PP: And you know for certain that he was speaking of the wine being the Body of Christ? Or was he speaking of the wine being symbolic of our Savior’s sacrificial death at Calvary? Tell us, Socrates. Which is it?

SOC: I–i cannot say for certain.

PP: You mean, you don’t know; don’t you?

SOC: Yes, i don’t know.

The ECF said: And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Why wouldn’t your answer be " He said he was drinking the blood of Jesus. He says nothing about Symbolism." This is consistent with what Jesus said in John 6, which caused most of his disciples to leave and it’s consistent with the entire list of ECF’s I gave you , covering the first 10 generations of Christians."

And this final exchange is equally feeble:

PP: Why not? Could it be that this one the Catholics hold in such high esteem is no more clear than our Lord Jesus Christ?

SOC: I suppose that’s so.

PP: You SUPPOSE? Do you really have the audacity to think, Socrates, that some hero of the Catholic faith would know more than the Son of God?

SOC: No, i’m not saying that at all.

PP: But it’s your HOPE that this mere man will be more clear than Jesus Christ. Isn’t that so?

SOC: Well, i–i suppose i had not thought it through.

PP: Well, i suppose you should; don’t you? Tell the court, Socrates, the truth (and remember you are under oath). Isn’t the truth that this Church Father is just as ambiguous–and more likely much less clear–that Jesus, the Living Word of God?

How could you allow the Protestant Prosecutor to twist this into being a statement of Trust of an ECF over trust in Jesus? It is nothing of the sort. Your answer should have been:

This is not about a Catholic Saint knowing more about salvation that the Son of God. This is about a Catholic Saint explaining what he heard from his predecessors about what the Son of God said. If you pay attention, you would recognize that he is explaining the real presence in the Same way that Jesus did in John 6 and that his explanation of the real presence is explained in the same way by the next 10 generations of Christian Fathers and in fact is the same explanation given by the Catholic Church today. Are not the Protestants who deny the Real presence doing the same thing that the dissenting disciples did in John 6, turning your back on Christ because you couldn’t accept his teachings the way he meant them to be understood.

SOC,
On the day of your death, you will need to answer to your actions before the Lord. When he asks you, " Why did you not believe me when I said " Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.? (John 6: 53-55) What will you say? Will you say ," Lord, because you were ambiguous?’
What would be your response if he told you: , “No, It was clear to all those whose hearts were open to the truth. The truth was held by the Church I founded and they shared that with you, did they not? Why didn’t you listen to them?”

At some point, you need to take a stand.

 

[utunumsint]

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. 
   I Soc. Sorry for taking to long to get to this. I was at a cottage this thanks giving with no internet connection. Plus, I don’t have the internet at home, so the only time I have to write to you is during work hours over lunch, or in the morning.
   
   Anyway, I would say I trust Jesus 100% and everything that he did on earth. I trust him because I have chosen to place all of my trust in him. I also trust the apostles whom he sent, but not because of their own merits, but because of the Holy Spirit that he promised to send to them, to guide them into all truth. I think this last part is the most important part. He gave this promise to the apostles, as the ones who are to be the guardians and teachers of this truth…but he didn’t promise anything else to them. He did not promise that they would not sin, or that they would never do anything wrong ever again. But he did promise that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth.
   
   Now, when the apostles handed on authority to their successors, they did so by the laying on of hands.
   

   1 Timothy 4:14: Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
   5:22: Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

   Acts 8:17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
   8:18: And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
   8:19: Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
   8:20: But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

   9:17: And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

   13:1: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
   13:2: As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
   13:3: And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
   13:4: So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

   19:5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
   19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

   Hebrews 6:1: Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
   6:2: Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

   And so, the doctrine of apostolic succession depends on the idea that the Holy Spirit is transmitted to authorized successors via the lay on of hands, and this guarantees, somehow that the truth would be preserved within the confines of the church. How the Holy Spirit does this seems to be through official councils or gatherings of elders and bishops together with the bishop of Rome, or through the Bishop of ROme alone. This mirrors the developments described in Acts 15.
   
   Until a doctrine has this official seal of authority (from one or both of the sources mentioned above), I will not give my assent of faith to a teaching (e.g. 100% certainty). As for trusting the priests and bishops on other matters not related to doctrine, I use my own personal judgement and I reserve the right to form my own opinion on whether a priest, bishop, or pope is trustworthy.
   
   So, for example, if I were to have met Paul before Acts 15, I would have felt inspired by his doctrines, but I would have reserved my right to disagree with him up until the official declaration made under Peter, the Elders, and the other Apostles.
   
   I hope this helps.
   
   God bless,
   Ut
   
   P.S. I use the words “somehow” because at times this process can be messy, and very politisized. But I trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding his church into all truth through the legitimate successors of the apostles, and that any officially defined doctrine cannot be in error.

 

[PJM]

To: Our Brother in Christ; Socrates4Jesus on The real Presence. Post part 1 of 2

CAF reply to a Brother in Christ:

Dear Socrates4Jesus,

It seems to me that there are four bodies of physical evidence that affirm and confirm the Catholic Position, and 2000 year old belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in Catholic Holy Communion. Additionally, one can in my limited understanding benefit from understanding the ‘WHY” God would freely choose to do such a humiliating thing. No one who seriously considers himself to be a “follower of Jesus” and in a “personal relationship” with Him can doubt that an all-Powerful God; our God, can do any [and every] “good thing.” So we shall not discuss is “God capable of such an act“, if it is in fact, His Divine Will? Of course He can. Which leads us into the discussion of Why would God chose to do so? Or would God have reason to do so?

The bodies of physical evidence are 1. His Divinely Inspired Bible. Noting that all four Gospel writers and Saint Paul write of this event. That friend makes it a matter of Supreme Importance, no less than His Incarnation, death and Resurrection. Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22: 19-21, John 6:40-67, Paul. 1 Cor. 11: 23-28.

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Most notably # 1345 through 1379.
2. The Early Church Fathers and evident Practice of celebrating the Mass.
3. Eucharistic Miracles even into the present times. [Google “Eucharistic Miracles.]

So can one find evidence of “why” God would do such a thing? I think the answer is YES!

Let’s began by taking a poll. The necessary foundation for this pole is to [at least] pretend to accept the Catholic Position of Jesus being “really Present” in Catholic Holy Communion. [Play along with me please.]

So which of the following in your understanding would be the “Greatest” Sacrifice?

1. God’s Incarnation; becoming for a time a “bit lower than the angels” and accepting a fully human [without sin] Nature that is independent of His Divine Nature?
2. As “Godman” freely agreeing to endure His Passion and Death [knowing that He would rise again on the Third day.] The most painful [mentally, physically, spiritually] humiliating death known at the time?
3. Knowing that He “failed” in fulfilling not His Mission, but the Desired goal of His Mission; namely the Salvation of every man, women, and child throughout all of history, and desiring to do so? And out of Divine and Perfect Love, desiring to do even more, suffer even more, love us even more?

In attempting to try to understand if God had a desire to do this, we began with an observation of the saintly Archbishop Fulton Sheen [may he rest in peace] as expressed in his book: “The Life of Christ.”

Sheen observed that in its totality the Bible is not so much about man seeking a relationship with his God, as it is God seeking a very personal and soul saving relationship with His Created. He points out that it is God who Created Adam and eve in “his own image” [Gen. 1: 26-27] gifting humanity with unique and exclusive “God-like” attributes of “mind, intellect and freewill.” These gifts are so unique, so powerful, and so exclusive that we must understand that they are given for a very precise reason. [Mt.21:16, Rom. 14:11, Isaiah 43: 7, 21].

It is God who chooses Abram and changes his mane to Abraham, it is God who saves Noah and his family, and it is God who chooses Moses, Jacob, David and Solomon. It is God who chose the Prophets, Mary the virgin of the house of David to be His Mother [Lk. 1:26-35], John The Baptist, Peter and the Apostles, Paul and even you and me. It is always God choosing us, before we are able to freely choose to have a personal relationship with our God. End pf part 1 of 2

 

[PJM]

To Our Brother in Christ; Socrates4Jesus on the Real Presence part 2 of 2

In fact the Incarnation itself has as a goal to enable us to know God in a more visible and personal way. To see that God in addition to being “all-mighty, all- Powerful” quick to seek revenge and swift to enact His Justice, is also a God of infinite Mercy, Profound love, and seemingly exhaustible Charity. We are chided to “be Perfect” as My Father is Perfect, [Mt. 5:48] and to “be Holy” as I am Holy. [1 Peter 1: 14-16]. Neither of which we can accomplish on our own. Both requiring special Grace from God.

Only by understanding that by His Crucifixion Christ “Redeemed” us but DID NOT effect the salvation of everyone who * only believes in Him.** [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 19:16, Mt. 15:15-18, John 20:22-23 and John 3:5, 3:36]** all disprove such a position.

So because Salvation in NOT a “done deal,” because we are Created precisely in a manner that both permits and encourages a loving personal relationship with our God, but most significantly is the fact that God does desire to save as many of those Created in His image, who by Divine decree, Divine Wisdom endows us with the unmitigated power to choose or deny by application of our exclusive God Like attributes, to return love for Love.

God desires to save us, like His Incarnation, like His Passion and Death, Like Him choosing each and every one of us, like ONLY a Perfect God, a Perfect Lover, one who Wills to do EVERYTHING in His Majestic Power, to influence us, to guide us, to lead us through the “narrow gate into His Sheepfold.” Only in understanding this kind of Love by God for us do any of the aforementioned Sacrifices make any sense. Only from this understanding can one even glimpse a peak of Divine Love and Divine Willingness to sacrifice Himself in order to get our love in return for His Love. Only from this perspective; the perspective of Divine Love, can one apply the Faith, the Hope and the Love that our God seeks from us.

The greatest Sacrifice is not The Incarnation, as awesome as it is.

The greatest Sacrifice is not even in the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, as incomprehensible as this is.

**The greatest Sacrifice is in the truth of [Mt. 28:19-20] **“ 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."

Only a All- Perfect, all -Loving God could even conceive of such a Sacrifice. Only a God of unlimited Love, filled with a Divine desire for a personal relationship with His Created, could and would allow Himself not only to become human, but also to become “The very Bread of Life, [our pending Salvation], in order to not simply offer or give Grace, NO! But to actually BE The Very Grace that we receive! Only such a God would permit humiliation many times greater than what He endured out of Love for by His Incarnation and His Passion and Death, by allowing Himself to become inanimate objects of Bread and Wine. So that as promised He does remain present to us [Physically], and is the most Perfect and compelling source of Grace, so needed by humanity in our struggle for our salvation.

Mt. 11: 25-26 “At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will“.

**Phil.2:12 ** “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; “

**Heb. 6: 12 ** “so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Heb. 11: [1] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. Through FAITH which is necessary for Salvation, we can believe!

Love and prayers,

Pat*

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.)

Yes, i relate to that fear, as did Socrates:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you.

(Cratylus, 428)

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.

Yes, and let’s say they speak on a teaching of the Bible that is ambiguous (such as the Eucharist) and what they have to say about the unclear meaning of the test is also unclear. Then i don’t think i can then claim that the early Church Fathers are a help to resolving such lack of clarity.

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.

Yes. Then these early Church Fathers are not immune to the same deception you and i fear.

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) …

Actually, i would not be free to believe anything, but a prisoner unable to believe what it is that i don’t know. For who in his right mind would believe what he does not know?

… 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.

I’ll ask the question again: Who in his right mind would believe what he does not know? If i’ve examined the evidence for and against the authority of the Catholic Church, and i find that there is no convincing reason to either believe or reject her, could i trust Her? Isn’t faith a kind of trust? Is trust given to those who one knows should be trusted and not to those who one does not know are trustworthy?

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

Well, Chuck, i’m somewhat of an idiot when it comes to early Church History. My limited exposure to the topic includes the Book of Acts and a few memorable passages from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. And isn’t much of this history you mention the accumulation of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which you admit are as unclear as the Bible, and probably less trustworthy? Where am i going to find an expert in early Church history to make things clear for me?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey Soc
… 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. "

Hey, Joe, good to hear from you! Do you think these words are for a select few (such as priests, Popes, and all the Apostolic successors in between)? Or do you think they are not just for them, but for you too?

… 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.

What is the Church, Joe? If you had to define the Church in just a sentence (or no more than two), what would you say?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Then there is someone like me who wonders why his prayer and search for wisdom about the Catholic Church resulted in the unnerving discovery that the Bible is unclear on the subject. Perhaps that is the Holy Spirit leading me? But why lead me to such a place of doubt? If Catholicism is the truth, why not make it obvious in Sacred Scripture? Why make it so hard to believe? I feel like a Christian without a religion. I’m mad as blazes about it and at a loss to know why. What good does it do to leave me in such a state of doubt? For doubt is the opposite of faith, i think. Can this really be where God wants me to stay? If not, then how am i supposed to get away from this not knowing what i should know is true? Sorry to lay all this on you. No need to reply. I’m just venting.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… 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. .

Funny! And true.

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.

Well, they have credentials–just not Catholic. And i wonder if that is the way God wants it. I mean, the principle of Capitalism has it’s wisdom–competition can cause make betters of competitors. Luther had some valid points about the corruption of the Catholic Church of his day. But they were really the only game in Europe town, and were becoming lazy in doing good. Then came the competition–the Protestant team. And the aging, and soft Home team began worrying about loosing the religious season to these rookies.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

(Romans 8:28-29)
So writes Paul. And i cannot help but think that if the Protestant Reformation was bad news for the Catholic Church, God used the competition to make Her a lean, less mean, spiritual fighting machine.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Yes, but you see, that doesn’t help me (and maybe this one rabbit trail is a dead end, as you suggested). For i’m asking, “Why should i trust the priests of the Catholic Church?” and you are telling me, “Because the bishops of theChurch ordained them.” You really have not given me the answer i seek, for i’m actually asking why i should trust the priests, bishops, cardinals, and Pope, who together ARE the Catholic Church.

It would be the same if i asked how i can know the police of a local police department are not corrupt, and a local yokel told me because they were hired by the chief of police. The man would really have not given me a good reason to trust the members of the police force, for he has not demonstrated that the ones doing is without corruption.

PS You did not show any surprise when i told you that, in a sense, i too am a catholic priest. Was that obvious ?

Nope, just understood.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

(1 Peter 2:9)

 

[fhansen]

If Catholicism is the truth, why not make it obvious in Sacred Scripture? Why make it so hard to believe?

Well, God certainly didn’t make it hard. Remember that until close to the time of the Reformation there weren’t many literate people, bibles were few because they were copied by hand, and there was rarely a choice between Churches in one’s local area. But for centuries people nonetheless heard the gospel, even as my Italian grandmother (basically an Alpine foothills peasant) did, understood it, and strove to live according to Gods will because of it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Would you say, Pat, that only Peter, and the Apostolic successors to him, are rightfully the shepherds of God’s flock?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hello Soc,

Forgive me if this winds up being a drive by posting, but I have something you might wish to ponder along with everything else. I heard something a while back that made me think of you, and reminded of me of your struggle with the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The ‘foreshadowings’ and ‘types’ we recognize from the OT all point to something greater than themselves, not lesser. For example, the necessity of the sacrificial Passover lamb being undefiled, seems to foreshadow Jesus being completely innocent - the perfect sacrifice. Also, the spilled blood of the lamb having been necessary to save the first born sons of the Hebrews from death, is a foreshadowing of Jesus being slain for us, thereby saving us from sin. The bronze serpent is another foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus tells us himself in John 3. In John 6, Jesus points out another ‘type’ - the manna from heaven - and tells us that He is the bread of life. So, the lamb and the bronze serpent are foreshadowing a greater reality, which is Jesus Christ. But if the Eucharist is only bread, then the manna in the desert is pointing to something less than itself - simply bread, made by human hands. Only if the Eucharist is His body, does the manna point to Jesus himself, as do the lamb and the bronze serpent.

I am glad to see you are still investigating the Church.

God bless, and Peace be with you.

Tami

Tami:

Good to hear from you again! How’s it going with you?



Yes, i understand what you are saying. I just wonder if the Eucharist is also a foreshadowing or type or symbol of Christ. Jewish families still today celebrate the Passover with unleaded bread and wine. I find it interesting that the parents of young children break the bread and hide it for the children to find. The children look everywhere for it and have great joy when they find it. It’s a wonderful symbol, don’t you think? Whose body was broken for them? Jesus’ body on the cross. Who will bring them eternal joy when they find Him, like children on a Christmas Day that never ends? Jesus who died so that they might have eternal life and fullness of joy. Funny how God sees to it that this tradition works it’s way into the Passover of so many Jewish families. The children of some of these families grow up to become Messianic Jews and discover that the bread for which they searched as children symbolized the one they were searching for all their lives–Jesus, the Lamb of God who died for them and the Good Shepherd who found them.