# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

When you say the Bible is directly inspired of God in a sense, what do you mean, exactly, FH? Do you mean that in the original autographs it was free of any factual error and perfectly communicated the will of God, or do you mean something else?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Here’s the didache from 80AD:

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

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

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

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

And here is Justin Martyr from 150 AD:
The Eucharist

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

Thank you, PC. Would you say these three quotes are the strongest witnesses by the early Church Fathers, or would you like to suggest that i offer other real evidence of the Real Presence to Protestant Paul?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

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

I’m assuming you are speaking of priests, bishops and cardinals. What would you say makes a priest much less likely to err than you, and in what is he less prone to error? For example, when it comes to writing simple programing code or designing a Web page with all the bells and whistles, i suppose that many a priest, bishop and cardinal would be more likely to make mistakes than i. The reason is likely that i’ve spent more time than they have teaching myself how to do this. Even though i do not consider myself an expert programmer or Web designer, i’d bet i’m more of an expert than even the current Pontiff! So i’m wondering just in what, say, a priest has more expertise than you and i? Or is it not expertise at all, but a quantity or quality of some supernatural ability to either hear or understand God? Or is it something else?

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

But is it not true that actions speak louder than words? Or, to be less ambiguous, is it not true that one’s actions prove the sincerity of one’s words? And this is true of groups, as well. Actions show what the members collectively and really believe, i think.

One example is found in the martyring of the saints when the church was in its infancy. Their bodies were burned on stakes, they were fed to wild animals, they were crucified and tortured in various horrific ways. They could have escaped such painful ends by confessing that the Roman Emperor was their god. Yet, they chose death over such an oath, and rather than being terrified of what would become of them after death, they sang hymns of praise to God. The actions of these martyrs proved that they really believed the truth that came out of their mouths.

Compare this to the Council of Trent. Many bishops essentially voted on what true Church doctrine should be. Did these bishops not show, by their actions, that they do not really believe the one bishop sitting in the Chair of Peter is infallible? If they truly believed that the Pontiff was the only one of them who was free from error, they would have asked him to make the decision; don’t you think?

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t292/T292073A.jpg

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

One son is in High School. He is extremely bright, and also a talented musician. But he rubs people the wrong way and has a real problem with trusting those in authority. (Remind you of anyone)?

My younger son is not yet in High School. He is not as bright as his brother, but is extremely talented at reading people, convincing them to do what he wants, and knowing what to do to get on their good side. He’s more like his mother.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have to understand that i have two decades under my belt of one teacher after another saying that the Catholic Church no longer has the right to the authority it claims. Protestant Paul tells me that the authorities of the Catholic Church, like the authorities of the Jewish Religion before it, have turned their back on the truth and are teaching lies. I suppose what would help is a way to rebut this roadblock keeping me from getting off the exit ramp and entering the Catholic Highway. How do you think i should respond to Protestant Paul?

http://www.breakdownofamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/roadblock2.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

St Irenaeus circa 180 AD:

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

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

**

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

Thank you, FH. I’ll add that to the list. If you have any other early witnesses to share with Protestant Paul, please let me know.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus
In my mind, if i can find irrefutable proof that Jesus created the papacy, that would be good enough evidence for me to accept the authority of the Catholic Church, at least in it’s infancy. After discovering that proof, the next step would be to determine whether the Pope today has the same infallibility as the Peter of ancient yesterday.

Additional biblical support for “One Church” and Primacy of Peter

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

1. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).
3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
8. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
9. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
10. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
11. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
12. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
14. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
15. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
18. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
19. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
20. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
21. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
22. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
23. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
24. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
25. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry
    (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

29: 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt. Chapter 23)

Note: While the bible does not speak specifically of the “ Chair of Peter,” this term gets it’s origin from “the Chair of Moses,” which EVERYONE KNEW WAS THE “SEAT OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.”

1. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16). ‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

Love nad prayers,
Pat

 

[PJM]

Evidence of Peter as Pope

I would like just one Catholic to tell me specifically what they think these keys are that were given to their church. I would be willing to bet that the OP doesn’t even know and will have to look it up.

In order to do so I must attempt to answer for you the W’s, who, what, where and why?

Who? Jesus the Christ (Mt. 16:16) The Son of God. All Knowing - all Wise - all everything Good. A key element of Gods Perfect Goodness is that God is and has to be “All-Fair and All Just.” Otherwise He would not be God.

The words used by Jesus are carefully selected to insure proper understanding.

**What? This is part of the discourse in which Christ makes clear in unambiguous language that He intends to: 1. Form His Church (singular use of “I” and “you” and “church.” 2. That it is to be only ONE church. 3. That Peter is given the access (gate keys) to heaven. 4. Peter (and Peter alone) is given all of the power and authority to govern with COMPLETE autonomous authority, answering ONLY to God Himself!

We can know this by the choice of words selected by Christ. To “bind” and to “loose” were common, rabbinical, legally binding at Law terms for exactly that! Complete, and free governance. Jesus, Peter and all that heard knew exactly what Jesus meant!
**
WHERE? **Mt. 16:13: “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” “

The timing and the location were of great significance to the message, the purpose and the mission of what Jesus was in the process of setting up and doing. Jesus was aware of when and how soon He would be put to death.

Caesarea Philippi is in the hill country of Judea. It was a by their standards, a large town. It was also the site of the areas Major Pagan Temple. Thus Jesus ask, “ who do people say that I am.” Not satisfied with the response Jesus then “ask His decuples (plural.) PETER answers, (Mt. 16: 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The location Jesus chooses is a clear indication of the Mission of His Church, and Peter and the Apostles. “Overcome, do away with pagan worship.” Jesus not only gives His Church this Mission, He gives His Church all of the tools and authority needed to accomplish it!

Why? Why indeed! Jesus knew from the moment of his Conception in the Virgin womb of His Mother, what Gods plan (His Plan) was. He knew that he would suffer and die that He would rise from the Dead, and be our Redeemer. He further knew that (Mt. 22:14 “14 For many are called, but few are chosen." The word “chosen, in this context means “chosen BY US!” In other words, many will deny, and many will die because of unbelief, because of the personal choice we make.

Mk. 10: “35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;”

Jesus clearly knew what lie in store for His Decuples and the persecution His Church, and His Decuples, would have to face. This is precisely why the mandate, why the authority, why the church, why they too would die professing that Christ is Lord! That Jesus remains present “ Really Present,” why Jesus instituted the Seven Sacraments. All this so that His Church would have the power and the authority, the tools and the grace, to become the “Narrow Gate” of Christ plan for our Salvation. (Mt. 7: 13.)

The “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” is a literal statement of FACT!

And friend, it’s not “what we think,” it’s what is The Truth as taught by Jesus Himself. Amen!

I made the point of why Jesus selected *** Caesarea Philippi, *** and it was primarily because it was the “center of pagan worship for the area.” Indeed it was the location of a very large Pagan Temple.

But why did Jesus use the term “the keys?” Was there a specific reason? Would those to whom Jesus was speaking have easily picked up on what Jesus was saying and doing?

Have you by chance ever watched *** EWTN and the morning rosary? *** The reason I ask is that it shows various parts of Jerusalem today.

What first impressed me about today’s Jerusalem is that it remains a ** Walled in city."**

**Back in the time if Jesus all major cites were walled in for protection from attack. These cities actually had two real GATES, with REAL KEYS. ** A minor gate and the Main gate.

Now under independent rule, each major city also had there own king, and thus a “kingdom.” So there were many Kings and many kingdoms. A brief reading of the Old Testament list many Kings (who often merged with other kingdoms for the purpose of self-defense) because they were usually too small to be completely independent against other NATIONS, who too merged all of their kingdoms resources to do battle and gain territory.

So the Apostles and the Jewish people of that time period would have been familiar and comfortable with the idea of a King and his Kingdom.

If we fast-forward to day before we again “back-up” to the time of Jesus’ Proclamation.

Lets look briefly at the President of say Google and the President of the United States. Do these folks unlock their domains in the morning and lock-up at night? Of course not. They have someone they truth do it.

Such was true of Kings and Kingdoms. All day to day governance was given to a person that they selected as “Prime Minister.” An example of this is Genesis 42 and Joseph, the brother sold into slavery, which is made Prime Minister of all of Egypt.

Typically a Prime Minister had complete, autonomous control of ALL day to day activities. The Prime Minister answered to NOONE except the King Himself and nobody but the King.

**This is the common understanding and the very reason for the specific reference to “Keys” and the “Kingdom.” There would have been absolutely zero doubts about what Christ was saying, doing and mandating for Peter, now the “Prime Minister” for Christ! **

This account is historically provable. Indeed Christ intended to start His (ONE) Church, and to give Peter and those “prime-ministers” (POPES) complete and autonomous control and governance of His Church.

Love nad prayers,

Pat**

 

[paul_c]

Thank you, FH. I’ll add that to the list. If you have any other early witnesses to share with Protestant Paul, please let me know.

There is a long list of early witnesses to the Real precense of Christ in the eucharist. In Willliam A Jrugen’s " Faith of our Fathers, there are at least a couple of dozen references from various Early church Fathers. From around 200AD, there are writings from Terutullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, and Origen.

This is the example from St. Clement "the Paidagogos, book 2, chapter 2:
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.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

There are dozens of other references as you move up in time through the 200s to the 300s and beyond.

and there is no lack of early christian writings: earlychristianwritings.com/

Note, Some of these are real, others are apocryphal (forgeries).

 

[clmowry]

Good grief, Charlie Brown! Maybe you are correct and even the shortest sentence in the Bible is not immune to misinterpretation! To whom, then, should i look to interpret the Bible for me? Should seek the counsel of the early Church Fathers?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...wp-content/uploads/2008/11/meet_linus_big.gif

Perhaps you need to follow a different line of questions:

“Do I believe in the doctrine that Christian doctrine must be provable from (unambiguous texts of) scripture?”

“Can I prove this doctrine (unambiguously) from scripture?”

“(Given that I can’t unambiguously prove this doctrine) Where can I find a consistent source of Christian truth that will help me better understand what message scripture was most likely to convey?”

“What does that source teach about scripture?”

“Is there anything taught by that source of Christian truth that is in (unambiguous) conflict with scripture?”

(And you already know where all of this leads. )

Chuck

 

[pneuma07]

I’m assuming you are speaking of priests, bishops and cardinals. What would you say makes a priest much less likely to err than you, and in what is he less prone to error? For example, when it comes to writing simple programing code or designing a Web page with all the bells and whistles, i suppose that many a priest, bishop and cardinal would be more likely to make mistakes than i. The reason is likely that i’ve spent more time than they have teaching myself how to do this. Even though i do not consider myself an expert programmer or Web designer, i’d bet i’m more of an expert than even the current Pontiff! So i’m wondering just in what, say, a priest has more expertise than you and i? Or is it not expertise at all, but a quantity or quality of some supernatural ability to either hear or understand God? Or is it something else?

I am not sure we’re following the most logical path tackling this issue here, but….
Nothing is farther from me than imagining a priest can do your job better than you.

Any common catholic priest has years of formal theological study, which I and most of the posters do not, for one.
This personal history, and their full time commitment in and for the Church, is in itself a hint of a knowledge and orthodoxy far superior to most of the lay believers. We could say in other words he can be imagined better in his job than me.
But there is more than that. The ordination he received made him an official co-worker of the bishop in the task of guarding and spreading the Word of God ( besides the task of sanctification).

OTOH I too am a catholic priest, in a sense….
Here are relevant passages from the CCC:

**Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ **
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
In the person of Christ the Head . . .
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:23
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).24
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 person of Christ.25
1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.26 In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.27
1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister’s sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church

One son is in High School. He is extremely bright, and also a talented musician. But he rubs people the wrong way and has a real problem with trusting those in authority. (Remind you of anyone)?

My younger son is not yet in High School. He is not as bright as his brother, but is extremely talented at reading people, convincing them to do what he wants, and knowing what to do to get on their good side. He’s more like his mother.

My eldest child is 8. You can teach me a lot.

 

[pneuma07]

But is it not true that actions speak louder than words? Or, to be less ambiguous, is it not true that one’s actions prove the sincerity of one’s words? And this is true of groups, as well. Actions show what the members collectively and really believe, i think.

One example is found in the martyring of the saints when the church was in its infancy. Their bodies were burned on stakes, they were fed to wild animals, they were crucified and tortured in various horrific ways. They could have escaped such painful ends by confessing that the Roman Emperor was their god. Yet, they chose death over such an oath, and rather than being terrified of what would become of them after death, they sang hymns of praise to God. The actions of these martyrs proved that they really believed the truth that came out of their mouths.

Compare this to the Council of Trent. Many bishops essentially voted on what true Church doctrine should be. Did these bishops not show, by their actions, that they do not really believe the one bishop sitting in the Chair of Peter is infallible? If they truly believed that the Pontiff was the only one of them who was free from error, they would have asked him to make the decision; don’t you think?

Again a look at the CCC:

*880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406
885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407
886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 *

So you have two organs of the infallibility of the Church: the Pope and the College of bishops in communion with him. Both of them.

The latter is expression of variety and universality, the former of unity. The Church sees the comprehension and the definition of the doctrine in a prevailingly collective dimension. The Pope promotes and seals what is an essentially collegial construction. It is almost unconceivable to expect, in ordinary circumstances, authoritative major papal definitions which do not derive from listening at least a partial opinion poll of the episcopate. The bishops, in Trent or other Councils, as well as throughout the centuries of Christianity, had and have an active role, and can be helped in their turn by prominent theologians.
The Church is, among other essential dimensions, a collective mind, which is 2,000.

That, in itself, and even in mere secular terms, would make me deeply persuaded I cannot know any of the aspects of Christianity better than the Church does. Positing the opposite view would be IMHO preposterous of me.

If you tell me the Church has had many bishops of different stock than the one recommended by St. Paul, I will concur, as the CCC in paragraph 1550 does. Sometimes weak, or pompous, or power-thirsty…

I will also respond that it is not to me judging my brothers, that we see even in recent or our own times examples of heroic bishops which are too often forgotten, that personal behaviours do not make an ordination invalid, and finally that through these allegedly insufficient tools His Church has endured any sort of upheavals, resisting and growing during two millennia.
Which, in itself, we could consider as not the least of the marks of Her divine origin. Couldn’t we ?

 

[pneuma07]

You have to understand that i have two decades under my belt of one teacher after another saying that the Catholic Church no longer has the right to the authority it claims. Protestant Paul tells me that the authorities of the Catholic Church, like the authorities of the Jewish Religion before it, have turned their back on the truth and are teaching lies. I suppose what would help is a way to rebut this roadblock keeping me from getting off the exit ramp and entering the Catholic Highway. How do you think i should respond to Protestant Paul?

breakdownofamerica.com

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 ?

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus
Are you saying that everyone who is unsure the Catholic Church teaches the truth is condemned to hell?

THE REPLY:

“Everyone” no, some, definitely, very many, most likely yes.

I think this rule of thumb applies to all belief systems (including Catholics).

Many will not be particularly pleased with their final disposition of their souls.

Matthew 7:13: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.”

Chuck

---

Freinds allow me please to share why what Chuck say’s is Gospel Truth!

John 17: "[12] While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. [13] But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. [14] 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.
[15] I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
[17] Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. [18] As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. **[19] And for their sake I [JESUS] consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. **

Anyone that disagrees with Christ Catholic Church on any matter of Faith or Morals, simply cannot be doing so in TRUTH. Christ himself assures this.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[joe370]

Hey Soc, how are you doing…

In Corinthians, Matthew, Mark and Luke, did Jesus say: This is like my body, this is actually my body, this is my actual body or - this is my body?

[/INDENT]And when i ask the meaning of this,Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

(John 19:25-27)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“Here is your mother [and the mother of all Catholics].”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,

“Here is your [adopted] mother [who I want you to treat as though she is your own, even though she is not].”

Both are correct! If Mary is Jesus’ Mother and Jesus is our spiritual brother, as per sacred scripture, then doesn’t that make Mary, Johns spiritual Mother? - The spiritual mother to all Christian, not just catholics?​

 

[joe370]

[/INDENT]And when i ask the meaning of this, When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:13-19)

Catholics say He meant this,“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] I will build my church…”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [truth that I am the Son of God] I will build my church…”

---

This really isn’t an issue for most protestant scholars any more. - …you are Peter and on this rock, I will build my church.

Grammatically, Peter (petros which is masculine as opposed to petra, the second rock, which is feminine) - as the rock would logically be the rock itself, Jesus’ Church is built on. Grammatically speaking the second rock would have to refer to Peter, the first rock, since it is the closest noun! The pronoun “this” refers directly to the closest noun, which is Peter. ( rock)

There was no distinction between petra and petros in koine Greek. If anyone can prove that petra and petros meant 2 different things in koine Greek, I will gladly concede! Just as there are current languages that have gender differences such as Spanish, Koine Greek too, had gender differences.

Furthermore the bible clearly states that Jesus and Paul refered to Simon as Cephas (Aramaic) - which means massive rock. If Jesus wanted to denigrate Simon by renaming him little pebble, He would have renamed him kevna, which gives way to the Greek word lithos, but He didn’t; He called Simon Cephas which is the transliteration of the word kepha:

“Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).” John 1:42

“For I delivered to you first of all, what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures and that He appeared to Cephas, and after that to the twelve.” 1 Cor. 15

“Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister, as do the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” 1 Cor. 9

“Let no one take pride in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death; or things present, or things to come - all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” 1 Cor. 3

“For I have been informed about you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now this is what I mean: each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided up?” 1Cor. 1

Then, three years later I went to Jerusalem to become personally acquainted with Cephas. I stayed with him for fifteen days. Galations 1:18

“…and when they recognized the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John who were considered the pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised) provided only that we should be mindful of the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was deserving of blame. For before certain persons came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles… I said to Cephas before them all: ‘If thou, though a Jew, livest like the Gentiles, and not like the Jews, how is it that thou dost compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews?’” Galatians 2

My actual purpose is to find out whether Christ was ***deliberately ***ambiguous, and if He was, then what purpose would be served by making the New Testament ambiguous by design. Such ambiguity seems counter productive to His purpose, for He prayed:“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.”

(John 17:11)

Ambiguity is counter productive to Christ’s purpose, and it is due to individual/private interpretation. Perhaps that’s why Peter said:

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy (teaching) - of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

The holy spirit was sent to Jesus’ established church on Pentecost who were/are in turn carried along by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity:

*"When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit *and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 2

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth.”

Peace brother…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

Love nad prayers,
Pat

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There is a long list of early witnesses to the Real precense of Christ in the eucharist. In Willliam A Jrugen’s " Faith of our Fathers, there are at least a couple of dozen references from various Early church Fathers. From around 200AD, there are writings from Terutullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, and Origen.

This is the example from St. Clement "the Paidagogos, book 2, chapter 2:
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.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

There are dozens of other references as you move up in time through the 200s to the 300s and beyond.

and there is no lack of early christian writings: earlychristianwritings.com/

Note, Some of these are real, others are apocryphal (forgeries).

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?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Perhaps you need to follow a different line of questions:

“Do I believe in the doctrine that Christian doctrine must be provable from (unambiguous texts of) scripture?”

“Can I prove this doctrine (unambiguously) from scripture?”

“(Given that I can’t unambiguously prove this doctrine) Where can I find a consistent source of Christian truth that will help me better understand what message scripture was most likely to convey?”

“What does that source teach about scripture?”

“Is there anything taught by that source of Christian truth that is in (unambiguous) conflict with scripture?”

(And you already know where all of this leads. )

Chuck

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.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… My eldest child is 8. You can teach me a lot.

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.’”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am not sure we’re following the most logical path tackling this issue here, but….

Perhaps you are right; that remains to be seen.

Nothing is farther from me than imagining a priest can do your job better than you.

Any common catholic priest has years of formal theological study, which I and most of the posters do not, for one.
This personal history, and their full time commitment in and for the Church, is in itself a hint of a knowledge and orthodoxy far superior to most of the lay believers. We could say in other words he can be imagined better in his job than me.
But there is more than that. The ordination he received made him an official co-worker of the bishop in the task of guarding and spreading the Word of God ( besides the task of sanctification).

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.

OTOH I too am a catholic priest, in a sense….
Here are relevant passages from the CCC:

**Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ **
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
In the person of Christ the Head . . .
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:23
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).24
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 person of Christ.25
1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.26 In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.27
1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister’s sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church
…

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