Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[JRKH]

The “two or more” comment was not directed at “all the disciples of Christ.”

It was directed at the Apostles themselves.

I disagree - the “Two or more” comment was indeed directed at all the disciples. It was not restricted simply to the Apostles and/or Church leadership.

The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius to convince Peter that the Gentiles are to be saved, not as some “proof” that the Spirit acts in anyone apart from those ministers who act in Christ’s name.

Again - this is being too restrictive. Can we as Catholics deny that the Holy Spirit was active in certain individuals such as Francis of Assisi or Catherine of Sienna? These were not “ministers”…though they certainly did minister to God’s Church in their time.

The “we” are those in the Church. Not anyone who says “Lord, Lord” but refuses to enter the kingdom.

Agreed - it is not simply anyone who cries “Lord Lord”.
Nor is “two or more” any guarantee. The “two or more” comment needs to be understood within the context of the passage.
When it comes to the action of the Spirit, and the discerning of truth and doctrine etc…what is the difference between “two or more” and “tell it to the church” which is just a verse or two above it?

 

[Porknpie]

Thou sewest up that which was wrent at our Lord’s shedding blood. The veil was wrent in two, the middle wall of partition is come down and we can all boldly go before the throne, the holy of holies.

Benhur,

You are correct on this point with a caveat or two.

The veil being torn signifies beginning of the New Testament whereby God is no longer encountered by just the High Priest in the Holy of Holies; Rather, in the NT, all his people can now encounter him, personally (just as you say), through the receiving of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. We receive his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity as a means of giving us the grace needed to persevere in the gift of salvation.

You are exactly correct, we all can now go “before the throne” … at Mass.

As it has been affirmed and practiced by The Church for 2,000 years. Quotes from St Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of St. John) and Justin Martyr below.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“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 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.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

We’ve received the Eucharist for 2,000 years as Christ himself directed His Church to do so in John 6. God is no longer hidden from his people behind the veil.

More here from the 3 Minute Amateur Apologist.

PnP

 

[Amandil]

I disagree - the “Two or more” comment was indeed directed at all the disciples. It was not restricted simply to the Apostles and/or Church leadership.

Again - this is being too restrictive. Can we as Catholics deny that the Holy Spirit was active in certain individuals such as Francis of Assisi or Catherine of Sienna? These were not “ministers”…though they certainly did minister to God’s Church in their time.

I disagree. There is a huge difference between those entrusted to administering the Covenant and those receiving the Covenant.

Just as there is a huge difference between those entrusted with authority and those under that authority.

The guarantee of “two or more” that the laity receive is dependent upon their adherence to the Church.

And of course the Holy Spirit was active in bother Sts. Catherine and Francis, and this is because they were already a son and daughter of the Church.

Again, look at the context of the story involving Cornelius. The whole question surrounding the event was “are the Gentiles to be included into the kingdom?”

The Apostles, even Peter, was in doubt. So the Spirit acted to show them that the answer was “yes”.

That is the point of the passage, not that anyone, without distinction, receives the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Aww come on, stay with the humor.

Oh, I always stay with humor.

I just have not seen any in this particular tributary of the discussion.

I come up with or agree to faults on both sides and you** humorously **bring up that I agree to specific fault of P’s making it seem worth while to those who keep bringing it up, while neglecting your faults are in the same glass window.

I humorously did?

I don’t think so.

Sorry. I have no idea what you’re referring to.

All I am saying is that you certainly can bring up the faults of men in the Church. And that the Church has never proclaimed she is perfect. And that I have pointed this out on numerous occasions.

 

[JRKH]

I disagree. There is a huge difference between those entrusted to administering the Covenant and those receiving the Covenant.

Just as there is a huge difference between those entrusted with authority and those under that authority.

The guarantee of “two or more” that the laity receive is dependent upon their adherence to the Church.

Yes - Here you bring the very point that I referenced in saying that we need to look at this promise in the context of the whole passage…after all, it “two or more” (vs 20) are guaranteed proper guidance, then vs 17 becomes superfluous. Vs 16 = “two or more” and does that = church???
That is the problem for the protestant view of vs 20…

And of course the Holy Spirit was active in bother Sts. Catherine and Francis, and this is because they were already a son and daughter of the Church.

Fair enough…BUT

Again, look at the context of the story involving Cornelius. The whole question surrounding the event was “are the Gentiles to be included into the kingdom?”

The Apostles, even Peter, was in doubt. So the Spirit acted to show them that the answer was “yes”.

That is the point of the passage, not that anyone, without distinction, receives the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from the Church.

Was Cornelius already a member of the Church when the Spirit cam on him? One can make that argument that it is BECAUSE of the spirit that one becomes Christian…Hair splitting perhaps but …

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I especially think the part I bolded is so true.

Actually, I’m more shocked by the part about Korah’s rebellion.
Korah was an Israelite who thought that, since God spoke through all people, Moses shouldn’t have what he deemed a “monopoly” on speaking for God. Kind of the way some protestants today claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to all people, so their personal, private (and fallible) interpretation of scripture is just as valid as the Magisterium of the Church that Jesus founded.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So what exactly of the gospel needed approving ? That Jesus is Messiah ? That he died for our sins and rose again on the third day ? That he is coming again ? Many on CA will say there is a littany of things to do and be for salvation , for the full gospel . Why can’t you concede that no circumcision was the part of the gospel that needed affirmation ?

Because the text doesn’t say that, and we don’t practice eisegesis.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I’m more shocked by the part about Korah’s rebellion.
Korah was an Israelite who thought that, since God spoke through all people, Moses shouldn’t have what he deemed a “monopoly” on speaking for God. Kind of the way some protestants today claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to all people, so their personal, private (and fallible) interpretation of scripture is just as valid as the Magisterium of the Church that Jesus founded.

Oh, yessss! Excellent point!

But it’s quite clear that God doesn’t sanction this type of rebellion, for we know what happened to Korah. :sad_yes:

 

[JRKH]

So what exactly of the gospel needed approving ? That Jesus is Messiah ? That he died for our sins and rose again on the third day ? That he is coming again ? Many on CA will say there is a littany of things to do and be for salvation , for the full gospel . **Why can’t you concede that no circumcision was the part of the gospel that needed affirmation **?

Because the text doesn’t say that, and we don’t practice eisegesis.

Amen FKB…
As I pointed out in an earlier post…Paul is very clear in Galatians that he met privately whereas the matter of circumcision was handled more publically in council.

Note too in Galatians 2 What Paul says he was told by Peter and James…
'All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
Not a single mention of circumcision. Odd - if circumcision was the subject of his visit…

As for what needed approving…It could simply be the whole of Paul’s preaching as he was presenting it. We need not try to look for something specific.
Here is what Paul relates:
“I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.”
Paul is not specific in his account - so, Ben, why are you trying to be so specific?

Peace
James

 

[Amandil]

Was Cornelius already a member of the Church when the Spirit cam on him? One can make that argument that it is BECAUSE of the spirit that one becomes Christian…Hair splitting perhaps but …

Cornelius was a member of the Church because he was predestined by grace, as are all who are in the Church.

This is not the same as those who try to enter into the fold by jumping over the fence.

 

[guanophore]

Christ sent ONLY his apostles out

with the good news, no moneybags, no extra clothing,
no extra provisions etc.
What does this mean to you? Why those apostles?

Actually, he also sent the 70 disciples, and at the great commission, a large crowd.

Why not everybody? If He intended for the laity to
preach with equal authority why then at the Sermon
on the Zmount with five thousand people there
didn’t He say " now y’all get out there and spread the
Word" ?

Evangelizing is not necessarily the same as “preach with authority”. We are all called to evangelize, but we are not all called to preach.

Eph 4:10-13
who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

It is the duty of the ordained to equip the saints, whose responsibility it is to do the work of the ministry.

 

[Tomyris]

Actually, he also sent the 70 disciples, and at the great commission, a large crowd.

Evangelizing is not necessarily the same as “preach with authority”. We are all called to evangelize, but we are not all called to preach.

Eph 4:10-13
who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

It is the duty of the ordained to equip the saints, whose responsibility it is to do the work of the ministry.

Very good post!

 

[Tomyris]

I’m trying to figure out which thread within a thread to respond to. I don’t post for a day and look what happens. Here goes.

1. GKC, if you have internet access I think there is no way to count them. On the other hand, I have decided to be skeptical and demand that you immediately post photocopies of each and every page in this thread. Each copy needs to be notarized to the effect that it is indeed your book, and each page needs this witnessed by two people, in blood. Using the any person as a witness twice is cheating.
2. PR, I have confused you. Thank you for your answer. I think that was a # 2.
3. Someone else (can’t find the post!) asked me how we got the Bible anyway. That bum Grudem isn’t telling and SOMEBODY needs to spill the beans. I have no problem saying that God used men to write the various letters and Gospels via inspiration, and used the Church to protect and transmit it. I have no problem saying (hubby says that’s the crux of the matter: that I have no problem saying - harassment, see what I live with) that the Church is our Mother, here to guide and protect and raise us up and all that stuff. NO PROBLEM AT ALL!!! But in the end, when all the facts are presented, and they should be, when all the evidence is in, our faith is in God, or should be. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him blow bubbles. Or something like that. Faith is God’s gift.
4. My kids do what they learned by example from us (poor things!) than what we said. I think of some heroic and terrific leadership and examples in Catholic leadership, such as the priest now in Gaza who could leave and chooses to stay (pray!) and the priest who willingly died in the place of a Jew in Poland, I think, and is now a saint, I think. That also is a part of the teaching.

All of us look back to the original deposit of faith. The desire of the Reformed is to reclaim that, to cut away what was not there. Much of what the original reformers objected to was what I would call popular belief, such as that of a flight of stairs somewhere that if you climbed them and said an Our Father on each one, on your knees, your sins would be forgiven. As a group the Reformed look with much suspicion at anything in the Catholic Church that remotely smacks of superstition. I note the heroes and the scoundrels. Both teach. We teach with our lives more than with our words, and it bothered many when the clergy would preach that the common folk needed to be holy while they did the opposite.

Keeping up with this thread could be a full-time job.

 

[benhur]

Because the text doesn’t say that, and we don’t practice eisegesis.

Right, text says “gospel”, as per ministry of Paul. You can not exclude that Paul did not baptize gentiles as part of his gospel. You can not exclude that he had problems with Jews because of this, per other texts. Again gospel covers a bit of details therefore you can no deny nor can i prove the circumcision problem in this text , that is why it is called an interpretation, given all other writ.

 

[GKC]

LOL I can’t argue with that! Wonder if he is going electronic? Do you sppose he may have some of the classical texts in ebook form? I noticed that was not in your list of options.

No. Electronic is outrage. Paper is only true book.

GKC

 

[JRKH]

I’m trying to figure out which thread within a thread to respond to…

SNIP.

Keeping up with this thread could be a full-time job.

And to think - you just asked one simple question…

Peace
James

 

[benhur]

Amen FKB…
As I pointed out in an earlier post…Paul is very clear in Galatians that he met privately whereas the matter of circumcision was handled more publically in council.

Note too in Galatians 2 What Paul says he was told by Peter and James…
'All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
Not a single mention of circumcision. Odd - if circumcision was the subject of his visit…

As for what needed approving…It could simply be the whole of Paul’s preaching as he was presenting it. We need not try to look for something specific.
Here is what Paul relates:
“I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.”
Paul is not specific in his account - so, Ben, why are you trying to be so specific?

Peace
James

Let’s see Paul was taught by Christ himself, laid hands on , did everything proper, had signs and wonders etc . What possibly could make him, and more importantly, others, think he was running in vain ?

 

[GKC]

1. GKC, if you have internet access I think there is no way to count them. On the other hand, I have decided to be skeptical and demand that you immediately post photocopies of each and every page in this thread. Each copy needs to be notarized to the effect that it is indeed your book, and each page needs this witnessed by two people, in blood. Using the any person as a witness twice is cheating.

I don’t understand the first sentence. OTOH, at one time I had the beginnings of an electronic data base to sort and locate the books not on shelves. Back in the DOS days. Had 7 sortable fields to locate author, title, general subject, more specific subject, location, comment and something else I forget. Had entered maybe 4-5 thousand books, which, at the time, was possibly 25% of the total. A guess.

I will get on that as quickly as may be. You wait here, don’t go to sleep until I finish.

Ordered a book today, on a topic touched on in this thread.

GKC

 

[marywarfield]

Actually, he also sent the 70 disciples, and at the great commission, a large crowd.

Evangelizing is not necessarily the same as “preach with authority”. We are all called to evangelize, but we are not all called to preach.

Eph 4:10-13
who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

It is the duty of the ordained to equip the saints, whose responsibility it is to do the work of the ministry.

So you believe then the original idea I was responding
to that Christ meant to give apostolic authority to all?
I wasn’t asking for a definition of evangelism.
I was responding to the assertion that Christ “sent” all
the laity in the same way as the Apostles.
Which Catholics are bound NOT to believe
but instead to believe authority for some work was
given to the Apostle’s and NOT the laity.

So is there any possibility you could back up and
address that instead of trying to poorly explain the Church to
other Catholics ad nauseum? It’s getting old.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So you believe then the original idea I was responding
to that Christ meant to give apostolic authority to all?
I wasn’t asking for a definition of evangelism.
I was responding to the assertion that Christ “sent” all
the laity in the same way as the Apostles.
Which Catholics are bound NOT to believe
but instead to believe authority for some work was
given to the Apostle’s and NOT the laity.

So is there any possibility you could back up and
address that instead of trying to poorly explain the Church to
other Catholics ad nauseum? It’s getting old.

Because you said that Christ sent only His Apostles without money or bags, when He actually sent more (70) than the 12 in this event (Luke 10).

And I doubt guano “poorly” explains the Catholic Faith to others. He is steadfast in the faith.