Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[stewstew03]

Any church that listens or has eyes on the Lord has possibility of infallibility.

Great - it sounds to me that you recognize the charism of infallibility within the Catholic Church.

Do i think lds is listening, no.

Perhaps they think you’re not listening to the Lord. Now what?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,
Although I am not Catholic, that analogy makes a lot of sense to me and helps me to better understand why not every Catholic is allowed to take holy communion. I used to think that the Catholic Church was probably just being punitive and that the denial was just a form of penance or something. To view it in the context of marriage makes it a lot more clear and understandable to me.

Here’s a little bit more as far as analogies go, and the CC’s teaching on the Eucharist.

I often hear, “I am not Catholic, but I do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Why am I not allowed to receive Him, if I really do believe it’s Him?”

The answer is made clearer through an analogy: imagine an engaged couple. They truly love each other, but have not made their commitment sacred through getting married. The Church’s teaching on this is: even if you truly love each other, you ought not engage in the one flesh union until you have “signed on the dotted line”* so to speak. “Make it official”, and then you can enjoy the marital embrace. Even if you truly love each other today.

Similarly, with Christians who truly believe in the Real Presence, “make it official” and enter the CC, and then you can enjoy the One Flesh Union.

The CC is nothing if not consistent.

*EDIT: Please do not misinterpret my reference to marriage as “signing on the dotted line” as if I am reducing the Holy Sacrament of marriage into merely a legalistic signing of a piece of paper. For the purposes of this discussion, the above reduction was necessary. For a discussion on the sublime and profound beauty of the sacrament of marriage, we can start another thread.

 

[PRmerger]

Amen to the above!

I would add an analogy (which is the Church’s analogy, made more manifest by the great Pope St. John Paul II in his TOB; and his TOB comes from the analogy of Scripture)…

And, I should have added: the analogy of Scripture comes from Tradition, from the kerygma which was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

 

[guanophore]

True. But let’s affirm that there was only one interpretation for over 1,500 years, that Christ was truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

Let’s be honest. There were those who understood it “symbolically”, according to many modern Protestant beliefs, but the Church was quick to call them heretics because they denied the Real Presence.

Sy, all of us must conform our lives to the Gospel (and not the other way around). When we fall into serious sin, we are to not receive him in the Eucharist. But God loves us all and calls all to holiness and into a relationship with him. But being a good Father, he does set out some rules that we are to follow. It’s our choice whether we follow as he directs us or not.

PnP

It sounds to me like Sy is blaming the Church because She protects what was given to Her by Christ, rather than taking up the complaitnt with the Giver of the Commandments.

 

[Sy_Noe]

1 Cor 11:27-29

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

It is the duty of the Church to protect the flock from this judgment.

Apparently it has done quite a lot to you.

This is exactly my point. Paul says eating the bread or drinking the cup without discerning the body is receiving in an unworthy manner. And Jesus in Jn 6:37 says He will turn no one away who is called by the Father to come. So as I said before I could discern the body and discern Christ gave up His for me and for you and for all of us. I could feel called by the Father to receive. So I would have discerned the body and Christ giving His up for us. I would have felt the call from the Father. Jesus says come. But the CC says no don’t come. I hope you can at least see how it appears the CC is adding to Paul and Jesus even if you don’t agree.

 

[guanophore]

This is exactly my point. Paul says eating the bread or drinking the cup without discerning the body is receiving in an unworthy manner. And Jesus in Jn 6:37 says He will turn no one away who is called by the Father to come. So as I said before I could discern the body and discern Christ gave up His for me and for you and for all of us. I could feel called by the Father to receive. So I would have discerned the body and Christ giving His up for us. I would have felt the call from the Father. Jesus says come. But the CC says no don’t come. I hope you can at least see how it appears the CC is adding to Paul and Jesus even if you don’t agree.

I understand your point, but the CC does not build doctrine off of one verse. There are many influences that go into our understanding of discerning the Body and Blood, and what it means to be worthy, or as we say, in a state of grace.

Not being in a state of grace, for whatever reason, does not absolve us of our obligation to participate in the Mass, nor does it prevent us from making a spiritual communion.

It sounds like you have stopped attending because you are hurt/angry/rejected and feeling disenfranchised, but since that is personal, and off the thread topic, I will not inquire any further.

One of the main issues that arose after the Reformation is that Protestants broke communion with the successor of Peter, and could therefore no longer be offered communion. This is not a matter of the Church looking down on people, or rejecting them, but recognizing that by refusing to accept the Teaching of the Apostles they had separated themselves from unity.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I understand your point, but the CC does not build doctrine off of one verse. There are many influences that go into our understanding of discerning the Body and Blood, and what it means to be worthy, or as we say, in a state of grace.

Not being in a state of grace, for whatever reason, does not absolve us of our obligation to participate in the Mass, nor does it prevent us from making a spiritual communion.

It sounds like you have stopped attending because you are hurt/angry/rejected and feeling disenfranchised, but since that is personal, and off the thread topic, I will not inquire any further.

One of the main issues that arose after the Reformation is that Protestants broke communion with the successor of Peter, and could therefore no longer be offered communion. This is not a matter of the Church looking down on people, or rejecting them, but recognizing that by refusing to accept the Teaching of the Apostles they had separated themselves from unity.

Thanks for understanding my point and I likewise understand how the Catholic Church builds doctrine and your understanding.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It is true that we put faith where we find truth. Part of the fruit of the reformation are all the souls who find truth in your called partial truth after being in a full truth church. Almost half my church are x catholic. Great seed is planted in CC but great fruit of that seed is also found in "other ’ churches, since this Reformation.

Just came from the Defending the Faith conference at Franciscan University. Well over half of the speakers were former protestants. These are the best of the best. Of those most knowledgeable, it seems (if your *argumentum ad populum *is to be accepted) that protestant converts to Catholicism bear the most fruit.

 

[Porknpie]

Let’s be honest. There were those who understood it “symbolically”, according to many modern Protestant beliefs, but the Church was quick to call them heretics because they denied the Real Presence.

I was just trying to avoid the words ("Heretics aside, … " ).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hi Guanophore–Thanks for the replies from you (and thanks, PRmerger) to my posts last night. I am, as usual, not caught up with this thread, but this brings a question to mind for me: How do you think Paul knew what was Hebrew scripture in his time?

Paul pretty much says it:

2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

In other words, it was on the authority of those known to be in full communion with the Church, at first the Jewish Church community and subsequently the Apostolic community.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

James, you made enough sense for me from your Catholic perspective indeed. I would only add one can only discern and believe they know which things are right including the Canon by the faith one has within them. Catholics too must begin with faith.

Yes, but faith in what, or whom?

We have faith in Christ, as relayed to us by the Apostles. THAT is the Catholic starting point.

And even that is sometimes derived, at first (“primed” if you will) by a faith in natural reason which leads us to discern the veracity of the “biographies” of Jesus, and the Apostolic Tradition which tells us that Jesus endowed the Church with His authority and divine protection.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Any church that listens or has eyes on the Lord has possibility of infallibility. Do i think lds is listening, no.

It’s not a “possibility” that is needed.
Christ’s guarantee is what is needed in order for us not to fall for error.

 

[Tomyris]

Lol, this is the biggest fear isn’t? Someone telling you what is [actually] correct and you losing the freedom of having the opinion of being right…

Using this same scenario.

If you are Protestant and there’s four lights but you see three and [a] Protestant Church tells you that there are four lights, not three. You just leave and make a three lights denomination. At which point, one of the members of your new denomination will say he sees five lights and then leave and make another denomination. At which point the five denomination Church will have a member seeing the actual four lights but he doesn’t want to go back to the original four lights Church, so he will then find a country where he can convince their leaders that we can have a four lights Church apart from the original four lights Church. At which point a member of the national four lights Church will become disgruntled and believe that there’s four lights, only if you accept the definition of what lights are, in which case he will declare that of the four lights only 2 lights are needed and the other 2 lights are really symbolical, so he will leave and make a new 2 lights Church. At which point…

Let’s see. You are attempting to change the subject without addressing the point at all by means of an attack on Protestants, and attempting to reduce the point I made to an absurdity.

How telling. Guano addressed this much better. I suggest you read his post.

 

[Tomyris]

It’s not a “possibility” that is needed.
Christ’s guarantee is what is needed in order for us not to fall for error.

This kind of thing makes me wonder if you have it exactly backwards.

Christ is rescuing us out of and from error. Not keeping us from falling. If you maintain you are sinless and without error, you crash and burn on 1 John 1:8. We are not sinless. We are not unfallen. Any righteousness we have is a gift of God, not something we have that keeps us from falling into error.

“We rejoice in the grace of God, poured upon our lives
Lovingkindness has come to us, because of Jesus Christ”

 

[Tomyris]

Yes, but faith in what, or whom?

We have faith in Christ, as relayed to us by the Apostles. THAT is the Catholic starting point.

And even that is sometimes derived, at first (“primed” if you will) by a faith in natural reason which leads us to discern the veracity of the “biographies” of Jesus, and the Apostolic Tradition which tells us that Jesus endowed the Church with His authority and divine protection.

Then you don’t know Him, except through a long historical trail?

He is not allowed to introduce Himself to you now? That is against Church policy?

Fooey. We have faith in Christ as the gift of God, not as the gift of the apostles.

And natural reason is touched by the fall like everything else.

 

[Tomyris]

That might a trifle overstating it, considering the Radbertus and Ratramanus discussions, or Berengarius.

GKC

Quite true, that there were controversies and discussions of length and much in the ECFs, even in Augustine, is debatable on this point as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Let’s see. You are attempting to change the subject without addressing the point at all by means of an attack on Protestants, and attempting to reduce the point I made to an absurdity.

How telling. Guano addressed this much better. I suggest you read his post.

Absurdity? Hardly. A very sad reality with a dash of humor. I see I unexpectedly struck a nerve. My apologies, that was not my intention.

Telling? Hardly as well. My posts are well referenced and I have an uncanny sense of humor. I don’t take myself too seriously.

And yes, Guano is excellent! I can only aspire to be as good and charitable as him. But I am yet to be perfected in the gift of patience.

Ta ta!

 

[SteveVH]

Then you don’t know Him, except through a long historical trail?

He is not allowed to introduce Himself to you now? That is against Church policy?

If I may, this isn’t a matter of either knowing him through the faith handed down to us by the Apostles through a long historical trail or having a personal relationship with him each day of our lives. We must have both.

Fooey. We have faith in Christ as the gift of God, not as the gift of the apostles.

Tomi, you did not wake up one morning with the gift of faith. You received your faith from someone else; parents, grandparents, a friend, a pastor… Yes, faith is a gift from God but the fact is that you must have something to have faith in and that something was handed down to you, i.e. it was not given to you directly out of heaven.

As a Catholic I received the faith given by Jesus himself to the Apostles and handed down from generation to generation. My acceptance of it is truly a gift of God.

And natural reason is touched by the fall like everything else.

Yes, that is very Catholic and exactly why we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. If only men were involved the Church wouldn’t have lasted a century before falling apart.

 

[stewstew03]

Then you don’t know Him, except through a long historical trail?

He is not allowed to introduce Himself to you now? That is against Church policy?

Fooey. We have faith in Christ as the gift of God, not as the gift of the apostles.

And natural reason is touched by the fall like everything else.

Just up be clear – you’re saying you know Christ in the same way the Apostles knew Christ?

 

[Tomyris]

Absurdity? Hardly. A very sad reality with a dash of humor. I see I unexpectedly struck a nerve. My apologies, that was not my intention.

Telling? Hardly as well. My posts are well referenced and I have an uncanny sense of humor. I don’t take myself too seriously.

And yes, Guano is excellent! I can only aspire to be as good and charitable as him. But I am yet to be perfected in the gift of patience.

Ta ta!

Humor is always difficult in this Forum. I just looked at what you posted and thought what I thought and then said it. I was expecting much better from you, as you have posted well at times.

How we discern truth is at the heart of this thread. If you struck a nerve, there it is, because everyone wants to talk about what is non-essential instead of what is essential.

Allow me to put on my Catholic Apologist hat and tell you what you should be attempting.

1. All truth is Catholic truth. We only know truth because only the Catholic truth really has a handle on truth. If you want to know truth, you must learn to know it through the Church, because that is an essential of the Church’s business. As the Bride of Christ the Church is married to truth and knows it intimately.
2. Once you accept #1, the idea of the authority of the CC comes naturally and docilely…
3. Once you accept #2, all the teachings of the Church are naturally and docilely accepted.

People are attempting this backwards, thinking that if someone accepts #3 point by point they will accept @2, and #1 they can fuggitaboutit.

#1 is where the battle ought to be fought.