Why not?

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

oneGODoneCHURCH;7936309:

W

ell, we do agree that Christ is our Lord and our Savior and our God.

With that agreement, what else is more important?

I am not Orthodox, by the way

.

 

[JonNC]

=Tiberius1701;7936418]JonNC and Stepson, something DrPiano said reminded me of something I meant to ask a few days ago. Jon explained that Lutheran practice is to consume everything that is consecrated (except that which is reserved for shut-ins, of course) because the early Lutherans were uncomfortable with the Catholic practice of Eucharistic Adoration and Eucharistic processions. While I understand that this is because Jesus does not command us to do anything with His Body and Blood in the Sacrament but to consume it, I must ask, why the distinction between how we treat Him in the Sacrament and how we treat Him elsewhere? If you truly believe that the Lord’s Supper is Christ, however you want to understand that, why not worship and adore Him there?

Great question. First, Lutherans do practice adoration during the sacramental act. We are in His real presence, and ought to act accordingly. I might also mention that Luther, for example, was not opposed to Eucharistic Adoration (though he opposed processions).
I’m of the opinion that, first some Lutheran reformers were not comfortable with it, and it just kind of drifted away from Lutheran practice.

If He who is God Almighty, True God from True God, Alpha and Omega, Only Begotten Son of the Father, is Himself truly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, why object to worshipping Him there? There is plenty mention in the NT of people worshipping Christ bodily, so if it is really Him, why object to worshipping Him? As DrPiano said elsewhere, Luther tended to say that, if it a practice is not forbidden in the Bible, then it’s permissible, didn’t he? Surely adoring God the Son is nowhere forbidden by Scripture…

No doubt, and a good point. Perhaps we might find common ground with the understanding that some Catholics do not frequent Eucharistic Adoration chapels, or perpetual adoration, and Lutherans ought to feel free to do so, if they choose.

As usual, I’m just trying to understand this from your perspective.

Hope I helped.

Jon

 

[Tiberius1701]

Great question. First, Lutherans do practice adoration during the sacramental act. We are in His real presence, and ought to act accordingly. I might also mention that Luther, for example, was not opposed to Eucharistic Adoration (though he opposed processions).
I’m of the opinion that, first some Lutheran reformers were not comfortable with it, and it just kind of drifted away from Lutheran practice.

No doubt, and a good point. Perhaps we might find common ground with the understanding that some Catholics do not frequent Eucharistic Adoration chapels, or perpetual adoration, and Lutherans ought to feel free to do so, if they choose.

Hope I helped.

Jon

You did. I’d be very happy to call that some very solid common ground, and I hope Lutherans do feel welcome at Eucharistic Adoration chapels. I don’t know where you live, but I’d be very happy to see you at the one attached to my church.

Sincerely,
Jack

 

[Curious_Seed]

oneGODoneCHURCH;7936309:

The Eastern view doesn’t really contradict the Western view, they just take different approaches. I tend to like the metaphysical explanation (just because it actually makes sense to me - once I heard it explained well) but some people just don’t like thinking that way. And it seems to me that the Catholic Church doesn’t really reject this hands-off approach the way it rejects a different “metaphysical” explanation of what happens that lessens the reality of what really happens. At least that’s how I understand it. What really

matters is that it’s really the Body and Blood of Christ - as both the Bible and the ECFs affirm. And that, as such, Jesus, under the guise of bread and wine, deserves our reverence, respect, adoration, love, and thanksgiving for his amazing gift of self in the Sacrament.

Curious Seed - I challenge you to really dive into the greek behind “remembrance” in the institution narratives - and the Jewish understanding of the Passover. A thorough study of “anamnesis” might just open your eyes, at least to the meaning of that word It certainly opened mine! (And that was 4 years before I started down the final road to the church! And 2 years before I accepted Transubstantiation). (If you’re interested, I’m willing to share some of the things I’ve learned).



Yes, of course, I am willing: willing and appreciative.

 

[DrPiano]

DrPiano;7936337:

Y

es, of course, I am willing: willing and appreciative.



I’m kind of busy tonight, but I’ll try to remember to get back to this later this week and share what I remember learning (from my professor at a Calvinist College, no less )

 

[Curious_Seed]

Curious Seed;7955553:

I’m kind of busy tonight, but I’ll try to remember to get back to this later this week and share what I remember learning (from my professor at a Calvinist College, no less )

Thank you, but, please, there is no urgency in this.

Take whatever time you wish or if unable, for whatever reason, do not feel obliged.

It’s not as if my salvation is at risk.

 

[CopticChristian]

DrPiano;7955830:

T

hank you, but, please, there is no urgency in this.

Take whatever time you wish or if unable, for whatever reason, do not feel obliged.

It’s not as if my salvation is at risk.



If you have a Bible, open it and read a few passages like the one below and confirm you belief that your salvation is not at risk.

“I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Cor 9:27).

“So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall” (1 Cor 10:12).

“work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal (1 Jn 5:16-17).

“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21).

 

[CopticChristian]

Matthew 26:26 is too ambiguous to be definitive about Christ’s intention, at the Last Supper, with respect to transubstantiation of the bread.

Simply not clear enough, so must fall to probably not.

The infallibility of the Magisterium needs God’s authority to be so and has it not.

Not sure I understand the intent of the last question about the Apostles, disciples, and commission.

Matthew 16 is ambiguous to you 2000 year later. It was not ambiguous to Iraneus when he wrote “Against Heresy”. I think I am going to go with him since he was like 100 years a way from the Apostles.

1. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.

 

[Izdaari]

I think it’s important to look at why the Church says ABC is grave matter. It’s because of the simple, ancient moral precept: it is never licit to do evil that good may come of it. God would not be condemning them to Hell for trying to keep the woman alive. He would be accepting their choice to trust a tube of rubber rather than trusting Him to keep that woman alive. Don’t you think that God cares for the health and safety of each and every woman 15 trillion times more than does an inanimate piece of plastic, or a hormonal pill, or… whatever? There’s a very simple way for them to avoid placing the woman in danger: they can abstain. Yes, it’s a difficult cross to bear, but Jesus never said the Christian life wouldn’t be difficult. With the grace of God, even this can be born righteously. God is not condemning anyone for wanting a good end - to keep a child of God alive - but for choosing an evil means to get there. Again, it is never licit to do evil that good may come of it. This the exact same reason that we’re told that it is wrong to kill an unborn child so that we might have a stress-free future. The lessening of stress is a good end… but murder is not a good or moral way to get there. Same logic, different application. Does that make sense?

This is one thing I cannot accept. I understand the reasoning, but am not convinced by it. And not just this, much of the Catholic teaching under the heading of “theology of the body” seems unsound to me, and not even morally right.

I don’t accept the infallibility of the pope or magisterium.

I don’t accept papal primacy if it amounts to much more than “first among equals”. That is, I am willing to give the pope the same role the Orthodox Church is comfortable with, but no more.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the one true church. Part of the one true church, yes, but only part.

Too much legalism, too much guilt.

All that said, I am very grateful to the Catholic Church for developing so much theology (and especially for being intellectual and scholarly about it), so much of the foundations of modern political philosophy and economics (yay, Aquinas and the Scholastics!), for the contemplative and mystical Christian paths, for the Canon, for keeping Christianity and even Western Civilization alive during the Dark Ages, and for so much more. And I do truly consider Catholics my brothers and sisters in Christ, though all too often I find them insular and with an “I’m more Christian than you! ” attitude, which is very off-putting. (Yeah, my fellow Protestants sometimes have that attitude too, and it annoys me just as much from them.)

 

[CopticChristian]

DrPiano;7936337:

Y

es, of course, I am willing: willing and appreciative.



I have been reading all of your posts and all I saw for the most part was an attempt to use logic to explain a difference of opinion as it regards Catholic teaching. No Catholic I know of was swayed by it.

This is the first post you have made that I see you have communicated a desire to know something as opposed to tell someone something.

I believe that on a Catholic Answer website you would do well to continue to ask for clarification.

 

[Tiberius1701]

This is one thing I cannot accept. I understand the reasoning, but am not convinced by it. And not just this, much of the Catholic teaching under the heading of “theology of the body” seems unsound to me, and not even morally right.

I don’t accept the infallibility of the pope or magisterium.

I don’t accept papal primacy if it amounts to much more than “first among equals”. That is, I am willing to give the pope the same role the Orthodox Church is comfortable with, but no more.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the one true church. Part of the one true church, yes, but only part. …

First, I don’t understand why you would believe the Theology of the Body to be morrally wrong. I’m curious what, exactly, you feel is immoral about it.

Second, I respect the fact that you feel that you cannot accept the Primacy of Peter or the Infallibility of the Pope, but rather than settling for that private certainty of non-acceptance, perhaps it would be helpful to ask yourself why you cannot accept those two teachings. After all, everything else hinges on them.

So, taking the second of the things you cannot accept, if you were to accept the importance of Apostolic Succession for the sake of doctrinal Truth and development (I’m not assuming you do, I’m just saying, hypothetically, if you did), then, without the Primacy of Peter, you’d be faced with the question of which See to trust. Throughout history, nearly every Bishopric has fallen into heresy at one time or another, except the See of Rome. Now, obviously, those who reject the Primacy of Rome and thus reject the idea that when Jesus prayed, not for all of the Twelve, but for Peter alone that Satan would not overcome him and then charged Peter with strengthening his brethren (cf. Luke 22:24-32), He was promising to protect Peter and his successors in order to preserve the whole Church in the Truth, might claim that Rome, too, fell into error by comparing its teaching at one time or another - or now - to the teaching of another See at some point which Rome would see as heretical. I’m not trying to argue that one or the other is right, in this hypothetical instance, I’m just saying, if you found yourself there, surrounded by 2 or 3 or 42 competing candidates for the authentic Apostolic Teaching, how could you possibly know which was true? If there’s no single pillar that rises higher and is more sure than all the others, then the Church, which St. Paul calls the “pillar and bulwark of Truth” (I Tim 3:15) is about as much a solid pillar as is a pillar made of jello. So, based on your decision that you simply cannot accept Papal Primacy, you’ll never know where to find the trustworthy source of Apostolic Teaching, even though St. Paul tells us that the pillar of Truth is the Church and St. Matthew tells us that, if we have a disagreement that we cannot settle on our own, we are to take it to the Church (cf. Matt 18:17), you’ll never know which Church has faithfully preserved the entirety of “the Apostles’ teaching” intact from the first century till now.

Returning now to the first dogma that you reject, papal infallibility, which I’d reminded you is very limitted in scope - only applying when he speaks deliberately from his office as the successor of Saint Peter and only on matters relating to faith and morals - you face the same difficulty, yet moreso. Even if you accepted papal primacy, but rejected papal infallibility, you might know that the Church of Rome has more “Truthiness,” as someone once put it, and that you could trust Rome to settle disputes, but you couldn’t actually be sure that everything God wanted us to know was correctly taught by Rome. You could, maybe, say that Rome is more correct than the others, but you couldn’t be sure Rome was 100% correct. However, since you don’t accept either dogma, you’re left with even less assurance of Truth. If Rome is not infallible - and I assume you would then say that neither is anyone else - then absolutely every theological system on the face of the planet has a very high likelihood of containing some error, if not of consisting of a majority of error. (All error, I would remind you, comes from the father of lies, Satan.) However, St. Paul charges St. Timothy to make sure that not one single false teaching be taught anywhere in his diocese (cf. I Tim 1:3), and Jesus Himself commands us not to settle for a life built even on what is mostly true but to “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48), and commanded the Apostles to teach everyone to observe “all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20), not most of what He commanded them, but all. Yet, without a single pillar protected from error with the gift of infallibility, none of those commands can be fulfilled! Without infallibility, every single thing you’re told from a pulpit or an ambo is mere conjecture and it’s a pretty safe bet that most of what Jesus taught the Apostles has been lost to the deluge of our sinful nature during the long trek from A.D. 31 to A.D. 2011. With infallibility, there is hope that we can actually follow Jesus according to the Truth that Jesus intended us to know. But without it, God might as well have just destroyed us all in a second flood because we’re just wandering aimlessly in the dark.

God is not a god of confusion, but the God of certainty and Truth. So, if a belief or teaching can lead nowhere but to uncertainty and despair, can it really be from God? Just something to think about… Hope it helps…