Posted: 3/27/2014 8:26:17 AM EDT
|
The previous thread on three questions was shut down. To review: Question one: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Question two: Did Jesus Christ found a Church on earth? Question three: Why are you not a member of the Catholic Church? My point was not to present this as some sort of air tight argument. It is for consideration only. But if one examines history and the Bible, a sort of conundrum will emerge. First and foremost, as Catholics, and as honest students of history, the Bible, although authored by men and the Spirit, is a product of the Church. The Church is not a product of the Bible. The Church existed prior tot he canon of Scripture. Secondly, if you believe that the apostles carried forward a foundational Church in the name of Jesus Christ, what did this Church (the people, not the building) 'look' like. Historical documents clearly show that the belief of the pre-Nicene Church was 'Catholic' on almost every point of dogma. I am NOT saying that Peter stepped out of the scene at Pentecost, hopped a boat to Rome and set up shop. That's ludicrous. What IS clear is that the teaching of the apostles carried out by word of mouth/oral teaching for the most part, was Catholic in its organization and content. And given that fact, why would you be a member of any other Church than the One that was founded by Jesus Christ Himself? Below I will list a few quotes from the pre-Nicene fathers on various subjects. If there are any credible resources to reinforce the concept of a 'fundamentalist' style of early church, I would love to see those. |
|
BAPTISM The Didache After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]). Justin Martyr As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]). |
|
CONFESSION The Didache Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]). Tertullian [Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness . The Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge and adjudge (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]) |
|
PURGATORY AND PRAYER FOR THE DEAD Origen The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]). If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448 [A.D. 185-232]). Abercius The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]). Tertullian That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25-26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the judge . . . and lest this judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]). The faithful widow prays for the soul of her husband, and begs for him in the interim repose, and participation in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of his death (Monogamy 10 [A.D. 213]). |
|
REAL PRESENCE IN THE EUCHARIST Clement of Rome "Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity." (Letter to the Corinthians, [80 A.D.]) "Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." (Letter to the Corinthians, [80 A.D.]) Ignatius of Antioch "Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, paragraph 6. [circa 80-110 A.D.]) "Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." (Letter to the Ephesians, paragraph 20, [c. 80-110 A.D.]) "I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed." (Letter to the Romans, paragraph 7, [circa 80-110 A.D.]) |
|
Quoted:
[div style='text-align: left;']REALPRESENCE IN THE EUCHARIST [div style='text-align: center;']Clementof Rome [div style='margin-left: 40px;']"Sincethen these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into thedepths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all thingswhich the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. Hecommanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it shouldnot be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. Hehas Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom Hedesires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be donepiously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to Hiswill. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointedseasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of theMaster and do not sin. For to the high priest his properministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place hasbeen appointed, and on Levites their proper services have beenimposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."(Letterto the Corinthians,[80 A.D.]) [div style='margin-left: 40px;']"Our sinwill not be small if we eject from the episcopate those whoblamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." (Letterto the Corinthians, [80 A.D.]) [div style='margin-left: 40px;']Ignatiusof Antioch "Consider howcontrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the graceof God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, nonefor the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison,the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and fromprayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh ofour Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins andwhich the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."(Letterto the Smyrnaeans,paragraph 6. [circa80-110 A.D.]) "Come together incommon, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and inone Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh,the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind youmay obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is themedicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling usto live forever in Jesus Christ." (Letter to the Ephesians,paragraph 20, [c. 80-110 A.D.]) "I have no tastefor the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I wantthe Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed ofDavid; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot bedestroyed." (Letter to the Romans, paragraph 7, [circa80-110 A.D.]) What do Clement of Alexandria and Origen say about the eucharist? |
|
The Church existed before The Messiah was born as the only begotten Son of our Father in Heaven. It is the Assembly. The translators had preconceived ideas when they translated the Greek to English. The first two thirds of The Bible, they translated the Greek word ecclesia to Assembly, but in the last third of The Bible, they translated ecclesia to Church. This was because of the Hellenist dogma put forth by Marcion, who tried to remove Hebrew thought from Christianity, even though our Savior is, was and will always be Hebrew. Yeshua (mistranslated Jesus) said to follow Him. Even a child knows that following someone means to do as they do. I see very little doing what He did in the Catholic Assembly, or the Protestant, for that matter.
You also speak of the Lord's day, assuming it is Sunday, when in reality the only reference to the Lord's Day in The Bible, is referring to the day that He returns to rule and reign following the tribulation mentioned in Scripture. We all are responsible for the death of our Savior because of our sins, but why would the brethren that did follow Him, all the sudden follow a Roman church, when it was the Roman's that had been the ones who physically crucified our Lord and Savior? |
|
Origen You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3) …now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says: "My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2) |
|
Clement of Alexandria "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.", (The Instructor of the Children. [ante 202 A.D.]). |
|
Quoted: The Church existed before The Messiah was born as the only begotten Son of our Father in Heaven. It is the Assembly. The translators had preconceived ideas when they translated the Greek to English. The first two thirds of The Bible, they translated the Greek word ecclesia to Assembly, but in the last third of The Bible, they translated ecclesia to Church. This was because of the Hellenist dogma put forth by Marcion, who tried to remove Hebrew thought from Christianity, even though our Savior is, was and will always be Hebrew. Yeshua (mistranslated Jesus) said to follow Him. Even a child knows that following someone means to do as they do. I see very little doing what He did in the Catholic Assembly, or the Protestant, for that matter. Specify, please and also please list how whatever church or faith you follow does fulfill his wishes. You also speak of the Lord's day, assuming it is Sunday, when in reality the only reference to the Lord's Day in The Bible, is referring to the day that He returns to rule and reign following the tribulation mentioned in Scripture. But in Catholic thought the Bible is not the sole authority or outline for worship. Ignatius of Antioch [T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e., Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]). The Didascalia The apostles further appointed; On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]). We all are responsible for the death of our Savior because of our sins, but why would the brethren that did follow Him, all the sudden follow a Roman church, when it was the Roman's that had been the ones who physically crucified our Lord and Savior? You will have to clarify this. My OP specifically said that the church did not spring forth from Pentecost to Rome. Maybe you didn't read that. Jesus' followers recognized the authority of the apostles, given by Jesus. It wasn't, and isn't, a 'Roman' church. Usually the use of 'Roman' as an adjective is just a thinly veiled diatribe. |
|
More catechism, that never answers questions but leaves me with more questions that you will only answer with more catechism.
If the Bible is the word of God then why can you not use it exclusivley? How does knowing history and your catechism get you out of sin? You can make a lot of claims about being the original church, but frauds were talked about by all the writers of the new Testament. I'll repeat the question that I asked you in the thread that YOU got locked. If I am a Born agian Christian, but not be a catholic, can I go to heaven? Yes or No?? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Church existed before The Messiah was born as the only begotten Son of our Father in Heaven. It is the Assembly. The translators had preconceived ideas when they translated the Greek to English. The first two thirds of The Bible, they translated the Greek word ecclesia to Assembly, but in the last third of The Bible, they translated ecclesia to Church. This was because of the Hellenist dogma put forth by Marcion, who tried to remove Hebrew thought from Christianity, even though our Savior is, was and will always be Hebrew. Yeshua (mistranslated Jesus) said to follow Him. Even a child knows that following someone means to do as they do. I see very little doing what He did in the Catholic Assembly, or the Protestant, for that matter. Specify, please and also please list how whatever church or faith you follow does fulfill his wishes. You also speak of the Lord's day, assuming it is Sunday, when in reality the only reference to the Lord's Day in The Bible, is referring to the day that He returns to rule and reign following the tribulation mentioned in Scripture. But in Catholic thought the Bible is not the sole authority or outline for worship. [div style='text-align: center;']Ignatius of Antioch [div style='text-align: left;'][T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e., Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]). [div style='text-align: center;']The Didascalia [div style='text-align: left;']The apostles further appointed; On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]). We all are responsible for the death of our Savior because of our sins, but why would the brethren that did follow Him, all the sudden follow a Roman church, when it was the Roman's that had been the ones who physically crucified our Lord and Savior? You will have to clarify this. My OP specifically said that the church did not spring forth from Pentecost to Rome. Maybe you didn't read that. Jesus' followers recognized the authority of the apostles, given by Jesus. It wasn't, and isn't, a 'Roman' church. Usually the use of 'Roman' as an adjective is just a thinly veiled diatribe. With all due respect. I don't belong to any religious organization. I was born a gentile, but now I am a wild branch grafted into Israel. You can follow Catholic thought if you want. I will strive to follow my Redeemer. The Sabbath is the set apart (Holy) day. This is the day that the apostles observed even after the death, burial and resurrection of The Messiah. We can and should worship Him every day of the week, but Sunday is just one of the six other days. How about you quote The Bible instead of traditions of men. |
|
Quoted:
Clement of Alexandria "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.", (The Instructor of the Children. [ante 202 A.D.]). Clement of Alexandria also said this: “But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” |
|
Quoted:
Origen You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3) …now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says: "My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2) Origen also said this: “Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14) |
|
Quoted: With all due respect. I don't belong to any religious organization. I was born a gentile, but now I am a wild branch grafted into Israel. You can follow Catholic thought if you want. I will strive to follow my Redeemer. The Sabbath is the set apart (Holy) day. This is the day that the apostles observed even after the death, burial and resurrection of The Messiah. We can and should worship Him every day of the week, but Sunday is just one of the six other days. How about you quote The Bible instead of traditions of men. The point of my quotes was that from the beginning, the apostles taught worship on the first day of the week as a separation from the Jews. If you do not recognize that fact historically, or recognize the scriptural authority of the apostles to teach as such, I really have no other place to point you. Your statement about the apostles observing the Sabbath is erroneous. Traditions of men is yet another thinly veiled diatribe. The sacred tradition of the Catholic Church predates the New Testament. |
|
Sounds like Origen and Clement contradict themselves somewhat. I would be curious to know whether the word 'metaphor' is the word actually used. He seems to me, as he explains, that he draws parallels rather than speaks metaphorically. I will cede your point though, its confusing. Why reference the bread in one place as transformed into the Eucharist, then refer as 'metaphor' for the qualities of faith elsewhere. When in doubt go back to John 6! |
|
Quoted:
With all due respect, Jesus never intended faith to be a solitary venture, so your non participation in an organized church assembly is quite unscriptural. The point of my quotes was that from the beginning, the apostles taught worship on the first day of the week as a separation from the Jews. If you do not recognize that fact historically, or recognize the scriptural authority of the apostles to teach as such, I really have no other place to point you. Your statement about the apostles observing the Sabbath is erroneous. Traditions of men is yet another thinly veiled diatribe. The sacred tradition of the Catholic Church predates the New Testament. Quoted:
Quoted:
With all due respect. I don't belong to any religious organization. I was born a gentile, but now I am a wild branch grafted into Israel. You can follow Catholic thought if you want. I will strive to follow my Redeemer. The Sabbath is the set apart (Holy) day. This is the day that the apostles observed even after the death, burial and resurrection of The Messiah. We can and should worship Him every day of the week, but Sunday is just one of the six other days. How about you quote The Bible instead of traditions of men. The point of my quotes was that from the beginning, the apostles taught worship on the first day of the week as a separation from the Jews. If you do not recognize that fact historically, or recognize the scriptural authority of the apostles to teach as such, I really have no other place to point you. Your statement about the apostles observing the Sabbath is erroneous. Traditions of men is yet another thinly veiled diatribe. The sacred tradition of the Catholic Church predates the New Testament. I'm not solitary. I meet with a group of Bible believers. Sure the apostles worshipped on the 1st day, along with every other day, but they kept the Sabbath, as well as the other Commandments. They didn't separate themselves from the Jews. They were Jews, as was our Savior. You just try and show me, from the Bible were the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday, the same day that pagan sun worshippers set apart. |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like Origen and Clement contradict themselves somewhat. I would be curious to know whether the word 'metaphor' is the word actually used. He seems to me, as he explains, that he draws parallels rather than speaks metaphorically. I will cede your point though, its confusing. Why reference the bread in one place as transformed into the Eucharist, then refer as 'metaphor' for the qualities of faith elsewhere. When in doubt go back to John 6! According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols. ETA: The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture. |
|
Quoted: I'm not solitary. I meet with a group of Bible believers. Sure the apostles worshipped on the 1st day, along with every other day, but they kept the Sabbath, as well as the other Commandments. They didn't separate themselves from the Jews. They were Jews, as was our Savior. You just try and show me, from the Bible were the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday, the same day that pagan sun worshippers set apart. Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: |
|
Quoted: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement "used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols. ETA: The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture. Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like Origen and Clement contradict themselves somewhat. I would be curious to know whether the word 'metaphor' is the word actually used. He seems to me, as he explains, that he draws parallels rather than speaks metaphorically. I will cede your point though, its confusing. Why reference the bread in one place as transformed into the Eucharist, then refer as 'metaphor' for the qualities of faith elsewhere. When in doubt go back to John 6! According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement "used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols. ETA: The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture. I get your point. But Clement is not a lone voice from the period. Other extant writings show considerable unity on the doctrine of the Real Presence. And at times, as in the portion I posted, Clement also agreed. Luther even agreed in the Augsburg Confession, later of course backing away from this belief. To say that the doctrine was not present in the early Church is not exactly true. |
|
Quoted:
I get your point. But Clement is not a lone voice from the period. Other extant writings show considerable unity on the doctrine of the Real Presence. And at times, as in the portion I posted, Clement also agreed. Luther even agreed in the Augsburg Confession, later of course backing away from this belief. To say that the doctrine was not present in the early Church is not exactly true. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like Origen and Clement contradict themselves somewhat. I would be curious to know whether the word 'metaphor' is the word actually used. He seems to me, as he explains, that he draws parallels rather than speaks metaphorically. I will cede your point though, its confusing. Why reference the bread in one place as transformed into the Eucharist, then refer as 'metaphor' for the qualities of faith elsewhere. When in doubt go back to John 6! According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement "used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols. ETA: The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture. I get your point. But Clement is not a lone voice from the period. Other extant writings show considerable unity on the doctrine of the Real Presence. And at times, as in the portion I posted, Clement also agreed. Luther even agreed in the Augsburg Confession, later of course backing away from this belief. To say that the doctrine was not present in the early Church is not exactly true. Though the trend was to see the communion elements as the actual body and blood of Christ, there is another strain as well that used symbolic vocabulary to refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper. Serapion (died 211 AD) refers to the elements as "a likeness."7 Eusebius of Caesarea (died c. 339 AD) on the one hand declares, "We are continually fed with the Savior's body, we continually participate in the lamb's blood," but on the other states that Christians daily commemorate Jesus' sacrifice "with the symbols of his body and saving blood," and that he instructed his disciples to make "the image of his own body," and to employ bread as its symbol.8 The Apostolical Constitutions (compiled c. 380 AD) use words such as "antitypes" and "symbols" to describe the elements, though they speak of communion as the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.9 Basically, they weren't all in agreement on the real presence, like we aren't I guess. So lets go back to John 6, is that literal or was he speaking metaphorically? I'm sure we will disagree here too. I think it he was speaking metaphorically because he did that more than once when talking about himself. Examples: John 8:12 ..."I am the light of the world." John 8:51 "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death. " John 10:7 ..."I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. " John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. " John 6:48 "I am the bread of life. " John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. " Did Jesus actually mean all these things literally? I don't think so, and I don't think he meant to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. In Luke and 1 Corinthians it says to do this in remembrance of me. The Passover was a commemorative meal and so is the Lords Supper a memorial supper, recalling and portraying Christ's death for sinners. |
|
Quoted: Though the trend was to see the communion elements as the actual body and blood of Christ, there is another strain as well that used symbolic vocabulary to refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper. Serapion (died 211 AD) refers to the elements as "a likeness."7 Eusebius of Caesarea (died c. 339 AD) on the one hand declares, "We are continually fed with the Savior's body, we continually participate in the lamb's blood," but on the other states that Christians daily commemorate Jesus' sacrifice "with the symbols of his body and saving blood," and that he instructed his disciples to make "the image of his own body," and to employ bread as its symbol.8 The Apostolical Constitutions (compiled c. 380 AD) use words such as "antitypes" and "symbols" to describe the elements, though they speak of communion as the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.9 Basically, they weren't all in agreement on the real presence, like we aren't I guess. So lets go back to John 6, is that literal or was he speaking metaphorically? I'm sure we will disagree here too. I think it he was speaking metaphorically because he did that more than once when talking about himself. Examples: John 8:12 ..."I am the light of the world." John 8:51 "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death. " John 10:7 ..."I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. " John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. " John 6:48 "I am the bread of life. " John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. " Did Jesus actually mean all these things literally? I don't think so, and I don't think he meant to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. In Luke and 1 Corinthians it says to do this in remembrance of me. The Passover was a commemorative meal and so is the Lords Supper a memorial supper, recalling and portraying Christ's death for sinners. This is likely why the early Christians were often considered cannibals. I do find it odd for a fundamentalist to be arguing against Biblical literalism. |
|
Quoted:
You are right on one point, they did not immediately separate themselves from the Jews. That was an issue that the whole council of Jerusalem decided in Acts 15 - to not put the followers under the burden of the law. But there was no way they were having agape meals on the Sabbath in the temple. They would have been stoned in short order, I believe. Also keep in mind, the Scripture was not written or assembled at the time and that Jesus had given then the power of 'loosing and binding.' The teaching of the apostles would be reflected in the practices of the followers. Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not solitary. I meet with a group of Bible believers. Sure the apostles worshipped on the 1st day, along with every other day, but they kept the Sabbath, as well as the other Commandments. They didn't separate themselves from the Jews. They were Jews, as was our Savior. You just try and show me, from the Bible were the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday, the same day that pagan sun worshippers set apart. Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: At the council of Jerusalem they gave followers basic Commandments about idols, fornication and food. This was to get them started. Then in Acts 15:21: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” The new followers would learn the rest by hearing the teaching of Moses. When You read Acts 20:7, remember that they didn't cook on the Sabbath. At the end of Sabbath, which would make it the first day of the week, they would break bread. Often will the congregation continue the teaching after breaking bread until late at night, even to this day. I Cor. 16:2 is talking about talking about putting aside for the next Sabbath, since the first day of the week is the first of the six work days following Sabbath. Col. 2:16 is speaking of the Sabbath, not the first day of the week. I thank you for the debate, and hope not to come off as haughty. Sometimes this is hard to do in type, and I refuse to use smiley faces. I followed typical religious dogma until the mid 80s, then I started just going by what the Bible taught, instead of what men taught. Once I started keeping the Sabbath, many other truths were opened up for me. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. |
|
Questions like this invite conflict since they are justification matches between differing accords of believers which inevitably end in discord. With that in mind all I'll say is this: In the letter to the seven churches in Asia, the lord spoke of failures within each gathering, but spoke to those within each gathering who would overcome the influences of those errors and promised them salvation. The Roman Catholic (TM) church has a lot of ugly history which in my mind undermines its claim to sole legitimacy as the body of Christ. There are also ongoing practices which do not seem to square with what is taught in scripture. I do not say any particular person within that church is necessarily in peril, nor that it is unique in it's shortcomings, but that it is not clearly superior to all other gatherings under Christ, in all of which exist diverse failures, and the reward is promised to those who overcome in any. |
|
Quoted:
Except for the fact that none of these sayings was as harsh and dramatic of a pronunciation. Jesus let them walk when they could not bear his hard saying. I believe the original Greek means to 'munch' or 'gnaw.' He was very graphic and did not correct his tone or his message. He also said this on the passover before the last supper. When he later said 'This is my Body' the inclination would be for them to recall the words of the previous passover. This is likely why the early Christians were often considered cannibals. I do find it odd for a fundamentalist to be arguing against Biblical literalism. Quoted:
Quoted:
Though the trend was to see the communion elements as the actual body and blood of Christ, there is another strain as well that used symbolic vocabulary to refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper. Serapion (died 211 AD) refers to the elements as "a likeness."7 Eusebius of Caesarea (died c. 339 AD) on the one hand declares, "We are continually fed with the Savior's body, we continually participate in the lamb's blood," but on the other states that Christians daily commemorate Jesus' sacrifice "with the symbols of his body and saving blood," and that he instructed his disciples to make "the image of his own body," and to employ bread as its symbol.8 The Apostolical Constitutions (compiled c. 380 AD) use words such as "antitypes" and "symbols" to describe the elements, though they speak of communion as the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.9 Basically, they weren't all in agreement on the real presence, like we aren't I guess. So lets go back to John 6, is that literal or was he speaking metaphorically? I'm sure we will disagree here too. I think it he was speaking metaphorically because he did that more than once when talking about himself. Examples: John 8:12 ..."I am the light of the world." John 8:51 "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death. " John 10:7 ..."I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. " John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. " John 6:48 "I am the bread of life. " John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. " Did Jesus actually mean all these things literally? I don't think so, and I don't think he meant to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. In Luke and 1 Corinthians it says to do this in remembrance of me. The Passover was a commemorative meal and so is the Lords Supper a memorial supper, recalling and portraying Christ's death for sinners. This is likely why the early Christians were often considered cannibals. I do find it odd for a fundamentalist to be arguing against Biblical literalism. That's the problem with labels, just because someone is not catholic doesn't mean he holds the view of every non-catholic. Esthio is the greek word that does mean to literally eat. Sarx is the greek word for flesh. flesh, Lk. 24:39; Jn. 3:6; the human body, 2 Cor. 7:5; flesh, human nature, human frame, Jn. 1:13, 14; 1 Pet. 4:1; 1 Jn. 4:2; kindred, Rom. 11:14; lineage, Rom. 1:3; 9:3; flesh, humanity, human beings, Mt. 24:22; Lk. 3:6; Jn. 17:2; the circumstances of the body, material condition, 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:28; Phlm. 16; flesh, mere humanity, human fashion, 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 1:17; flesh as the seat of passion and frailty, Rom. 8:1, 3, 5; carnality, Gal. 5:24; materiality, material circumstance, as opposed to the spiritual, Phil. 3:3, 4; Col. 2:18; a material system or mode, Gal. 3:3; Heb. 9:10 John: 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” He clearly says that the flesh is no help at all and the words he spoke to them are spirit. |
|
Quoted: Questions like this invite conflict since they are justification matches between differing accords of believers which inevitably end in discord. With that in mind all I'll say is this: In the letter to the seven churches in Asia, the lord spoke of failures within each gathering, but spoke to those within each gathering who would overcome the influences of those errors and promised them salvation. The Roman Catholic (TM) church has a lot of ugly history which in my mind undermines its claim to sole legitimacy as the body of Christ. There are also ongoing practices which do not seem to square with what is taught in scripture. I do not say any particular person within that church is necessarily in peril, nor that it is unique in it's shortcomings, but that it is not clearly superior to all other gatherings under Christ, in all of which exist diverse failures, and the reward is promised to those who overcome in any. Catholic thought and doctrine was present from the beginning. Matthews 16:18-19 tells us that evil will be overcome, that this church cannot fail. There is no way that the plan of the Almighty was to have 26,000 different sets of doctrine and practice and that all were co-equal. |
|
Quoted: That's the problem with labels, just because someone is not catholic doesn't mean he holds the view of every non-catholic. |
|
Quoted: Every Church has 'ugly' history. Ugliness does not undermine the legitimacy of Catholicism. The Body of Christ is composed of sinners. That is the nature of sin and forgiveness. Catholic thought and doctrine was present from the beginning. Matthews 16:18-19 tells us that evil will be overcome, that this church cannot fail. There is no way that the plan of the Almighty was to have 26,000 different sets of doctrine and practice and that all were co-equal Quoted: Quoted: Questions like this invite conflict since they are justification matches between differing accords of believers which inevitably end in discord. With that in mind all I'll say is this: In the letter to the seven churches in Asia, the lord spoke of failures within each gathering, but spoke to those within each gathering who would overcome the influences of those errors and promised them salvation. The Roman Catholic (TM) church has a lot of ugly history which in my mind undermines its claim to sole legitimacy as the body of Christ. There are also ongoing practices which do not seem to square with what is taught in scripture. I do not say any particular person within that church is necessarily in peril, nor that it is unique in it's shortcomings, but that it is not clearly superior to all other gatherings under Christ, in all of which exist diverse failures, and the reward is promised to those who overcome in any. Catholic thought and doctrine was present from the beginning. Matthews 16:18-19 tells us that evil will be overcome, that this church cannot fail. There is no way that the plan of the Almighty was to have 26,000 different sets of doctrine and practice and that all were co-equal It seems that what you want is for me to lay out the long laundry list of issues with the Roman church so you can swing at them and any person that takes issue with the Roman church and its franchises. If one were persuaded that the Roman denomination was the only extent of the body of Christ, perhaps they would view such striving as not doing any dishonor to the name of Christ. In my recognition of the body of Christ extending beyond the bounds of Roman expression, I recognize in Catholics bretheren I am commanded not to quarrel with but seek reconciliation with. As such I can not give you what you appear to want, and must be content with: "That's nice honey"/CSB |
|
Quoted:
That's the problem with protestantism in general. Every one has a different interpretation and practice. As stated above, not the plan of the Almighty and frankly, at odds with the very scripture that is professed as a sole authority. Quoted:
Quoted:
That's the problem with labels, just because someone is not catholic doesn't mean he holds the view of every non-catholic. Even catholics differ in their beliefs on some doctrines, it's not exclusive to non-Catholics. |
|
John 6
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. " 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. These two verses are seem very similar, surely they both can't be literal. John 6 has to be taken in its context: 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Now, he just fed 5000 people with a couple loaves and a few fish and that is what they want from him, to be fed. Jesus states that when he says "you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves". They want him to feed them but Jesus isn't talking about satisfying our stomachs, he's talking about eternal life on a spiritual level. |
|
Quoted: It seems that what you want is for me to lay out the long laundry list of issues with the Roman church so you can swing at them and any person that takes issue with the Roman church and its franchises. If one were persuaded that the Roman denomination was the only extent of the body of Christ, perhaps they would view such striving as not doing any dishonor to the name of Christ. In my recognition of the body of Christ extending beyond the bounds of Roman expression, I recognize in Catholics bretheren I am commanded not to quarrel with but seek reconciliation with. As such I can not give you what you appear to want, and must be content with: "That's nice honey"/CSB Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Questions like this invite conflict since they are justification matches between differing accords of believers which inevitably end in discord. With that in mind all I'll say is this: In the letter to the seven churches in Asia, the lord spoke of failures within each gathering, but spoke to those within each gathering who would overcome the influences of those errors and promised them salvation. The Roman Catholic (TM) church has a lot of ugly history which in my mind undermines its claim to sole legitimacy as the body of Christ. There are also ongoing practices which do not seem to square with what is taught in scripture. I do not say any particular person within that church is necessarily in peril, nor that it is unique in it's shortcomings, but that it is not clearly superior to all other gatherings under Christ, in all of which exist diverse failures, and the reward is promised to those who overcome in any. Catholic thought and doctrine was present from the beginning. Matthews 16:18-19 tells us that evil will be overcome, that this church cannot fail. There is no way that the plan of the Almighty was to have 26,000 different sets of doctrine and practice and that all were co-equal It seems that what you want is for me to lay out the long laundry list of issues with the Roman church so you can swing at them and any person that takes issue with the Roman church and its franchises. If one were persuaded that the Roman denomination was the only extent of the body of Christ, perhaps they would view such striving as not doing any dishonor to the name of Christ. In my recognition of the body of Christ extending beyond the bounds of Roman expression, I recognize in Catholics bretheren I am commanded not to quarrel with but seek reconciliation with. As such I can not give you what you appear to want, and must be content with: "That's nice honey"/CSB This is the establishment of the Church. The truth that it is all based on. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37 However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. 38 For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do my own will. 39 And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. 40 For it is my Father’s will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.” 41 Then the people[c][/sup] began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven.” [sup]42 [/sup]They said, "Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” [sup]43 [/sup]But Jesus replied, "Stop complaining about what I said. [sup]44 [/sup]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up. [sup]45 [/sup]As it is written in the Scriptures,[sup][/sup][d][/sup] ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. [sup]46 [/sup](Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.) [sup]47 [/sup]"I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life. [sup]48 [/sup]Yes, I am the bread of life! [sup]49 [/sup]Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died. [sup]50 [/sup]Anyone who eats the bread from heaven, however, will never die. [sup]51 [/sup]I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.” [sup]52 [/sup]Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked. [sup]53 [/sup]So Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. [sup]54 [/sup]But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. [sup]55 [/sup]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. [sup]56 [/sup]Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. [sup]57 [/sup]I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. [sup]58 [/sup]I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.” BAM!... Catholic.... It doesn't say whom ever "pretends" to eat my flesh now does it. Christ also points out that this is coming directly from His Father. I am not worthy to judge anyone here. But the question becomes a personal one and begs... maybe.. just maybe... for an internal personal search? The brilliant part of these exchanges is the opportunity to SEARCH the truth. Not your personal truth but God's truth. I have a friend whose search has included Judism, protestant , Muslim and other sects. He is a religious scholar who as studied in Jerusalem and England. With all his knowledge and searching guess what church he is joining? It's heart breaking in so many ways we are very much like the Jews in the day of Christ. Haven't changed much at all. We are still arguing over who is right and wrong. We spend an inordinate amount of time justifying which vehicle of faith is the way to go. There is one path that is a known direct link to Christ. Only God can judge us in the end. (That is what you want to hear) The other perspective is this. We spend an inordinate amount of time caring about our carcasses. We shop for homes and search every nook and cranny for any flaws. We keep them up and in good repair for the sake of appearances. Sometimes we start with a blank slate and build them from scratch paying attention to every little detail. You would FREAK OUT if a contractor used substandard materials or your foundation had cracks in it. But when it comes to our souls.. the very essence of who we are... the image of God... we dismiss and selfishly fight over the things that are hard to understand or we don't agree on. Most people simply don't like the hierarchy of the church. Or they don't like the politics, or the truths upheld in the church are inconvenient to their way of thinking. The repetitive theme in all of this is SELF. The list is LONG. These aren't bad people. They are intelligent thoughtful well intentioned people. But when it comes to a practice of faith and our souls, we are willing to accept the risk because we can't accept what Christ laid out for us . The beauty of the Catholic church is the LIFE it brings. It's not bits and pieces. It's complete in the Eucharist. People are flawed and will continue to be flawed. We choose to RISK it for the sake of being around people of like thinking. Martin Luther, Calvin, so many others... are they all better than Christ and are the churches they created perfect? |
|
Quoted:
Interesting perception/take away and demeaning end to this exchange. It is very sad that truth is reduced to this type of dismissal. It makes the first part of the statement insincere in the same way it would make the person on the receiving end of such a comment of no consequence. It's not deserving of your superior time and consideration? Maybe it should be in order to add a measure of sincerity to the seek reconciliation with your catholic brethren? The Church as constructed by Christ Himself cannot fail. The people in it are flawed and the people can only fail the church. This is the establishment of the Church. The truth that it is all based on. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37 However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. 38 For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do my own will. 39 And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. 40 For it is my Father’s will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.” 41 Then the people[c][/sup] began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven.” [sup]42 [/sup]They said, "Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” [sup]43 [/sup]But Jesus replied, "Stop complaining about what I said. [sup]44 [/sup]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up. [sup]45 [/sup]As it is written in the Scriptures,[sup][/sup][d][/sup] ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. [sup]46 [/sup](Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.) [sup]47 [/sup]"I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life. [sup]48 [/sup]Yes, I am the bread of life! [sup]49 [/sup]Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died. [sup]50 [/sup]Anyone who eats the bread from heaven, however, will never die. [sup]51 [/sup]I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.” [sup]52 [/sup]Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked. [sup]53 [/sup]So Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. [sup]54 [/sup]But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. [sup]55 [/sup]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. [sup]56 [/sup]Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. [sup]57 [/sup]I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. [sup]58 [/sup]I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.” BAM!... Catholic.... It doesn't say whom ever "pretends" to eat my flesh now does it. Christ also points out that this is coming directly from His Father. I am not worthy to judge anyone here. But the question becomes a personal one and begs... maybe.. just maybe... for an internal personal search? The brilliant part of these exchanges is the opportunity to SEARCH the truth. Not your personal truth but God's truth. I have a friend whose search has included Judism, protestant , Muslim and other sects. He is a religious scholar who as studied in Jerusalem and England. With all his knowledge and searching guess what church he is joining? It's heart breaking in so many ways we are very much like the Jews in the day of Christ. Haven't changed much at all. We are still arguing over who is right and wrong. We spend an inordinate amount of time justifying which vehicle of faith is the way to go. There is one path that is a known direct link to Christ. Only God can judge us in the end. (That is what you want to hear) The other perspective is this. We spend an inordinate amount of time caring about our carcasses. We shop for homes and search every nook and cranny for any flaws. We keep them up and in good repair for the sake of appearances. Sometimes we start with a blank slate and build them from scratch paying attention to every little detail. You would FREAK OUT if a contractor used substandard materials or your foundation had cracks in it. But when it comes to our souls.. the very essence of who we are... the image of God... we dismiss and selfishly fight over the things that are hard to understand or we don't agree on. Most people simply don't like the hierarchy of the church. Or they don't like the politics, or the truths upheld in the church are inconvenient to their way of thinking. The repetitive theme in all of this is SELF. The list is LONG. These aren't bad people. They are intelligent thoughtful well intentioned people. But when it comes to a practice of faith and our souls, we are willing to accept the risk because we can't accept what Christ laid out for us . The beauty of the Catholic church is the LIFE it brings. It's not bits and pieces. It's complete in the Eucharist. People are flawed and will continue to be flawed. We choose to RISK it for the sake of being around people of like thinking. Martin Luther, Calvin, so many others... are they all better than Christ and are the churches they created perfect? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Questions like this invite conflict since they are justification matches between differing accords of believers which inevitably end in discord. With that in mind all I'll say is this: In the letter to the seven churches in Asia, the lord spoke of failures within each gathering, but spoke to those within each gathering who would overcome the influences of those errors and promised them salvation. The Roman Catholic (TM) church has a lot of ugly history which in my mind undermines its claim to sole legitimacy as the body of Christ. There are also ongoing practices which do not seem to square with what is taught in scripture. I do not say any particular person within that church is necessarily in peril, nor that it is unique in it's shortcomings, but that it is not clearly superior to all other gatherings under Christ, in all of which exist diverse failures, and the reward is promised to those who overcome in any. Catholic thought and doctrine was present from the beginning. Matthews 16:18-19 tells us that evil will be overcome, that this church cannot fail. There is no way that the plan of the Almighty was to have 26,000 different sets of doctrine and practice and that all were co-equal It seems that what you want is for me to lay out the long laundry list of issues with the Roman church so you can swing at them and any person that takes issue with the Roman church and its franchises. If one were persuaded that the Roman denomination was the only extent of the body of Christ, perhaps they would view such striving as not doing any dishonor to the name of Christ. In my recognition of the body of Christ extending beyond the bounds of Roman expression, I recognize in Catholics bretheren I am commanded not to quarrel with but seek reconciliation with. As such I can not give you what you appear to want, and must be content with: "That's nice honey"/CSB This is the establishment of the Church. The truth that it is all based on. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry again. Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37 However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them. 38 For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do my own will. 39 And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day. 40 For it is my Father’s will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.” 41 Then the people[c][/sup] began to murmur in disagreement because he had said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven.” [sup]42 [/sup]They said, "Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph? We know his father and mother. How can he say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” [sup]43 [/sup]But Jesus replied, "Stop complaining about what I said. [sup]44 [/sup]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up. [sup]45 [/sup]As it is written in the Scriptures,[sup][/sup][d][/sup] ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. [sup]46 [/sup](Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.) [sup]47 [/sup]"I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life. [sup]48 [/sup]Yes, I am the bread of life! [sup]49 [/sup]Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died. [sup]50 [/sup]Anyone who eats the bread from heaven, however, will never die. [sup]51 [/sup]I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.” [sup]52 [/sup]Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked. [sup]53 [/sup]So Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. [sup]54 [/sup]But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. [sup]55 [/sup]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. [sup]56 [/sup]Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. [sup]57 [/sup]I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. [sup]58 [/sup]I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.” BAM!... Catholic.... It doesn't say whom ever "pretends" to eat my flesh now does it. Christ also points out that this is coming directly from His Father. I am not worthy to judge anyone here. But the question becomes a personal one and begs... maybe.. just maybe... for an internal personal search? The brilliant part of these exchanges is the opportunity to SEARCH the truth. Not your personal truth but God's truth. I have a friend whose search has included Judism, protestant , Muslim and other sects. He is a religious scholar who as studied in Jerusalem and England. With all his knowledge and searching guess what church he is joining? It's heart breaking in so many ways we are very much like the Jews in the day of Christ. Haven't changed much at all. We are still arguing over who is right and wrong. We spend an inordinate amount of time justifying which vehicle of faith is the way to go. There is one path that is a known direct link to Christ. Only God can judge us in the end. (That is what you want to hear) The other perspective is this. We spend an inordinate amount of time caring about our carcasses. We shop for homes and search every nook and cranny for any flaws. We keep them up and in good repair for the sake of appearances. Sometimes we start with a blank slate and build them from scratch paying attention to every little detail. You would FREAK OUT if a contractor used substandard materials or your foundation had cracks in it. But when it comes to our souls.. the very essence of who we are... the image of God... we dismiss and selfishly fight over the things that are hard to understand or we don't agree on. Most people simply don't like the hierarchy of the church. Or they don't like the politics, or the truths upheld in the church are inconvenient to their way of thinking. The repetitive theme in all of this is SELF. The list is LONG. These aren't bad people. They are intelligent thoughtful well intentioned people. But when it comes to a practice of faith and our souls, we are willing to accept the risk because we can't accept what Christ laid out for us . The beauty of the Catholic church is the LIFE it brings. It's not bits and pieces. It's complete in the Eucharist. People are flawed and will continue to be flawed. We choose to RISK it for the sake of being around people of like thinking. Martin Luther, Calvin, so many others... are they all better than Christ and are the churches they created perfect? It sounded to me like Crux doesn't want to quarrel over doctrines because it causes divisions. I didn't sense any disrespect, he was just saying that we shouldn't bicker back and forth. That's what I got out of it anyway. |
|
I can lay out a long list of topics and rationale for my reasoning that the Roman church is not the full extent of the body of Christ. Many would be unpleasant to review, and while not off the table for close friends at a table, is not the stuff for internet forums in my view. I do not propose to drag all that out in public discussion especially where is not clear that the folks asking are interested viewing honestly arrived at concerns and reaching understanding. It is possible I misjudge the motivation, and if that is so, TWIRE may I offer you a beverage at the table of your choice for discussion (since you're local), because it is relationship, reconciliation, and understanding I value most, and if you value the same, I'd be open to share my perspectives with you individually. If the intent is simply to carry on the old "I'm right therefore you're wrong" show, I don't see much value, especially in an internet forum. ETA: If the desire is to solicit honest opinions in answer to the original question as a means to better understand why people differ, that is one thing, but this forum is not a great place for that. If the desire is to challenge and beat upon anyone who has deviating opinions, that is another matter, and it more closely represents what does occur in such forums, and has already occured in this thread. If I am dismissive, it is because I believe engaging in the strife likely to ensue from detailed discussion in this format does not serve to honor The Lord nor the body of believers here who should lift each other up and not seek to rip at each other. |
|
Quoted: I can lay out a long list of topics and rationale for my reasoning that the Roman church is not the full extent of the body of Christ. Many would be unpleasant to review, and while not off the table for close friends at a table, is not the stuff for internet forums in my view. I do not propose to drag all that out in public discussion especially where is not clear that the folks asking are interested viewing honestly arrived at concerns and reaching understanding. It is possible I misjudge the motivation, and if that is so, TWIRE may I offer you a beverage at the table of your choice for discussion (since you're local), because it is relationship, reconciliation, and understanding I value most, and if you value the same, I'd be open to share my perspectives with you individually. If the intent is simply to carry on the old "I'm right therefore you're wrong" show, I don't see much value, especially in an internet forum. ETA: If the desire is to solicit honest opinions in answer to the original question as a means to better understand why people differ, that is one thing, but this forum is not a great place for that. If the desire is to challenge and beat upon anyone who has deviating opinions, that is another matter, and it more closely represents what does occur in such forums, and has already occured in this thread. If I am dismissive, it is because I believe engaging in the strife likely to ensue from detailed discussion in this format does not serve to honor The Lord nor the body of believers here who should lift each other up and not seek to rip at each other.  As a wife a mother and your sister in Christ... (hope that doesn't offend you)... being dismissed in such a manner implies one has no value. Like patting a small child on the head when they try to tell you they discovered the grass is green. You already know it so it's not really useful to you but to the child it is a miracle. It doesn't fulfill the desire for relationship reconciliation and or understanding. It devalues those very things. I see you may mean something different than the words you chose. The best part of your post is that you want to do honor to the Lord and the body of believers. I think this is sincere. It's a gift to to give trust to someone about these things and maintain that honor. twire is probably very worthy to trust with this. Blessings. |
|
Quoted: It seems that what you want is for me to lay out the long laundry list of issues with the Roman church so you can swing at them and any person that takes issue with the Roman church and its franchises. If one were persuaded that the Roman denomination was the only extent of the body of Christ, perhaps they would view such striving as not doing any dishonor to the name of Christ. In my recognition of the body of Christ extending beyond the bounds of Roman expression, I recognize in Catholics bretheren I am commanded not to quarrel with but seek reconciliation with. As such I can not give you what you appear to want, and must be content with: "That's nice honey"/CSB Please refrain from using the adjective 'Roman' as it indicates at best a bias, at worst an insult. |
|
Let my explain why drew such a conclusion. The third question in the way it is presented is provocative in nature. Why aren't people a member of what you appear convinced is the only legitimate expression of Christianity (at least so I gather by your commentary)? How did you anticipate such a thread, where a gauntlet is all but thrown out declaring the practices of other believers as essentially error, to play out other than the scripture slinging strife that ensued? Now if you are offended by the use of the term Roman to Refer to the church centered in Rome that insists it is the only true expression of Christianity (I had a Roman Catholic pastor say as much to me at a funeral no less, essentially "thanks for coming to grandma's funeral but all of you who aren't members of this church are going to hell you know"), I appologize. I do not recognize it as being the sole extent of the body of Christ, and therefore not properly "Catholic" in the strictest definition of the world. In this context it is I agree insensitive to be so precise as it ignores culture and history, and I appologize. If it appears I have any bias, I say that it is not impossible that experience of family and friends, and even my own experience such as mentioned above, may have served to set a certain angle to my perspective. I stand by my offer of hospitality and honest private discussion on the subject of why one might choose to associate with other gatherings and hold that the body of Christ and his church extend beyond Catholicism, if you are interested. |
|
Quoted:
True that everyone has an opinion, but as for doctrine, if a personal 'belief' is at variance with the Church, I would no longer consider them to be Catholic. Quoted:
Quoted:
Even catholics differ in their beliefs on some doctrines, it's not exclusive to non-Catholics. You wouldn't consider the belief to be catholic or you wouldn't consider the person catholic? Would you still consider them a Christian? Which one is more important? Let me explain why I ask this. If someone has put their faith in Jesus Christ and claims him as their Lord and Savior, then we have to assume they are Christians. We can't say they aren't because of which side of the fence they're on with trivial subjects. The fact that they claim Jesus as Lord and he's the only way to the Father as he claims, and that he died for our sins and was resurrected three days later, and lived a sinless life, would classify him as a Christian. Now let me add that behaviors of believers are a different subject, and are much more complicated in my opinion. I could argue that this guy can't be a true believer because he still<enter whatever sinful behavior you wish>. This behavior can depend on the spiritual maturity of the believer or a number of other things. The bible tells us we should restore our brother or sister gently. So believers are obligated to help other believers with their struggles with sin. So behaviors don't rule out someone being a Christian, but we should help rerail a brother that has gone off track. Now, you and I have different opinions on trivial subjects (trivial because there is different points of view, and evidence to back up both points), but I wouldn't ever say that you weren't a Christian because you claim Jesus as Lord and Savior. And I think our debates are healthy, informative, challenging and most times fun. At the end of such debates we should shake hands and stand side by side because we are on the same team, team Jesus, regardless of our differing views. And our debate should be the most respectful as to not look like we are opponents, but that we are teammates discussing which play would be best to run. Crux and anglefire really got me thinking about this, and this is what was laid on my heart. |
|
Well said. Yes, they would be Christians. No, they would not be Catholic. For most in the fundamentalist world, the process is not reciprocated toward Catholics. Many churches have a policy or practice of separation, both primary and secondary. Catholicism and Catholics have been damned by more posts on this site, on more radio commentaries in my home town, etc. than I can name. You would not believe how many times I've heard the phrase 'They are not even Christians.' |
|
'Roman' as an adjective is a feature of Jack Chick publications. I was in a local non-denom classroom last year that had the apostle's creed posted on the wall. They had put a piece of white tape over the word 'catholic' in the text.' Apparently for some, that word is not to be seen or uttered. |
|
Quoted:
Well said. Yes, they would be Christians. No, they would not be Catholic. For most in the fundamentalist world, the process is not reciprocated toward Catholics. Many churches have a policy or practice of separation, both primary and secondary. Catholicism and Catholics have been damned by more posts on this site, on more radio commentaries in my home town, etc. than I can name. You would not believe how many times I've heard the phrase 'They are not even Christians.' Well, you could use Protestant in the place of Catholic in your post and it would be true too. It goes both ways. Except for the radio commentaries. From my observations it seems that the north is mostly Catholic and the south is mostly Protestant. I've never really thought about that until the last few days and I'm interested as to why that is. Caths and prots throw stones at each other and it's no where near productive and it isn't a part of the Great Commission. In fact, it's probably counter productive. The fact is, I may be just as wrong as I think you are, and vice versa. That's why we should stand on the foundation we both have in common, Jesus Christ, because its really the only thing that matters. The only way to the Father is through him. |
|
I had never heard about this Chick fellow it till people who were angry about him talked about him. Must have missed it either by location or age.
The phenomena TWIRE describes has always put me to mind of an emo kid cutting themselves. Different members of the body seem to dislike, envy or even desire to cut off other members of the body. It is this animosity amongst those who God calls together that saddens me. Be it animosity toward Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or other non denomenational movements, none should be trying to behead, burn, or persecute the other. Humans are going to human however. It's one of the reasons I hate "my church is right your church is wrong" events. Maybe one is, and maybe one isnt, but such events usually end up with one or another person feeling persecuted. I am the part of the body of Christ that I am. I am not a different part or organ because I am not that other part, I am what it was given to me to be, and I strive to ensure that part I am works to serve the Lord, preferrably in concert with the other diverse members. |
|
Quoted:
Well said. Yes, they would be Christians. No, they would not be Catholic. For most in the fundamentalist world, the process is not reciprocated toward Catholics. Many churches have a policy or practice of separation, both primary and secondary. Catholicism and Catholics have been damned by more posts on this site, on more radio commentaries in my home town, etc. than I can name. You would not believe how many times I've heard the phrase 'They are not even Christians.' Bottom line you're all going to hell. Good thing is that there is no such thing |
|
Quoted: Bottom line you're all going to hell. Good thing is that there is no such thing Quoted: Quoted: Well said. Yes, they would be Christians. No, they would not be Catholic. For most in the fundamentalist world, the process is not reciprocated toward Catholics. Many churches have a policy or practice of separation, both primary and secondary. Catholicism and Catholics have been damned by more posts on this site, on more radio commentaries in my home town, etc. than I can name. You would not believe how many times I've heard the phrase 'They are not even Christians.' Bottom line you're all going to hell. Good thing is that there is no such thing |