The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

MoreCoffee · Sep 26, 2014

Albion said:
Absolutely correct.

Not correct.

Matthew 16 is more than one scintilla of evidence and the stories in the first half of the Acts of the Apostles are also more than one scintilla. The gospels also tell of saint Peter's leadership. Being pope is not about a title nor exclusively about an office but the role and the office are present in sacred scriptures that were almost without doubt written in the first century AD.

BobRyan · Sep 26, 2014

By Faith Alone said:
"Sit thou at my right hand" is in Psalms 110:1. The point I was making is that the Lord is still in Heaven and cannot be drug down to earth by prayer or any sort of incantation and He suddenly appears in a box or stomach. He is in Heaven and will remain there until the appointed time. .

There is in fact a whole list of doctrines not found in the NT text that defines the RCC (and not optional to it).

#448

And the one you are talking about has to do with
1. "Confecting the body and divinity of Christ" -- nothing said about that in the Bible.

2. Rather than "do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" they have "participate in the sacrifice with Me".

But the Bible says it is a memorial of a "once for all" completed event.

Just one of the many items in that link - not found in the NT text - and in fact contradicted by it.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Sep 26, 2014

Kylissa said:
I don't think anyone is saying that Paul didn't know what Scripture was. But the point of view from different places in history is necessarily different.

At the time the Church began, and for a short while afterward, I believe when Paul and Jesus said "Scriptures" they referred to the Old Testament writings - those written by "holy men of old". The New Testament at that time consisted largely of "letters to the Churches", and I have seen them referred to as just that - "letters".

Could they even possibly have been referring to the Gospel of John if it hadn't been written yet, for example?

Indeed they would have reference primarily to the OT when authoring the NT text. Is it your claim that we need to go to something later than the NT before we find the actual RCC doctrines being taught??

Because that is exactly what I would claim.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Sep 26, 2014

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb
That depends on how you define the Church. If, as I assume, you mean your denomination, that statement is rather silly. In the first century there is not a scintille of evidence for the office of the papacy, much less the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Albion said:
Absolutely correct.

What is interesting is that in the NT two Apostles die - Judas and James.

But the only one we have a model of "Apostolic succession" for -- is Judas.

If one is going to argue for a system of "Apostolic succession" then the one for the office of Judas - is the only one we have in the NT.

in Christ,

Bob

Alive_Again · Sep 26, 2014

Well, leave it to a laptop! I've been typing away. I rest my hand on the edge of the keyboard and it's thanking me for logging in and my message is gone!

As I mentioned above, the supposed Acts church that you are trumpeting smells suspiciously like the creation of Huldrych Zwingli and the Radical Reformation.

It smells like the Book of Acts. That's what I'm referring to. I'm referring New Testament Christianity. That's a good model. It had everything in place. It had authority and power and miracles and the good examples God wanted to commemerate and compare our lives to. The Word is our guide.

The problem here is that those "attributes within our minds" tends to be the product of a rhetorical and polemical imagination rather than honest historical investigation. How do you suggest Protestants get past using imagination?

It's not about Protestants. It's about comparing what was with what is (in this case the RCC) and searching for what's changed and what's good and considering what might not be so good. It takes openness and if you're easily offended by the idea that at various times the church took a wrong turn, then you might just hang out in the RCC areas of the forum. I would hope that everyone would be open for consideration that at various times reform was needed. Reform of the church, by the church. Forget "Protestants". It's the Bride. And yes, it has tares fellowshipping among them and always has.

Also, you mentioned "our conception of the early church." Can you explain where your conception of the early church comes from?

The New Testament.

Who are these "tares?" Are they a historically identifiable group?

If you look at the "honest" history, as you refer to , at various times in various countries, it was a requirment to be a Christian. Forced conversations aren't honored by God. God honors freewill and you can be water baptized and not have conviction and faith. People also joined the church because it offered advancement in the community. That's the wrong motive. We could no doubt call them tares as well.

What is this "natural wisdom?" Is it historically identifiable? Please be specific.

I'm talking about receiving guidance and direction from the Holy Spirit. Natural wisdom uses carnal reasonings of the soul/mind. It's common sense and education and it's a cheap copy. Paul was going to Asia and the Holy Spirit told him not to. As a result, he set up operations in another community where he layed his life on the line, and a powerful witness provided a base for his missions in the surrounding countries. They took up offerings and supported him as a result. He ended up going to Asia. He might have quoted scripture about "going into all the world" (that would have been the soul), but the Spirit spoke to him and gave him instructions.

It's the same kind of instructions Jesus gave when Peter took the money from the fish's mouth; also when Jesus told him to go back out and fish. It's supernatural. It can get you out of tight spots when the enemy is opposing you. If you're in a leadership position in the church, it's vital to receive this way. That's keeps Jesus as the Head and not man.

Originally Posted by Alive_Again

But an acceptance to have the Emperor "help set certain matters in order" at times departed from God's plan. This became more evident with subsequent Emperors.

Please explain how this departed from God's plan with Constantine. Also, what other emperors do you have in mind?

I'm not going into research mode at this moment, but if the Emperor insists on certain directions forthe church, even to promote unity, he oversteps his position of secular authority. The same goes for leadership in the church. He cannot tell kings what to do either. But they both moved in areas not really appointed for them. Constantine's sons were very different. The Holy Roman Emperors were a classic example of the tug of war of secular authorities stepping into spiritual matters. The same for Popes telling kings/Emperors what to do. The were "in bed" with each other spiritually. The results were often disastrous.

I do intend to present (with research) along similiar lines soon and it's pretty obvious even on a common sense level that the church received and permitted rulers to influence the church negatively. The Popes often did the same thing. The enemy had a field day with it all.

Here is the same old disparagement of "religion" and labeling as "Pharisees" those Christians who dare to hold doctrine important and apply their God-given intellects to their beliefs. It is the same old false dichotomy of hyper-spiritualism and moralism against supposedly carnal religion.

Your seeing the matter through coloured glasses. There really are times when "religion" stepped up and controlled the sheep in ways that were not of God. They not only "controlled" but they "insisted" and resisting resulted in violence and death. The Pharisee label fits those people well.

"Supposedly carnal religion". Well, at times that's exactly what it was. How do we curb sin? How do we stop the spread of those strange beliefs? Let's go force these people over there to submit to us, because we're the authority. That's not how God works at all. It is spiritual warfare and it's done in the spirit, not the natural. You can go back pretty early and see where things started go wrong and it stayed that way for centuries. At various times there was reform and at other times there was not. Many of the reformers were Catholic; often the monks.

Are the "segments of the church who didn't agree with them" proto-Protestants who had gone underground after the last apostle died and miraculously re-appeared in the sixteenth century?

You seem to have a judgmental issue. It's not about "Protestants". It's about the church reforming the church. Many of these "segments" who didn't agree had some heretical issues, but you don't go killing them (throw in some good old fashioned torture in there just so we know who the real players are). In my view, if you're a killer, you're not listening to God, and you're a leader then those you supposedly lead are in big trouble. It's very much like what God told Israel when they chose a king/monarch.

No, it does not confirm anything of the sort in such a sweepingly generalized way. What it does seem to attempt to self-legitimize is a rejection of the assembly of believers and lonewolf Christianity. People can decide for themselves if it is legitimate or not.

What's so strange in your argument is that I'm referring to specific people doing specific things that depart from scripture. There's no question. It's not about "Protestants". It's about believers. It's not at all generalized. I'm pointing to specific points in history and individuals who's behavior is well documented. You've got a picture in your mind of something I'm probably not even talking about. You're defending a position I'm probably not talking about.

Rest assured though, any well-adjusted individual (a court room type description) would weight the evidence and without any prejudice find wrongdoing. That's what I'm pointing to, but in your mind, you're somewhere else... It's better to take the gloves off and not make this a Catholic vs Protestant thing.

We're looking at when the more "Catholic" aspects of church doctrine and behavior appeared. Some of those things are not found in the NT, so when it became more structured it took on a more RCC appearance. If you like those things, that's your business!

bbbbbbb · Sep 27, 2014

concretecamper said:
You are the first person that I have seen that assigns a definition of "rare" to miracle. It happens all the time so it cannot be a miracle!

If it "happens all the time" then I am surprised that such a fuss was made about this one instance where bread is believed to have become heart tissue. In fact, one could simply take a consecrated drop of wine today and perform a DNA test on it and determine the very DNA of our Lord. However, we all know that is forbidden, primarily because the "accidents" (i.e. bread and wine) remain quite unchanged despite consecration.

bbbbbbb · Sep 27, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
I think that bbbbbbb comments are about the specific miracle mentioned in one of your posts. But point taken, if a miracle has to be rare to be true according to bbbbbbb then that is a rather eccentric definition indeed.

The truth is that the Eucharistic miracle, the real presence of the Lord, is a sacramental presence - it is no less real because it is sacramental - rather than a miracle of bread turned into meat and wine turned into blood. The body and blood of Christ are really present as the host and precious blood (within the chalice) but the host still looks like bread and the precious blood still looks like wine, in fact all of the measurable properties of the host and precious blood remain exactly as they had been when the host was a communion bread and the precious blood was communion wine (prior to consecration). It may be the case that in some specific cases meat and blood became visibly present, that seems to be the testimony in the case that concretecamper referred to in an earlier post. Such things are indeed uncommon, I've never seen such happen but I do not dismiss as impossible that such may happen in the sight of others.

Thank you for the clear and concise response. One of the uses of this miracle has been to establish a view of transubstantiation which understands a hyper-literal meaning so that the bread becomes meat and the wine becomes physical blood. This view, as I am sure you know, was predominant in the Catholic Church for many centuries. It was a theology against which the Reformers reacted, resulting in a spectrum of understandings.

concretecamper · Sep 27, 2014

bbbbbbb said:
If it "happens all the time" then I am surprised that such a fuss was made about this one instance where bread is believed to have become heart tissue. In fact, one could simply take a consecrated drop of wine today and perform a DNA test on it and determine the very DNA of our Lord. However, we all know that is forbidden, primarily because the "accidents" (i.e. bread and wine) remain quite unchanged despite consecration.

Why would one expect that the DNA of the consecrated bread and wine be different than what they appear to be?

By Faith Alone · Sep 27, 2014

BobRyan said:
What is interesting is that in the NT two Apostles die - Judas and James.

But the only one we have a model of "Apostolic succession" for -- is Judas.

If one is going to argue for a system of "Apostolic succession" then the one for the office of Judas - is the only one we have in the NT.

in Christ,

Bob

True that. This replacement was to keep the number at 12 for the twelve tribes of Israel and is not "gentile" in nature. Could not have gone to Pentecost with 11.

By Faith Alone · Sep 27, 2014

Forget lying signs and wonders supposedly from God. We have His presence AMONG those who believe:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7844099/

There is a WONDER...ful Truth for us right in the Holy Writ and not from some Halloween skit.

By Faith Alone · Sep 27, 2014

concretecamper said:
Why would one expect that the DNA of the consecrated bread and wine be different than what they appear to be?

May we have the BIBLICAL definition of "consecrated"?

MoreCoffee · Sep 27, 2014

bbbbbbb said:
Thank you for the clear and concise response. One of the uses of this miracle has been to establish a view of transubstantiation which understands a hyper-literal meaning so that the bread becomes meat and the wine becomes physical blood. This view, as I am sure you know, was predominant in the Catholic Church for many centuries. It was a theology against which the Reformers reacted, resulting in a spectrum of understandings.

Well no, such a view was never "predominant in the Catholic Church". The Church has always taught the real presence and has also noted that the host remains in appearance and properties like bread and that precious blood remains in appearance and properties like wine. The early church fathers, knew this and taught it, the apostles knew it and taught it yet they also knew and taught that faith depends on the word of Christ and the word of Christ is that the consecrated bread is his body and the consecrated wine is his blood of the new covenant.

By Faith Alone · Sep 27, 2014

This is my body.

This is my blood.

I am the door.

I am the true vine.

All flesh is grass.

You are the salt of the earth.

Much to do about...METAPHORS.

MoreCoffee · Sep 27, 2014

If you want to think that what Jesus said was a metaphor that's up to you.

concretecamper · Sep 27, 2014

By Faith Alone said:
This is my body.

This is my blood.

I am the door.

I am the true vine.

All flesh is grass.

You are the salt of the earth.

Much to do about...METAPHORS.

Jesus let the crowd of thousands walk away over a simple misunderstanding of a metaphor?

bbbbbbb · Sep 27, 2014

concretecamper said:
Why would one expect that the DNA of the consecrated bread and wine be different than what they appear to be?

Well, according to the link you provided concerning the transformation of bread into heart tissue, there is a great difference in DNA between bread and heart tissue, would you not agree?

bbbbbbb · Sep 27, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
Well no, such a view was never "predominant in the Catholic Church". The Church has always taught the real presence and has also noted that the host remains in appearance and properties like bread and that precious blood remains in appearance and properties like wine. The early church fathers, knew this and taught it, the apostles knew it and taught it yet they also knew and taught that faith depends on the word of Christ and the word of Christ is that the consecrated bread is his body and the consecrated wine is his blood of the new covenant.

What I do know is that when I was young, growing up in an extremely Catholic city, all of my Catholic friends were quite insistent that at a Catholic mass, the priest said the magic words in Latin, the bells chimed, and the bread became the flesh of Jesus Christ and the wine became the very blood of Jesus Christ. They did not believe that the "accidents" remained unchanged.

By Faith Alone · Sep 27, 2014

concretecamper said:
Jesus let the crowd of thousands walk away over a simple misunderstanding of a metaphor?

And so He did. His words separated the wheat from the tares. The carnally minded left for they did not understand the significance of His speech.

John 6:60-68
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Ps 34:8 O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts.

MoreCoffee · Sep 27, 2014

bbbbbbb said:
What I do know is that when I was young, growing up in an extremely Catholic city, all of my Catholic friends were quite insistent that at a Catholic mass, the priest said the magic words in Latin, the bells chimed, and the bread became the flesh of Jesus Christ and the wine became the very blood of Jesus Christ. They did not believe that the "accidents" remained unchanged.

There are no "magic words" but the priest does repeat what Jesus said at the last supper and those words are the words of consecration.
Jesus said, 'Take it and eat, this is my body.'
Jesus also said, 'Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'

If your friends didn't believe that the substance changed and the accidents remained unchanged then they are either well over 500 years old and wouldn't use that vocabulary or they knew very little of the Catholic faith (or you may be remembering things not quite the way they were?). The vocabulary of transubstantiation was given conciliar approval at the council of Trent in the 16th century. So no Catholic can accurately present Catholic teaching without knowing what the Church teaches about the ideas of substance and accidents in the explanation of the real presence.

concretecamper · Sep 27, 2014

bbbbbbb said:
Well, according to the link you provided concerning the transformation of bread into heart tissue, there is a great difference in DNA between bread and heart tissue, would you not agree?

So in the case where God removed the accidents, you would expect the DNA of bread and wine?

The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

Repentance works.

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Resident Alien

bbbbbbb

Guest

bbbbbbb

Guest

Member of His Church

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Repentance works.

Junior Member

Repentance works.

Member of His Church

bbbbbbb

Guest

bbbbbbb

Guest

Junior Member

Repentance works.

Member of His Church

Similar threads