Biases

[Eternally Grateful]

Level with Scripture, since it is indeed Scripture.

Not sure I agree.

Let’s focus on the word itself. And not some creed.

Again, as I showed earlier. The creed can be taken a few ways. Let’s focus on Gods word. Not a creed..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I doubt you know what a creed is, or what it is for. It is a summary of Biblical truths that we confess together as a symbol of unity.

I was saved for many years before I even heard of any creed. And was united with many different churches. Of a few denominations.

We were United in the word..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Indeed. Furthermore the Nicene Creed can be regarded as inspired,

This just proves my point.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Let's not forget what Luther once called "The 4th Creed"; the Te deum Laudamus. I like the way some Catholic Churches use it to conclude the Mass as it speaks to transcendence of heaven, earth, time and space with the Mass being an extension of the perpetual heavenly worship. What I like almost as much is the fact that they are using a Lutheran setting that is a versification of the Latin; some might say that this is "too Catholic"; I would say to not do this when one could is too "Baptist", enjoy...:

This also proves my point

By mass, i assume you mean the Eucharist?

 

[The Liturgist]

Let's not forget what Luther once called "The 4th Creed"; the Te deum Laudamus. I like the way some Catholic Churches use it to conclude the Mass as it speaks to transcendence of heaven, earth, time and space with the Mass being an extension of the perpetual heavenly worship. What I like almost as much is the fact that they are using a Lutheran setting that is a versification of the Latin; some might say that this is "too Catholic"; I would say to not do this when one could is too "Baptist", enjoy...:

Traditionally Te Deum Laudamus is used for Lauds or Morning Prayer in the Anglican tradition - the Orthodox also use it. But to that hymn I would add two others, which I have done before, those being Ho Monogenes and Haw Nurone.

I really wish more Roman Catholic parishes would celebrate the Divine Office. There should be The Office of Readings or Matins and Lauds before every Mass on Sunday, and Midday Prayer and Vespers before and Compline after the Saturday and Sunday evening masses. This was intended by Vatican II, but it basically didn’t happen, and sadly the Liturgy of the Hours despite the name change, intended to give priests a hint as to the idea that it is supposed to be publicly celebrated where possible rather than as a private devotion for the clergy, is celebrated as a public service mainly in cathedral churches and monasteries. Even the famed Missions in California including the one nearest me don’t offer it. Whereas many Anglican and Episcopal churches still offer Evensong or Morning Prayer, as well as some Lutheran churches, and if I recall your parish does Compline on Christmas Eve

Indeed you might enjoy this post of mine from a prior thread - our friend @Ain't Zwinglian certainly did at the time, and it does include Te Deum Laudamus:

Share YOUR Statement of Faith

Sorry for the sarcasm. I forgot how to do litotes. (No really, I am sorry.) What bothers me very much about this kind of thing is that it is so incredibly "me"-centered. What do I really believe? How can I express it in my own words? How can I engage my creativity to communicate how I feel...

www.christianforums.com

 

[The Liturgist]

This also proves my point

By mass, i assume you mean the Eucharist

The word Mass, which comes from the Latin phrase “Ite, missa est” which literally means “Depart, it is the dismissal” (hence the English word dismiss, which historically did not have an alternate declension “dismissed”, so military officers used to say “You may dismiss” rather than “You are dismissed” interestingly enough, is shorthand for what the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox call the Divine Liturgy, the Lutherans call the Gottesdienst or Divine Service, the Syriac Orthodox call the Qurbono Qadisho, the Assyrian Church of the East calls the Raza, the Ethiopians call the Qidase, and the Armenians call the Soorp Badarak (or Patarag, depending on whether the Western or Eastern dialect is meaning), and which Roman Catholics call the Mass. It is the principle weekly church service consisting of the Synaxis or Liturgy of the Word (also known in Orthodoxy as the Liturgy of the Catechumens) at which the appointed scripture lessons are read, the sermon is preached and prayers and hymns are sung, and the Liturgy of the Faithful which includes more hymns, the Kiss of Peace and the Anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer is prayed, for the consecration of Holy Communion, which the faithful then partake of (except in a few rare cases, for example, in the Armenian church, in contrast to all other Orthodox churches where increased frequency of communion is de rigeur in Lent, the Armenians do not partake from the start of Lent until Palm Sunday.

Some Protestant churches call this service “the Lord’s Supper” and some celebrate it infrequently, but usually at least quarterly, however most of the older Protestant churches celebrate it weekly, and also the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ of the Stone/Campbell movement, who I mentioned previously.

 

[The Liturgist]

This just proves my point.

Does it?

Did you know that the New Testament canon was not finalized until the mid fourth century, when St. Athanasius, who led the anti-Arian movement at the Council of Nicaea and was instrumental in drafting the initial version of the Creed, published the current New Testament canon used by everyone for the first time? Before that time, bibles were being made with many additional books (see the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus) which usually had 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas which are authentic but Patristic rather than Apostolic, and 2 Clement and 1 Barnabas which are spurious, and also the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians, which are also spurious. The Syriac Peshitta had a 22 book canon that reflected the more conservative approach taken by some bishops of the time (and also the fact that not all of the above had yet been translated into Syriac Aramaic and there was a desire to focus on the basics), which was lacking Jude, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter and Revelation.

Since the same people who were at the Council of Nicaea either developed the New Testament canon or went on to leadership roles in other churches that would accept the Athanasian canon, it is illogical to argue against the idea that the council itself is an integral part of the Christian faith.

Oh, also, the four canonical Gospels were not even recognized as such, canonical, until the second century. St. Irenaeus was a primary advocate of there being four and only four Gospels and stressed the identification of the Evangelists with the four winged animals we find in Ezekiel and Revelation (the winged man being St. Matthew, the winged lion being St. Mark, the winged calf being St. Luke and the Eagle being St. John the Beloved Disciple). There were other Gospels, some of which were heretical, but others that were regarded as legitimate albeit lacking in important content (the Aramaic language Gospel of the Hebrews, which survives only in quotations), and the Gospel of St. Peter was regarded favorably by some, a fragment survives that had been respectfully buried with a Coptic monk and describes the Passion of our Lord in a normal manner, more or less, although the resurrection narrative is … unusual, but some suspected it of being heretical or docetic, and one bishop made a point of removing it wherever he found it. We also have the Gospel of Thomas, which might be a corrupt Coptic translation of an Aramaic sayings Gospel used by St. Thomas the Apostle and his disciples, a record of the sayings of our Lord, since most of the sayings attributed to him can be found in the synoptics, but the opening of the Gospel makes references to secret knowledge, which suggests the work was corrupted by Gnostics, and certain of the sayings are consistent with what one finds in other Gnostic psuedepigraphical “gospels” like the “Gospel of Judas”. There was an especially blasphemous “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” which based on a remark by an early church father was likely distributed by a follower of the Persian false prophet and heretic Mani, who attempted simultaneously to infilitrate and take over Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the Pagan cult Hermes Trimegistus in Egypt, and Buddhism in India, which was pretty audacious, and the Sassanian Persian emperor gave him a big boost by having him flayed, which made him a martyr, and as a result his religion stuck around for probbably a millenium, and there are two surviving Manichaen temples in China disguised as Buddhist temples, albeit as far as we know no Manichees have used them for nearly a millenia, but they can be identified as Manichean rather than Buddhist by certain abnormalities in the way the Buddha is depicted and certain inscriptions, and this insidious approach of dissimulation was practiced by that religion, indeed mastered by them (it was later adopted by the Muslims). Unlike Christians, who tended to be open about their faith and in many cases, such as St. Anthony the Great, sought martyrdom, in St. Anthony’s case unsuccessfully (the Romans ignored him even when he inserted himself into a group of martyrs being marched to death and tried to get the soldiers to arrest him, but got pushed aside, so he moved on to a different form of martyrdom), most Gnostics preferred to go into hiding like cockroaches, since they did not value martyrdom, and the Muslims adopted this and combined it with the idea that dying in battle for Islam is martyrdom, which of course has given us homicide bombers and so on, and makes the extremist militant Salafi Islam of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups essentially a death cult.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The word Mass, which comes from the Latin phrase “Ite, missa est” which literally means “Depart, it is the dismissal” (hence the English word dismiss, which historically did not have an alternate declension “dismissed”, so military officers used to say “You may dismiss” rather than “You are dismissed” interestingly enough, is shorthand for what the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox call the Divine Liturgy, the Lutherans call the Gottesdienst or Divine Service, the Syriac Orthodox call the Qurbono Qadisho, the Assyrian Church of the East calls the Raza, the Ethiopians call the Qidase, and the Armenians call the Soorp Badarak (or Patarag, depending on whether the Western or Eastern dialect is meaning), and which Roman Catholics call the Mass. It is the principle weekly church service consisting of the Synaxis or Liturgy of the Word (also known in Orthodoxy as the Liturgy of the Catechumens) at which the appointed scripture lessons are read, the sermon is preached and prayers and hymns are sung, and the Liturgy of the Faithful which includes more hymns, the Kiss of Peace and the Anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer is prayed, for the consecration of Holy Communion, which the faithful then partake of (except in a few rare cases, for example, in the Armenian church, in contrast to all other Orthodox churches where increased frequency of communion is de rigeur in Lent, the Armenians do not partake from the start of Lent until Palm Sunday.

Some Protestant churches call this service “the Lord’s Supper” and some celebrate it infrequently, but usually at least quarterly, however most of the older Protestant churches celebrate it weekly, and also the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ of the Stone/Campbell movement, who I mentioned previously.

Why would it be weekly. In the book of acts it says they met often.. Many times daily..

but thank you. I only heard the mass from a catholic point of view. Which had integrated into it the communion or Eucharist. Where we partake in the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of minor sins (I think they call them venial? )

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Does it?

Did you know that the New Testament canon was not finalized until the mid fourth century,

Actually this is not true. Peter called pauls letters scripture.

God put the word together as he had spent 2000 years doing when moses first started to pen its words.

Again, I ask. Where is the authorities of scripure as apposed to the authority of men?

I mean John completed his letters in the 90’s ad and it took hundreds of years for God to finalize his word?

suspicions should immediately arise as to what prevented God from putting it together when it was done.

 

[Valletta]

Why would it be weekly. In the book of acts it says they met often.. Many times daily..

but thank you. I only heard the mass from a catholic point of view. Which had integrated into it the communion or Eucharist. Where we partake in the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of minor sins (I think they call them venial? )

The first mass was the Last Supper. More was later integrated into the mass (such as NT readings, which of course were not in existence at the time of the Last Supper). The central part of the mass, as it was at the Last Supper, is still the Holy Eucharist.

 

[ARBITER01]

Since the Fathers at Nicaea and Constantinople upheld the clear meaning of Inspired Scripture as it had always been understood since the time of the Apostles, we can regard them as divinely inspired.

And insofar as the Creeds quote Scripture they can be regarded as Scriptural.

Let me make a correction for you.

Divine inspiration from The Holy Spirit is not done through a group of people. Take a look in our bible, there is not a single book in there that originated from a group of people. GOD always works through individuals that way. Always has and always will.

Also, piecemealing a creed together using bit and pieces of scripture does not automatically confer inspiration onto it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The first mass was the Last Supper.

I disagree

More was later integrated into the mass (such as NT readings, which of course were not in existence at the time of the Last Supper). The central part of the mass, as it was at the Last Supper, is still the Holy Eucharist.

The holy Eucharist as taught by the Catholic Church was not practiced by the churches in acts. Or by Jesus in the last supper

The bread and water represented that which was shed for us, we are to do often in rememberance of what saved us (the cross)

Jesus said in John 6. This food which endures forever, this bread from heaven, this flesh and blood. Which whoever eats it will nto die. Live forever. And be raised by Him. Is not to be eaten like manna where you do it often. it endures foever. Thats why he said you do this, you will never hunger or thirst.

I find it amazing tham many claim this food they eat weekly dies. So that they hunger and thirst again, When jesus said we ill never hunger or thirst

 

[Valletta]

I disagree

The holy Eucharist as taught by the Catholic Church was not practiced by the churches in acts. Or by Jesus in the last supper

The bread and water represented that which was shed for us, we are to do often in rememberance of what saved us (the cross)

Jesus said in John 6. This food which endures forever, this bread from heaven, this flesh and blood. Which whoever eats it will nto die. Live forever. And be raised by Him. Is not to be eaten like manna where you do it often. it endures foever. Thats why he said you do this, you will never hunger or thirst.

I find it amazing tham many claim this food they eat weekly dies. So that they hunger and thirst again, When jesus said we ill never hunger or thirst

It's called the breaking of the bread in the Bible and we obey Jesus when He told us to "do this." The words of consecration that Jesus used at the first mass are used in every Catholic mass. I realize it is a "hard saying."

John 6:51-58 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[b] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” RSVCE

Cor 11:27-32 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[a] But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[b] so that we may not be condemned along with the world. RSVCE

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I was saved for many years before I even heard of any creed. And was united with many different churches. Of a few denominations.

We were United in the word..

Are you saying we are not, but your posts certainly read that way; self centered and reliant in self. Whereas creeds share and reach outward defining common articles of faith, rather than personal interpretations. Your lack of awareness regarding Creeds, their purpose and use and your lack of understanding of how other Christians worship pretty much negates any arguments against other practices as you have no context on which to base those arguments. It is like you depart from an unknown location, you are traveling with a road map, you have an idea of where you are going but not knowing where you departed from, it is pretty much impossible to get to one's destination.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I disagree

The holy Eucharist as taught by the Catholic Church was not practiced by the churches in acts. Or by Jesus in the last supper

The bread and water represented that which was shed for us, we are to do often in rememberance of what saved us (the cross)

Jesus said in John 6. This food which endures forever, this bread from heaven, this flesh and blood. Which whoever eats it will nto die. Live forever. And be raised by Him. Is not to be eaten like manna where you do it often. it endures foever. Thats why he said you do this, you will never hunger or thirst.

I find it amazing tham many claim this food they eat weekly dies. So that they hunger and thirst again, When jesus said we ill never hunger or thirst

Well then you are wrong. The Bible is clear that it was done with great regularity; daily in fact. This is pretty much "fake news" and "revisionist history" made up by reformed protestants to discredit traditional historic practices handed down over the generations.

 

[concretecamper]

What does 2 Tim 3:16 mean?

When this passage was written, Scripture was the Tanahk. So Paul was saying that the Tanahk is God breathed and profitable. That's all.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It's called the breaking of the bread in the Bible and we obey Jesus when He told us to "do this." The words of consecration that Jesus used at the first mass are used in every Catholic mass. I realize it is a "hard saying."\

if this is all you believed I would agree. Because I believe it also.

John 6:51-58 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever;

do you believe they will live forever after they eat this bread? If so. Why keep eating?

and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[b] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” RSVCE

Again, do you believe you will live forever?

Cor 11:27-32 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[a] But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[b] so that we may not be condemned along with the world. RSVCE

So we will live forever. But we may not?

lol

Jesus told us in john 6 what the bread from heaven that gives life is.right after the verses you posted. Jesus explains

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this [o]offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 Butthere are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

66 From that time many of His disciples went [p]back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

It’s funny how peter understood. And the church that calls him their father missed this point>

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well then you are wrong. The Bible is clear that it was done with great regularity; daily in fact. This is pretty much "fake news" and "revisionist history" made up by reformed protestants to discredit traditional historic practices handed down over the generations.

No

the bible has corrected me on this fact. If you would study John 6 as a whole. It may correct you also.

I stopped listening to men blindly many years ago

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When this passage was written, Scripture was the Tanahk. So Paul was saying that the Tanahk is God breathed and profitable. That's all.

Are you sure about this? Remember, peter called Pauls letters scripture.. so by defenition. That also was inspired.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No

the bible has corrected me on this fact. If you would study John 6 as a whole. It may correct you also.

I stopped listening to men blindly many years ago

While I do listen to others, I test what they say or wright with Holy Scripture; much of what you are promoting fails that test. In light of Scripture, you are partially correct about John 6, but there is so much more in there based on the context of scripture regarding not only faith but the Eucharist and eternity. Scripture interprets scripture and scripture derives its context from scripture. You see one tree; viewed through the lense of Scripture, we see a forest.