Precious Blood of Jesus

[gtsecc]

Truth is revealed to us over time.
We didn't get the Trinity "officially" until the 4th century.

 

[Albion]

Truth is revealed to us over time.
We didn't get the Trinity "officially" until the 4th century.

We aren't talking about "officially" anything. And this is not about a concept.

The question was about the first appearance or experience of Christians doing this. That's just history.

 

[Wigglesworth]

Precious Blood

The blood of our Divine Saviour. Jesus, at the Last Supper, ascribes to it the same life-giving power that belongs to His flesh (see EUCHARIST). The Apostles, St. Peter (1 Peter 1:2, 19), St. John (1 John 1:7; Apocalypse 1:5 etc.), and above all St. Paul (Romans 3:25; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:10) regard it as synonymous with Jesus's Passion and Death, the source of redemption. The Precious Blood is therefore a part of the Sacred Humanity and hypostatically united to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

In the fifteenth century some theologians, with a view of determining whether the blood shed by the Saviour during His Passion remained united to the Word or not, raised the point as to whether the Precious Blood is an essential part or only a concomitant of the Sacred Humanity. If an essential part, they argued, it could never be detached from the Word; if a concomitant only, it could. The Dominicans held the first view, and the Franciscans the second.

Pius II, in whose presence the debate took place, rendered no doctrinal decision on the point at issue, However, chiefly since the Council of Trent (Sess, XIII, c. 3) called the body and blood of Jesus "partes Christi Domini the trend of theological thought has been in favour of the Dominican teaching. Francisco Suárez and de Lugo look askance at the Franciscans' view, and Faber writes: "It is not merely a concomitant of the flesh, an inseparable accident of the body. The blood itself, as blood, was assumed directly by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity" (Precious Blood, i). The blood shed during the triduum of the Passion therefore reunited to the body of Christ at the Resurrection, with the possible exception of a few particles which instantly lost their union to the Word and became holy relics to be venerated but not adored. Some such particles may have adhered and yet adhere to the instruments of the Passion, e.g. nails, scourging pillar, Scala Sancta.

Several places like Saintes, Bruges, Mantua etc. claim, on the strength of ancient traditions, to possess relics of the Precious Blood, but it is often difficult to tell whether the traditions are correct.

Viewed as a part of the Sacred Humanity hypostatically united to the Word, the Precious Blood deserves latreutical worship or adoration. It may also like the Heart or the Wounds from which it flowed, be singled out for special honour, in a way that special honour was rendered it from the beginning by St. Paul and the Fathers who so eloquently praised its redeeming virtue and rested on it the Christian spirit of self-sacrifice.

As Faber remarks, the lives of the saints are replete with devotion to the Precious Blood. In due course of time the Church gave shape and sanction to the devotion by approving societies like the Missionaries of the Precious Blood; enriching confraternities like that of St. Nicholas in Carcere, in Rome, and that of the London Oratory; attaching indulgences to prayers and scapulars in honour of the Precious Blood; and establishing commemorative feasts of the Precious Blood, Friday after the fourth Sunday in Lent and, since Pius IX, the first Sunday of July.

From: New Advent

 

[gtsecc]

We aren't talking about "officially" anything. And this is not about a concept.

The question was about the first appearance or experience of Christians doing this. That's just history.

Yes, but I think your post implied that it was an "innovation."
So, I was just pointing out, that one could say the same thing about the Trinity.

 

[Aymn27]

Truth is revealed to us over time.
We didn't get the Trinity "officially" until the 4th century.

I would say this is incorrect - Truth was revealed in Jesus Christ and all that is necessary for salvation is found in the New Testament. Truth was revealed and we (the church) may take some time to develop it into a language/idea we can understand - but "Truth" was always there...the Trinity was revealed in Christ's words and teachings - it was already there - the theology is what followed...

 

[gtsecc]

I would say this is incorrect - Truth was revealed in Jesus Christ and all that is necessary for salvation is found in the New Testament. Truth was revealed and we (the church) may take some time to develop it into a language/idea we can understand - but "Truth" was always there...the Trinity was revealed in Christ's words and teachings - it was already there - the theology is what followed...

This is simply wrong.
Yes, the Trinity existed.
But, you cannot say that the Trinity was an idea that the 1st and second century Christians would have been able to articulate to you. So, you cannot say it was "revealed" to them, unless you are going to try to argue that it was revealed, but they didn't understand it.

 

[Aymn27]

This is simply wrong.
Yes, the Trinity existed.
But, you cannot say that the Trinity was an idea that the 1st and second century Christians would have been able to articulate to you. So, you cannot say it was "revealed" to them, unless you are going to try to argue that it was revealed, but they didn't understand it.

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (hence - the completion of the NT era) - all theology/doctrine must flow from/be developed from that -- anything else is an addition to the faith and is not necessary belief for salvation or to be a member of the church...that's what I'm getting at...

The "truth" of the Trinity was revealed through the writings of the NT (by the words of Christ and the apostolic letters and teachings), it wasn't until canon was accepted that such discussion and formalization of this truth could began - because prior to the canon of the NT, there was no "standard" by which any doctrine could be judged, save the portions of Scripture that each community had...

 

[Albion]

Yes, but I think your post implied that it was an "innovation."

Well, we know that it was an innovation at some point in time. I wouldn't agree with comparing it to the Trinity, however, which is laid out for us right in the Bible. We know that the language explaining it in the Creed came later, but that wasn't when the concept of the triune God or of the deity of Christ came from.

 

[gtsecc]

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (hence - the completion of the NT era) - all theology/doctrine must flow from/be developed from that -- anything else is an addition to the faith and is not necessary belief for salvation or to be a member of the church...that's what I'm getting at...

The "truth" of the Trinity was revealed through the writings of the NT (by the words of Christ and the apostolic letters and teachings), it wasn't until canon was accepted that such discussion and formalization of this truth could began - because prior to the canon of the NT, there was no "standard" by which any doctrine could be judged, save the portions of Scripture that each community had...

Wow, now I will have to think about that. Where are you getting this idea from?

 

[Aymn27]

Wow, now I will have to think about that. Where are you getting this idea from?

pretty much Roman Catholicism - minus the ability of the church to declare non-essentials as doctrine and having Scripture - rather than Tradition as the standard measure of faith .

 

[gtsecc]

Well, let's get down to brass tacks. You are taking a position that some sort of revelation ended with the New Testament? I take almost the opposite view - that it began with the end of the New Testament, at Pentecost, through the vehicle of the Church. So, let's hear your reasoning.

 

[Wigglesworth]

Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (hence - the completion of the NT era) - all theology/doctrine must flow from/be developed from that -- anything else is an addition to the faith and is not necessary belief for salvation or to be a member of the church...that's what I'm getting at...

This belief is called cessationism. It is held by Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Baptists and Fundamentalists. I have never heard it promoted by anyone orthodox or catholic.

Peace be with you, and may the gifts of the Holy Spirit be poured out in your church.

 

[Wigglesworth]

The following fictional dialgoue appears in my blog in a post made while I was frustrated with a cessationist who rejected the gift of tongues as understood by charismatics. (I realize the above discussion was not about tongues.)

The Rebuke of a Cessationist


Cessationist: Tongues shall cease. It's in the Bible.

Charismatic: I can respect your belief in Scripture, although I disagree with you on this point. I think we can both agree on the application of that Scripture though.

Cessationist: How's that?

Charismatic: You believe that which is perfect has come, so tongues have ceased.

Cessationist: That's right!

Charismatic: The same verse says when that which is perfect has come, knowledge will pass away. If you are right about that which is perfect, then knowledge has passed away, and you don't have any.

Cessationist:

Charismatic: If I am right about that which is perfect, then you are a heretic. So we can both agree that you need to sit down and stop spouting nonsense.

Cessationist:

 

[Aymn27]

Well, let's get down to brass tacks. You are taking a position that some sort of revelation ended with the New Testament? I take almost the opposite view - that it began with the end of the New Testament, at Pentecost, through the vehicle of the Church. So, let's hear your reasoning.

Well brother, perhaps it is some "Roman" leftovers in my reasoning - much like the necessity of penal substitution and atonement theory - but I have been taught - and continue to hold that public revelation cease with the death of the last apostle. From henceforth, the Holy Spirit may give private revelations, prophetic gifts, etc - but these are for edification of the church only and under no circumstances should any foundation be laid upon them in the church. All doctrine/dogma was revealed during the age of the apostles, and ceased at the death of the last one - from hence forth the church's function is to safeguard and interpret that which she has been given--and anything that she teaches or requires of the faithful to believe MUST be grounded in Scripture - because ONLY SCRIPTURE is the sure-proof of apostolic witness...while tradition may shed some light on particular practices, beliefs, etc - Scripture is the one and ony standard by which believers are required to judge their faith...

In RE to the teaching of the RCC:

"The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued."

 

[Aymn27]

This belief is called cessationism. It is held by Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Baptists and Fundamentalists. I have never heard it promoted by anyone orthodox or catholic.

Peace be with you, and may the gifts of the Holy Spirit be poured out in your church.

Dear brother - I am not a cessationist - I consider myself both catholic and orthodox - please see above quote in reply to glenn re: Dei Verbum 4. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point - because I surely don't group you in with the Mormons - for whom revelation continues...

 

[Aymn27]

For your review (Dei Verbum 4):

4. Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18). Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." (3) He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; Divine Revelation 17:4). To see Jesus is to see His Father (John 14:9). For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.
The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).

 

[Albion]

deleted

 

[Wigglesworth]

This part of the article quoted above I find interesting:

Some people tend to go to one extreme or the other on private revelation; they either completely reject the concept or they consider private revelation their chief rule of faith. The original sixteenth century Protestant Reformers denied all private revelation—they had to, for all the miracles that had occurred and all the private revelations that had been received over the previous fifteen hundred years had confirmed rather than attacked the Catholic faith. The original Reformers’ actions were in direct disobedience to the binding command of the New Testament: "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good" (1 Thess. 5:19–21).

From Catholic Answers

Dear brother - I am not a cessationist - I consider myself both catholic and orthodox - please see above quote in reply to glenn re: Dei Verbum 4. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point - because I surely don't group you in with the Mormons - for whom revelation continues...

I misunderstood. Please accept my apology.

 

[SumTinWong]

I am more comfortable worshipping Christ rather than individual body parts.

You took the words out of my mouth.