How much of what the Bible says on that subject is "allowed" for discussion by the RCC?
Note the words of (pope) Peter that are so necessary to ignore in the RC presentation of tis subject.
"Corresponding to that (the Arkof Noah) Baptism now saves you -- NOT the sacramental touch of holy water to the skin but rather the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience"
In other words - it is the choice of the one coming to Christ and also the appeal of that same one for a clean conscience. It is "not" in the power of the priest, or holy water etc. The "externals" have no "power" at all.
In Christ,
Bob
Catholicity key to Church Unity
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jude, Apr 3, 2004.
Page 5 of 12
-
-
-
Some of the more difinitive RC statements on unity in the body of Christ...
Abridged version, by Dave Armstrong, of "The Church Necessary for Salvation," chapter 10, pp.169-186 of The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924, translated by Dom Justin McCann).
This book (in the editor's opinion, anyway) is one of the very best expositions of Catholicism ever written: very eloquent, biblical, imaginative, appealing, and orthodox.
In it is found the following excellent treatment of the complex and multi-faceted question of how non-Catholic Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church historically.
[p.169]
"And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matthew 18:17).
The Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, as the realization in the world of the Kingdom of God, is the Church of Humanity...the exclusive institution wherein all men shall attain salvation.....
The Church would belie her own deepest essence and her most outstanding quality, namely her inexhaustible fullness and that which guarantees and supports this fullness, her vocation to be the Body of Christ, if she were ever to recognize some collateral and antagonistic Christian church as her sister and as possessing equal rights with herself. She can recognize the historical importance of such churches, She can even designate them as Christian communions, yes, even as Christian churches, but never as the Church of Christ. One [p.170] God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church. There can never be a second Christ, and in the same way there cannot be a second Body of Christ...
The Catholic Church can and will appraise generously, and will countenance, all the communities of non-Catholic Christendom...But she cannot recognize other Christian communions as churches of like order and rights with herself. To do so would be infidelity to her own nature, and would be the worst disloyalty to herself. In her own eyes the Catholic Church is nothing at all if she be not the Church, the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God. This exclusiveness is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the bringer of the new life, to be the way, the truth and the life........
There is "no other name under heaven given to men, whereby they must be saved" (Acts 4:12). But we can grasp Christ only through His Church. It is true that He might, had He so willed, have imparted Himself and His grace to all men directly, in personal experience. But the question is not what might have been, but what Christ in fact willed to do. And in fact He willed to give Himself to men through men, that is by the way of a community life and not by the way of isolation and in- [p.171] dividualism....
It was not His will to sanctify a countless multitude of solitary souls, but a corporate kingdom of saints, a Kingdom of God....
From the very beginning, as St. Matthew testifies (Matthew 18:17) the necessity for salvation of belonging to the one fellowship was established on the basis of an express saying of our Lord's:… St. Cyprian [d.258] afterwards expressed this conviction of primitive Christianity..: "To have the one God for your father, you must have the Church for your mother" (Ep. 74,7). "No man can be saved except in the Church" (Ep. 4,4). "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73,21).
Thus was formulated that sentence which puts the Church's claim to be the only source of salvation in the most concise form: "Outside the Church no salvation" [p.172] (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). the Fourth Lateran Council (A.D. 1215) adopted this formula verbatim...
[p.174] ......But, we may ask, does that mean that all heretics and non-Catholics are destined to hell?...
To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at any persons as persons, but at non-Catholic churches and communions, in so far as they are non-Catholic communions. Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possesses and imparts the grace of Christ in its fullness...So that the spiritual unfruitfulness which is predicated in the doctrine is not to be affirmed of the individual non-Catholic, but primarily of non-Catholic communions as such.........
[p.176]...The Jansenists in the seventeenth century...advocated the...principle that "outside the Church there is no grace" (extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia).
[p.179]......The Church rightly maintains and continually reiterates, in decisive and uncompromising fashion, her claim to be the sole true Body of Christ;
[p.180] From the purely theological standpoint,..the only possible conclusion regarding all heretics and schismatics, Jews and pagans, is that judgment of condemnation which the Council of Florence [1438-1445] pronounced upon them.…[p.181]...It is thus, from this purely theological standpoint, that we are to understand the sharp anathemas pronounced by the Church against all heretics and schismatics...In these pronouncements the Church is not deciding the good or bad faith of the individual heretic. Still less is she sitting in judgment on his ultimate fate. The immediate purport of her condemnation is that these heretics represent and proclaim ideas antagonistic to the Church. When ideas are in conflict, when truth is fighting against error, and revelation against human ingenuity, then there can be no compromise and no indulgence....Dogmatic intolerance is therefore a moral duty, a duty to the infinite truth and to truthfulness.
But so soon as it is a question, not of the conflict between idea and idea, but of living men, of our judgment on this or that non-Catholic, then the theologian becomes a psychologist, the dogmatist a pastor of souls. He draws attention to the fact that the living man is very rarely the embodiment of an idea, that the conceptual world and mentality of the individual are so multifarious and complicated, that he cannot be reduced to a single formula. In other words the heretic, the Jew and the pagan seldom exist [p.182] in a pure state........Therefore the Church expressly distinguishes between "formal" and "material" heretics. A "formal" heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a "material" heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine [354-430] forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally (Ep. 43,1,1). Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed Himself to be invited by Simon......
It is true that heretics were tried and burned in the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
Bob -
The verse of Peter has not been ignored, look above in my post.
The one Baptism that Jesus Christ gave us is an outward sign of spritual reality. We die with Christ and rise with Christ. Those who had only John's baptism, didn't have the Holy Spirit. We must be born of water and the Holy Spirit. There is only one baptism, the one Jesus Christ gave us. -
Originally posted by Kathryn:
In the Eucharist we really share in the one bread, with everyone else in the body of Christ, in His sacrifice. If it just represented unity, there would not really be one bread or one body.
No where does the Bible say anything about an outward sign. We really are born again, we really do share in the body and blood of His sacrifice. ..
Baptism and the Eucharist are both outward signs of a spiritual reality. Otherwise we have not been born again, and we don't share in the body of Christ as the word of God says we do.Click to expand...
9 then He said, "" BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second.[/i]
Christ takes away the first in order to establish the second. Mankind no longer has anything to “offer” by way of sacrifice in our worship service.
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Those who argue that unless Christ is offered “continually” we are not sanctified through the offering of His body – are missing this key point. It is “ONCE” for all – offered “once for all” and that is why we can have faith that we are in fact sanctified through it. IF we had to continually offer the sacrifice we would have the same problem as the OT service.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
One “Sacrifice for the sins of ALL time” – and it was offered – by Christ Himself – not by man or by 1000’s of priests coming after Christ.
Those humans that choose to stand daily offering the “same sacrifice” are offering that which can “never take away sins” for they are denying the ONE sacrifice by denying the “ONE offering” offered “ONCE for all time”.
13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
By “one OFFERING” not simply by “one sacrifice”. We can no more deny the “ONE offering” than we can the “ONE sacrifice”. To deny either – is to lose both.Click to expand...
Bob -
By “one OFFERING” not simply by “one sacrifice”.
We can no more deny the “ONE offering” than we can the “ONE sacrifice”.
To deny either – is to lose both.
Ooops! Did I already post that?
In Christ,
Bob -
Kathryn,
You said, 'Ray: Jesus showed us that we must die with him to rise with Him. He told
John to go ahead with the baptism to fulfill what had to be done. He was
declared the Son of God by the Father and witnessed by the Holy Spirit.'
Ray is saying, 'You are 100% right in your above statements.'
You said, 'He was born again of water and the spirit.'
Kathryn, 'You must have found some defect in the Divine Son of God that He needed to be 'born again of water and the Spirit.' I know your Catholic Magisterium nor any other evangelical theologian will ever, ever agree with this innovation of yours. God does not need to be 'born again' like all sinners need to be regenerated. In case you don't know, that is what being 'born again of the Spirit' means.'
You said, 'This is why Jesus commanded we must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit when we become a child of God and enter into the covenant.'
Ray is saying, 'We enter into an eternal covenant with Jesus, only happens when we receive Christ as Savior. [John 1:12] Only ' . . . as many as receive Him {Christ} to those gave He power (or the right) to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on His Name.'
You said, 'Jesus had no sin, but showed us what we had to do to be saved. We have to join Him in the one baptism.'
Ray is saying, 'You are right that Jesus never sinned. But, according to your own catalyst, Jesus only partook and ministered the Eucharist only once and that was on Maundy Thursday, the day before Good Friday. And according to Jesus pattern no one should be baptized as a baby but should wait until age thirty years old.'
Kathryn, you said, 'There is only one Baptism, we die with Christ and rise with
Christ.'
Ray is saying, 'On this issue you are holding hands with most Baptists. If you will read Romans chapter six you will find that God is speaking about being spiritually being baptized into -the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.' There is not one drop of water in Romans six. I will agree with you that when we come to know Christ we are risen with Jesus Christ. Colossians 3:1 says, 'If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above . . . '
You said, 'Those who had been baptised by John had to be baptised in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.'
Ray is saying, 'I agree that those who followed John the Baptist also had to experience Christian baptism. Jesus had to do all that has done including His baptism. This was His public entrance into His ministry, as John the Baptist completes His mission here on earth.
I know you were brought up believing that baptism is necessary for a person's hope of Heaven. The sinner on the Cross did not experience any mode of baptism and the Bible says that the only requirement for Heaven is to believe, meaning, to trust in He and His blessed atonement. Read: Acts 2:21 & Acts 16:31 & John 3:16.
We baptize people to portray to the world and in the presence of His church that we are not ashamed to claim His Name and mission to this world. If we believe in infant baptism it is the sign of the covenant, as circumcision was the sign of the former covenant. -
Bob: No multiple sacrifices. No new sacrifices. This is how we share in the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ with the one bread we break and the cup of blessing we bless. St. Paul explains in Holy Scripture:
“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” Since there is one bread , we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread . 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 -
Ray:
Jesus Christ is true God and true man. He was born as a baby, and later He was born with water and the Holy Spirit in His baptism. He was declared the Son of God and witnessed by the Holy Spirit. He gave us the same baptism where we die with Him and rise with Him. He commanded this in the Great Commission where the Trinity witnesses our baptism when done in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.
You are wrong here about Jesus administering the Eucharist only once the day before Good Friday. Jesus Christ ministered the Eucharist again after He rose from the dead. Jesus rebuked the Apostles and called them foolish for not remembering all He commanded them. Because they failed to have this unity, they were blinded to recognizing Him even though they were Christians, loved Him, and were His followers. It was through the Eucharist that Jesus Christ opened their eyes, and they recognized Him and remembered.
Luke 24:30
When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.
Luke 24:31
Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.
You need multiple types of Baptism to deal with your beliefs. Jesus Christ gave us one. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Matthew 28:19
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, -
Kathryn,
Do you believe that every time the word baptism is used in the New Testament it is talking about water baptism? If you do you must believe in baptismal regeneration? There is only one true baptism as I stated earlier it is the baptism of Christ with the Spirit and fire. Water baptism is a ritual, it is an outward act of obedience to testify of a believers desire to be identified with Christ.
In stating that Jesus was born of water and the Holy Spirit at His baptism you are stating as a man Jesus needed to be saved as we do. He is the eternal Christ and had no need to be born of the Spirit as we do, there was never a time He, the Father and the Spirit were not one. Remember in the incarnation He is eternal God who took on flesh. He is not a man who became the Son of God at His baptism. Isaiah 9:6--"Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given".
His baptism by John was to fulfill Scripture. He was identifying himself with John's ministry and message. After all John was not the only one baptizing in that day. The proclaimation of God when He said, "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" was not for Jesus' sake, it was for ours. Jesus already knew who His Father was, at age 12 He said to His mother, "did you not know that I would be about My Father's business."
There is only one body, one baptism, one bread the difference and what seems to be causing a lack of unity, and always has is the biblical identity of these. Your tradition has one view and my faith has another. I believe yours is primarily built on church tradition, while mine is built on biblical doctrine. I know you don't agree that is why we are not unified on these matters.
Bro Tony -
Bro Tony:
Jesus Christ gave us His one baptism. He did this for our sake not His. He was declared the Son of God at His baptism for our benefit. The Holy Spirit was the witness. He did not become the Son at the time. As true God, He has always been the Son. As true God and true man without sin, he submitted to the one Baptism into His death and Resurrection. John's baptisms were not the one baptism Jesus gives us. Holy Scripture teaches John's baptism was one of repentence and believing in Jesus Christ.
“Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." Acts 19:4
This was not the one baptism they needed after the Redemption. They did not have the Holy Spirit by repenting and believing in Him. Those who had John's baptism needed Jesus’ baptism of water and the Holy Spirit . There is only one Baptism for the Christian, the one Jesus gives us whereby we die with Him and rise with Him and are declared a child of God:
Matthew 28:19
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", -
Kathryn,
Did you actually read my post. I never have stated that John's baptism is the one true baptism. Never have never will, by the way I got into a debate with a Baptist Brider over this very issue. I agree with you that there is one true baptism. I do not agree it has anything to do with water. You have yet to answer my question, do you believe that when the New Testament speaks of baptism it always refers to water being involved? Do you believe that without water baptism one cannot be saved?
Bro Tony -
Kathryn,
You said, 'You are wrong here about Jesus administering the Eucharist only once the
day before Good Friday. Jesus Christ ministered the Eucharist again after He
rose from the dead. Jesus rebuked the Apostles and called them foolish for
not remembering all He commanded them. Because they failed to have this
unity, they were blinded to recognizing Him even though they were
Christians, loved Him, and were His followers. It was through the Eucharist
that Jesus Christ opened their eyes, and they recognized Him and
remembered.'
Ray is saying, 'After His death on the Cross, burial, and resurrected He merely wanted nourishment. This has nothing to do with Eucharist because He would have given to them bread and wine, and this is not what is said. On Maundy Thursday before His death they received of both kinds, as is recorded in I Corinthians chapter eleven. And again in Luke 24:41-43 they ate food again as in 24:30.
I am not sure why the disciples did not recognized Jesus but it was not because of some lack of unity. They rejoiced not because of your alleged Holy Communion, but because He preached to them as duly noted in verses 25-32.
Luke 24:30
When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed
it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. -
Here is something interesting about this one bread that Jesus Christ called the apostles foolish for not remembering to do.
Luke 24:30
And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking [it] he gave to them.
Luke 24:31
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him ; and he vanished out of their sight.
Luke 24:35
And they rehearsed the things [that happened] in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread.
Not a work of man, and not just a representation or symbol. The one bread is the key to the unity Jesus Christ promised. It really is how we are to know Jesus Christ. He is the Bread of Life. -
Kathryn,
If you say that water baptism is so vital, what do you do with JOHN 4:2. Certainly, if it was crucial for salvation Jesus would have been doing it. Then what about 1 CORINTHIANS 1:10-17 and especially verse 17 where Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." Again if baptism was necessary surely the greatest missionary the church has ever known would have made sure he baptized all he led to Christ.
Bro Tony -
Bro Tony:
Jesus gave the Great Commission for His Apostles to go out to all nations and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This was immediately before He ascended to heaven. It was needed under the New Covenant. Jesus did not baptize. He had not sent the Holy Spirit yet, but promised to. The Apostles were given this commission.
1 Corinthians 1:16
"Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other."
Paul was chastizing them for quarreling and not being of one mind.
"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:12
He was telling them that it makes no difference who does the baptizing. He even admits that he did baptize some of them. Apollos baptized some. Cephas (Peter) baptized others. Paul's job or work is preaching the gospel. Paul's work is not baptism. Remember baptism is the work of God. Who baptizes someone matters not an iota, and it sure is nothing to quarrel about. Maybe this is the reason Jesus didn't baptize. People would have thought their baptism from Jesus, better than someone elses.
[ April 07, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Kathryn ] -
Originally posted by Kathryn:
Bob: No multiple sacrifices. No new sacrifices. This is how we share in the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ with the one bread we break and the cup of blessing we bless. St. Paul explains in Holy Scripture:
“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” Since there is one bread , we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread . 1 Corinthians 10:16-17Click to expand...
Is it your position that in the Eucharist you offer "no sacrifice"?
Is it your position that all Christians in all denominations are "in unity" by virtue of the fact that they all celebrate the Lord's supper?
Is it your position on unity that participation in the communion service in any denomination is valid and that is what makes us all "united in Christ"?
Is it your position from 1Cor 11 that this is a true "memorial service" where the sharing of the cup and the bread is done "in rememberance" of Christ rather than "to Christ"?
1Cor 11
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ""This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.''
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ""This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.''
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.Click to expand...
Notice that 1Cor 10 is showing that SAME participation with demons as with the eucharist in terms of "involvment" of the one you are addressing.
Paul is equating the eucharist and the food offerred to demons as equivalent acts done to opposite entities and he argues that we should not give to demons the same level of worship as to God. Do you really think the demons are sacrificed?
1Cor 10
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.
16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?
19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.Click to expand...
In Christ,
Bob -
The "division" between the Catholic idea of God being continually sacrificed - and the Protestant concept of a 1Cor 11 memorial done "in rememberance of Me" is illustrated in this RC document.
Here the RCC tells us clearly that the gap between them is so large that from the non-RC perspective the RC practice is in fact "idolatry" because they treat what the non-RC calls "bread" as though it were "God".
The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351 with parenthetical inserts “mine”
Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition in the case where this is wrong?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”Click to expand...
Bob -
'Memorialism' has no historical warrant in the first 1500 years of the Church. Jesus said, "This is My Body, This is My Blood." Why don't you believe Him?
-
Brother Tony,
What you said here about sums it all up.
You said something to the effect the the Apostle Paul baptized very few people. His ministry was to witness and preach about the Gospel of forgivenss.
Forgiveness of sins by God is what and Who saves; baptism proclaims to the world and the church that His work and ministry of reconciliation has been completed.
Page 5 of 12