Peter's Successor

For the same reason they did not try to take a bite of him. They understood him to be using a figure of speech, not a direct command. You assertion here proves my point, and disproves yours.

But the Lord's Supper again proves my point not yours. Consider the following verse: Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

Having just blessed the cup, he calls it the "fruit of the vine." If he had changed it into literal blood, you wouldn't expect him to lie about would you??? Of course not. What Christ did for us was confirm that the cup did not contain the "real presence" of his blood, but rather was still the "fruit of the vine."

The reality shows that your examples argue against your position, not for it.

The apostles are what are authoritative. The Church is authoritative when it accurately teaches what the apostles taught. That alone disqualifies the RCC from being teh true church. They have contradicted the apostles on some very clear issues, such as the real presence.

[qutoe] No, only somebody determined to uphold a tradition of men could read John 6 and not see the clear meaning. [/quote]With these words, you condemn yourself. The "clear meaning" was missed by all those there, apparently. Yet the response of the apostles shows us that they clearly understood what Christ said, and that their understanding was the same as mine. It is your understanding, springing from following teh traditions of men (i.e., the popes and the bishops) that is flawed.

You cannot seriously say that I follow the traditions of men. I have explicitly rejected those traditions. It is you who follow the traditions, as explained in your own catechism where tradition is held up as authoritative.

 

You're being either/or again, after the Protestant fashion. Catholics are much more both/and.

 

But there is no scriptural authority for such a view. In fact, Scripture explicitly rejects it when it calls the Lord's supper a proclamation of his death, not a participation in his death. Salvation is never said to come by communion. That is an addition to Scripture and a contradiction of Scripture.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The fact that Christ is present in our midst when we worship has nothing to do with his "real presence" in teh elements of communion. The first is taught in Scripture; the second is contradicted by Scripture.

For the believer, Scripture must be the authority. The teachings of men are to be followed only when they correspond to the Scripture.

As I have previously said, this all boils down to authority. You accept an authority that I find no basis for in Scripture. You are willing to follow the traditions of men and the teachings of men. I am not.

 

"One thing I have learned while hanging around here is how many Catholics do not really know what their church teaches and do not understand the implications of it"

The height of arrogance. My guess is you need to do some mirror browsin to find out who doesn't know what Catholicism teaches. Then get your nose out of the anti-catholic books and shut up and listen. Blessings Lare

 

"Notice how you conveniently change the topic to make your accusation of "in error." We were not talking about the nature and effects of baptism, but rather the necessity of it. That is a sly little change that will not fly. Christ said to baptize. That means it is necessary. About that, there can be no debate. "

This is funny since the thread is self is about nothing that you are talking about.


"he typical practice of the Catholics is sprinkling or pouring. "

Nope, once again, SPRINKLING IS NOT A VALID FORM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Those who have been sprinkled from other denominations will be rebaptized. The priest at my wife's RCIA specifically asked if anyone had been sprinled from their other denominations. And I have read it in Church documents if you need me to look it up. Pouring and immersion are the ONLY forms mentioned in our Catechism . Pouring because of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
Peace to you. If you had read the Catechism you would know all of this. Rather you have read anti-catholic spins on it.

Blessings to you

[ July 26, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

I was asked to give examples, which I did, which you promptly changed to make it look as if I was wrong. You failed. I was not wrong.

There is not a significant difference in sprinkling and pouring. However, www.catholic.com says "It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others." So they appear to disagree with you. The New Catholic Dictionary says, "Infusion (pouring), immersion, and aspersion (sprinkling) are equally valid." Are these antiCatholic sources trying to spin things??? Who should I believe??

I have not read one anti-catholic spin on anything. I don't own any "anti-Catholic" books. My information comes from Catholic books, the catechism, some church history, biblical theology, and conversations with those who are or have been Catholic. Your beef is with the wrong person here.

 

There is nothing arrogant about it. I have many Catholics who don't know what their own catechism says, who do not know the history of their church, and who have never wrestled through the biblical issues.

You should guess again. While I make no claim to know everything that Catholicism teaches, the things that I have referenced are things that I can demonstrate without the use of any antiCatholic books. I have listened time and again while Catholics have tried to explain away the text and the teaching of Scripture. Each time, they have launched into things that have no authoritative weight. I have not read any antiCatholic books. I have seen no anti-Catholic spin.

BTW, to tell me to shut and listen is wholly inappropriate for this forum. It is not in keeping with the decorum that is expected from all participants. Please refrain from such behavior in the future.

 

A thought came to me that you have contradicted yourself here. You claim that John 6 is clear teaching to anyone not bound by the traditions of men. This was just after you recognize that the disciples did not fully understand, but rather waited for further understanding at the Lord's Supper, quite a distance into the future. Why the contradiction?? Why did the disciples need to wait for further understanding for something that was so clear?? You can't claim they were bound by the tradition of men because the tradition of the Lord's Supper would not be instituted for quite some time.

 

A thought came to me that you have contradicted yourself here. You claim that John 6 is clear teaching to anyone not bound by the traditions of men. This was just after you recognize that the disciples did not fully understand, but rather waited for further understanding at the Lord's Supper, quite a distance into the future. Why the contradiction?? Why did the disciples need to wait for further understanding for something that was so clear?? You can't claim they were bound by the tradition of men because the tradition of the Lord's Supper would not be instituted for quite some time. </font>[/QUOTE]Simple. Christ spoke clearly in John 6, but His words seemed in direct opposition to the Commandments and the Law, which is why many left him. Christ did not try to stop those by explaining He was only speaking figuratively. No, He acknowledged the shocking nature of His words by His question: "Do you take offense at this?"

Given the apparent contradiction, the apostles simply did nothing, waiting for further understanding. The apparent contradiction was, of course, resolved at the Last Supper when Christ instituted the sacramental transformation of bread and wine into His Flesh and Blood.

And this, as history clearly shows, was the universal understanding of the Eucharist for 1500 years.

 

But there is no scriptural authority for such a view. In fact, Scripture explicitly rejects it when it calls the Lord's supper a proclamation of his death, not a participation in his death. Salvation is never said to come by communion. That is an addition to Scripture and a contradiction of Scripture.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The fact that Christ is present in our midst when we worship has nothing to do with his "real presence" in teh elements of communion. The first is taught in Scripture; the second is contradicted by Scripture.</font>[/QUOTE]You use the memorial nature of the Lord's Supper to somehow suggest that there cannot therefore be a Real Presence. You don't explain why a memorial would prevent the Real Presence, while allowing Christ to be present "whenever two or three..." I invite you to explain.

I follow the pillar and foundation of the truth, which is the Church founded by Christ. As must be, the teachings of the Church are in exact accord with the Scriptures (which have been recognized as the Word of God through divine revelation given to the Church), since both are inspired by God. All your talk about contradicting Scripture, and traditions of men, merely tickles my sense of irony ferociously. Remind me again how many different interpretations of Scripture there are in the world of sola Scriptura? More than one, right?

 

You will search in vain for any reference to the commandments or the Law in reference to this issue. That was not the problem. Everyone there knew that was Christ was calling for. He was calling for radical and total commitment to him. He explains this in v. 35 where he uses terms like "come" and "believe." These are synonymous with eat and drink in this context. The shocking nature was the call to follow him and leave the old ways.

But again, you fail to explain why this "seeming contradiction" is "clear to everyone who doesn't follow the traditions of men." The bottom line is that you don't have an answer. You appeal to John 6 for absolute proof of the "real presence" and talk about how clear it is and then tell us that even his disciples who traveled and learned directly from him missed it until much later at the Lord's Supper.

You fail yet again when you say that he instituted "the sacramental transformation of bread and wine into His Flesh and Blood." If you look at the citation I gave above, Scripture is clear that no transformation took place. After this supposed "transformation" Jesus said it was still fruit of the vine (Matt 26:29). So Jesus, in his "clarification" contradicts you and your church. Who should we follow?

I think your reading of history is somewhat skewed and I think it doesn't matter. The authority is not history; the authority is the Scripture.

So the contradiction remains.

 

You misunderstand. My reference to the memorial nature was a reference to Scriptures's teaching, in contrast with the "real presence" which is never taught in Scripture. That is an invention of man. The memorial nature would not necessarily prevent a "real presence" though it would be hard to understand why you memorialize someone who is right there with you. A memorial is a remembrance, not a reception.

The RCC has contradicted the truth and therefore cannot be the pillar and foundation of it. Christ did not found the RCC. The church is founded is far different.

The Scriptures never affirm that the teaching of the church is inspired by God. Only one thing is said to be inspired and that is the Scripture. To say that the teachings of the church are inspired is a man made invention. Their teachings are not in "exact accord" with the Scriptures, has I and many others have shown. The teachings of the church depend on adding to and changing the teachings of Scripture. There are just loads of theological problems found in this statement of yours.

On some issues there are legitimate issues of interpretation (we have already been through this). However, there is only one proper interpretation. On fundamental issues, there is no room for debate. The clarity and weight of Scripture is explicit. You talk of the one proper interpretation of the RCC but when you study history you find that the "one proper interpretation" has been changed over history in many cases. That alone disproves your contention. But as I have said, this is about authority. Yours is different than mine is. My authority is Scripture. Yours is the men of the RCC. As long as there is such a difference, there will be no accord on this issue.

 

As I suspected, Pastor Larry, what is considered "patently clear" in Scripture depends on one's background. I would venture to say that there is nothing so patently clear in Scripture that somebody, somewhere, hasn't come up with an "obvious" conter-interpretation.

So, we're back to square one, as we usually are in these arguments. Therefore I want to leave off arguing and simply invite you to the banquet, invite you to partake of Christ's sacrifice offered to His Father for all, invite you to accept His never-ending gift of His very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, so that we may have eternal life with Him. I invite you to come and behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

God's blessings be upon you and yours.

Mike

 

But you miss the key word "legitimate." The evidence from Scripture against these things we are discussing is so overwhelming, that only on declared authority can they be changed. No one, sitting down with the text of God's revelation, would have come to your position. It took a declaration of infallibility to bring it about.

I did that 20 years ago when I placed my faith alone in Christ alone. I need nothing else. I have no good to bring. I need no bread and wine. I need only his perfect righteousness and death, participated in by faith alone as the Scriptures prescribe.

 

"No one, sitting down with the text of God's revelation, would have come to your position."

In all honesty this statement is true. Most Catholic positions would not have been come up with by anyone reading the Bible. That is why we
have thousands of denominations contradicting
eachother. Man could not have come up with the true concept of God without divine revelation even
though it was written in nature and he also planted a desire for himself on their hearts. Now if the Bible were all of God's revalation the God could be extracted or "calculated" by the
intellect of man. But the Bible is not the whole word of God. For the Apostle Paul says (for the 100th time) "Hold fast to the traditions you have recieved whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in writing from us.". And 2 Tim 2:2 shows that the truths and understandings about scripture are supposed to be passed on from generation to generation.

 

"It took a declaration of infallibility to bring it about."

I believe the comment is in regard to the Eucharist. Correct me if I am wrong. Larry are you speaking of papal declarations of infallibility regarding the Eucharist. Because to my knowledge there are none. In fact there are few infallible declaratoins by Popes in general except with regard to declarations of sainthood. The negative sense of infallibility, ie. preventing them from teaching error, is far more common. Papal declaratoins are also never the beginning of a doctrine but the settling of a dispute over what has been held in the deposit of faith since the Apostles left this earth. You seem to think we are listening to radio free Vatican to tell us whether to brush our teeth and when to go to the bathroom. Hate to spoil your anti-catholic parade. By the way, Christ's real prescense in the Eucharist can easily be shown to be a common belief in Christianity in every single century since Pentecost.

Blessings

Blessings

two blessings because I missed it on the last post. Kind of like running a stop sign and stopping twice on the next one.