|
Post by HUCK on Aug 16, 2006 7:45:24 GMT -5
Does anyone understand this?
"The Catholic Church has never said Jesus is the way because of the Catholic Church. Of course that would be ridiculous."
"For the one-millionth time, I accept non-Catholics as part of the Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2006 8:39:40 GMT -5
Huck, maybe the author of this text means that the Catholic Church is the univeral Christian church. I think that's where the word "catholic" comes from.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 16, 2006 9:02:04 GMT -5
Yes, the word catholic means universal church which we all as believers in Jesus Christ belong to, butCatholic is a proper noun depicting a denomination.
Which one do you suppose Paul was referring to in the following statement:
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2006 9:28:28 GMT -5
A trick question perhaps. There was the church of Christ mentioned here, but not the proper noun Church of Christ (!) Whether you believe this primordal univeral church of Christ was also the Catholic Church is a matter of faith.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 16, 2006 13:13:54 GMT -5
Yes Bert and (gosh I'm trying to be nice and reasonable here).....but it takes the same kind of reasoning (you called it faith) to believe that this primordial church was the predecessor of any present group today.
Wouldn't it be more correct and understandable to refer to those gatherings of people in Paul's time as just "believers" instead of church? I think when we add "the church" as Paul did, it gets mixed up with the today's reference to a denomination.......and I don't think he was referring to a denomination or a way of worship.
"Believers" would be more proper.......to believe that Christ died for all believers (instead of dying for "the church") It causes the arguments we see today. He surely didn't die for one denomination of people.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 16, 2006 13:29:02 GMT -5
One thing I find disturbing about the "Catholic Church" is how they subtly revise early Christian writings (and thus historical events). One way they do this is to capitalize the word Catholic when in the original writings it was not so.
Innocent mistake? I think not.
Love, HFA
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Aug 16, 2006 14:08:37 GMT -5
That is interesting HFA. Can you give me some example? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 16, 2006 18:09:55 GMT -5
That is interesting HFA. Can you give me some example? Thanks. Perhaps I should clarify by saying The Catholic Encyclopedia does this as per the following definition of "Catholic Church": www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htmAs another famous poster here says: "Let the reader decide". ;D ;D Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 16, 2006 18:14:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 18, 2006 17:56:32 GMT -5
HFA, Perhaps you missed 6:2 of his letter to the Smyrnaeans: 6:2 "But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up". It looks like Ignatius had a very Catholic view of the emblems (as you call them). Are you going to accuse of him "subtle revision" now?
|
|
|
Post by HFA on Aug 19, 2006 14:41:33 GMT -5
HFA, Perhaps you missed 6:2 of his letter to the Smyrnaeans: 6:2 "But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up". It looks like Ignatius had a very Catholic view of the emblems (as you call them). Are you going to accuse of him "subtle revision" now? Dear Clay, The Catholic encyclopedia has taken an early writing using the phrase "universal church" (small "u" small "c") and changed it in their definition to read Catholic Church (capital C capital C"). The point I and others are trying to make is that this phrase does not refer to a proper noun- or denominational name- yet the Catholic definition would indicate that it does. Let me ask you this. When did the RCC as we know it today begin? 1. It is one and the same church as the "universal church" Ignatious refers to and dates back to apostolic times? 2. It evolved (grew, expanded, matured) from the "universal church" into what it is today. 3. It took on formal organizational denominational status in approx 325AD with the conversion and backing of Constantine. 4. None of the above. Regards, HFA
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 20, 2006 20:05:53 GMT -5
Eucharist: Clement of Alexandria (195, E) 2.220 Jesus says, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood." The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit, for the flesh was created by Him. The blood indicates to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life. Nate, you didn't quote the whole passage. Clement of Alexandria was pointing out the dual physical and spiritual nature of the Eucharist. Here's what the first part said: "For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 20, 2006 20:10:16 GMT -5
HFA, Perhaps you missed 6:2 of his letter to the Smyrnaeans: 6:2 "But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up". It looks like Ignatius had a very Catholic view of the emblems (as you call them). Are you going to accuse of him "subtle revision" now? Dear Clay, The Catholic encyclopedia has taken an early writing using the phrase "universal church" (small "u" small "c") and changed it in their definition to read Catholic Church (capital C capital C"). The point I and others are trying to make is that this phrase does not refer to a proper noun- or denominational name- yet the Catholic definition would indicate that it does. Let me ask you this. When did the RCC as we know it today begin? 1. It is one and the same church as the "universal church" Ignatious refers to and dates back to apostolic times? 2. It evolved (grew, expanded, matured) from the "universal church" into what it is today. 3. It took on formal organizational denominational status in approx 325AD with the conversion and backing of Constantine. 4. None of the above. Regards, HFA HFA, did you ever take those complicated tests in school, where the following choices were as follows? A. 1, 2, 3 B. 1, 3 C. 2, 4 D. 4 only F. 1,2,3,4The way you phrased your question the answer is #1 and #2. It is the same church Ignatius referred to that also developed over time. Surely even you admit they had "organizational structure" before Constantine? The quote you provided had a BISHOP, fer cryin' out loud? Where are the 2x2 bishops, HFA? Why no answer my pointing out that Ignatius was the farthest thing from a 2x2?
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 21, 2006 1:04:32 GMT -5
About the Physically nature.......Can you point out in the New Testament Gospels where Jesus actually give the apostles, and the disciples eating of his flesh and drinking his blood physically, Clay? Nathan, can you quote scripture or cite verse of Jesus telling the disciples the bread is not his flesh and the wine is not his blood?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 21, 2006 6:21:51 GMT -5
Dual physical and spiritual nature. hmmmmmm..... I agree with the spiritual part! Well, that explains why you selectively left out that part of Clement's statement... About the Physically nature.......Can you point out in the New Testament Gospels where Jesus actually give the apostles, and the disciples eating of his flesh and drinking his blood physically, Clay? Sure - John 6:54-56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." Can you show us another time and place where we read the apostles and the disciples of Jesus eating his flesh and drinking his blood "physically" after his ressurection in the book of Acts... please. Thanks, in advance Sure - 1 Cor 10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2006 7:55:44 GMT -5
Hey Nathan - did you know we are on Sesame Street?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2006 8:48:38 GMT -5
Prue and I are going to be Bert and Ernie
|
|
Hope For All To Clay
Guest
|
Post by Hope For All To Clay on Aug 21, 2006 15:54:32 GMT -5
Dear Clay,
You have switched the discussion from how the "universal church" became the Catholic Church onto the eucharist and bishops???
But I will answer your questions as best I can.
1. I don't see Ignatious as being any more "Catholic" than "F&W" in his practices and beliefs. (and FWIW I do not believe the F&W go back in an unbroken line to the first diciples either).
2. I believe that the eucharist/emblems/bread and wine were given to be symbolic. We participate in (remember) his body and blood.
3. Bishop means "overseer". The F&W's have overseers -just as the RCC have bishops over an area.
Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 21, 2006 18:31:51 GMT -5
I don't read in those verses you quoted where the apostles and Jesus disciples ACTUALLY eating his "physical" flesh and drinking his blood literally. Are you positive you have the right verses, Clay? I gave you the verse where Jesus quite plainly told the Apostles that He would institute the Eucharist, after His resurrection. In Luke 22:17 He said, "this is my body, which will be given up for you; do this in memory of me." You've built your entire belief in "meetings in the home" on far less scriptural evidence than this. Did the Christians in Corinth actually eating the flesh and drinking Jesus' blood during their communion? Where did they get Jesus' flesh and blood for them to partake the communion after his resurrection? The bread and wine retain the same physical properties but change in substance. Surely it's not so hard to believe this is possible, coming from our Lord who walked on water, passed through walls, raised the dead, cured the sick, drove out evil spirits and ascended up to heaven. Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:23-29 that receving communion unworthily was being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". This is the same as saying to do actual, physical harm to someone. You cannot do actual, physical harm to a mere symbol.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 21, 2006 18:45:30 GMT -5
Dear Clay, You have switched the discussion from how the "universal church" became the Catholic Church onto the eucharist and bishops??? The Eucharist and bishops are merely examples of your false assertions about how the Catholic Church will "subtly revise early Christian writings". I simply demonstrated how incorrect your premise is with your own citation by showing how Ignatius held very Catholic beliefs. 1. I don't see Ignatious as being any more "Catholic" than "F&W" in his practices and beliefs. I'm not surprised. 2. I believe that the eucharist/emblems/bread and wine were given to be symbolic. We participate in (remember) his body and blood. That's fine - what you believe and what Ignatius believed are quite different. 3. Bishop means "overseer". The F&W's have overseers -just as the RCC have bishops over an area. Do the F&W's have bishops, priests and deacons like the ones Ignatius mentions in 12:2 of the letter you cited?
|
|
Hope For All To Clay
Guest
|
Post by Hope For All To Clay on Aug 22, 2006 12:47:47 GMT -5
Dear Clay,
You asked "Do the F&W's have bishops, priests and deacons like the ones Ignatius mentions in 12:2 of the letter you cited?"
I would have to say after skim reading all of Ignatious's 7 letters again last night that the F&W do have them.
And BTW I am not taking issue with how the RCC has chose to set up their system of bishops, priests and deacons.
1. Bishop meant overseer. He was to have absolute authority in the church. The bishop also "oversaw" the distribution of the eucharist. He also had the right to appoint someone else to do so. Their are overseers in the F&W who also appoint elders to look after the church in their absence.
2. Presbyters are likened by Ignatious to the apostles. F&W have those who go forth as the apostles. The didache refers to these people as prophets.
3. Deacon means helper in the church. It is an appontment to help with natural affairs of the church. There are many "helpers" in the F&W church.
Now one question for you. Where do the Cardinals and Popes come from in the early writings? From what I see they are the highest authority in the RCC- yet I do not see them anywhere in Ignatious's letter nor in the Didache?
Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 22, 2006 21:10:32 GMT -5
I gave you the verse where Jesus quite plainly told the Apostles that He would institute the Eucharist, after His resurrection. In Luke 22:17 He said, "this is my body, which will be given up for you; do this in memory of me." You've built your entire belief in "meetings in the home" on far less scriptural evidence than this. The bread and wine retain the same physical properties but change in substance. Surely it's not so hard to believe this is possible, coming from our Lord who walked on water, passed through walls, raised the dead, cured the sick, drove out evil spirits and ascended up to heaven. Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:23-29 that receving communion unworthily was being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". This is the same as saying to do actual, physical harm to someone. You cannot do actual, physical harm to a mere symbol. Clay, according to your understanding the disciples of Jesus eat His flesh and drink his blood while he was alive and living among them (John 6:54-56). Can you recall of the place and time in the New Testament when Jesus' disciples sit around eat his flesh and drink his blood. No, Nate, that is not "my understanding". I specifically pointed out that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper as a future event, i.e., "this is my body which WILL BE given up for you".
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 22, 2006 21:16:38 GMT -5
I would have to say after skim reading all of Ignatious's 7 letters again last night that the F&W do have them. That is fiction, nothing more. Nowhere and at no time in my 18 years did I hear talk of bishops, priests, or deacons. You're doing what I might call......."subtle revision" of what Ignatius wrote. Now one question for you. Where do the Cardinals and Popes come from in the early writings? From what I see they are the highest authority in the RCC- yet I do not see them anywhere in Ignatious's letter nor in the Didache? Have you read Ignatius' Letter to the Romans? "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." (Prologue)
|
|
|
Post by HUCk on Aug 22, 2006 21:21:57 GMT -5
What bible are you quoting, Clay.? Every thing I read in Luke 22 doesn't even make the same suggestion.
Luke 22:17 (New International Version) After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you."
Luke 22:17 (King James Version)
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves
|
|
|
Post by Really on Aug 22, 2006 21:25:22 GMT -5
If you can't address the question, deflect their attention.
|
|
|
Post by HFA on Aug 22, 2006 22:20:54 GMT -5
Dear Really, You said "If you can't address the question, deflect their attention."
Exactly. The reason Clay does this is because the Catholic Church bases their practices on traditions that have changed and evolved over time.
If Clay simply said that the RCC does what it does because of oral tradition passed on from generation to generation and they cannot and do not attempt to justify it with any early writing - I can respect that. I may not agree with it- but at least no one is trying to show me that some early writing means something that any logical person can see it does not mean.
I point out to Clay that Ignatious likened the presbyters (not priests Clay- presbyters) to the apostles. The F&W have a group of men and women who try to honestly follow the same manner of life as the apostles and prophets of the NT, Didache and early Christian writings-so to me they are like presbyters.
F&W have bishops( overseers in the church).
F&W have deacons.
Yet Clay replys that he has never heard these terms in 18 years going to meetings? That is simply not honest.
And for anyone who follows my posts here- they know that there are practices and doctrines in the F&W church that I am very disturbed by. I try and be honest enough to acknowledge them- even though I am still very much a part of the F&W fellowship.
I guess I am puzzled how and why people like Clay continue to defend some things that are undefendable and who refuse to acknowledge that the RCC is NOT perfect either.
Regards, HFA
|
|