|
Post by AlphaOmega on Sept 6, 2004 9:55:02 GMT -5
So your flesh and blood is the flesh and blood of Christ? Apparently one meaning for the word "Christian" is "little Christ" - does that mean we Christians are little Christs? No, but we should be like Christ in the way we relate to others. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Sept 6, 2004 10:14:52 GMT -5
The Christian church is the body of Christ, and all Christians are part of that body. The Christian Church is only the "body of Christ" in the sense that He has chosen us to represent Him here on Earth. Each of us has received different gifts from Him according to what He has called us to do. Some have been given the gift of prophecy, others the gift of healing, etc, etc. The Lord Jesus Christ is our Head. We submit to His Headship over us. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 6, 2004 10:25:35 GMT -5
In its "proofs" of its many dogmas, the Catholic Church usually includes the claim to the effect, "this is true because we've always taught it to be true." The attitude of the Catholic Church is "we can't be wrong 'cause we been around so long." The age of the Catholic Church is no guarantee of its correctness.
Paul wrote several of his letters to correct errors that had crept into the early Christian churches. These false beliefs had crept in less than 40 years after Christ died on the Cross. The falsehoods spread despite the presence of the original apostles and other witnesses to the actual words and deeds of Jesus. Even the early church had its errors.
The "Fathers" of the Catholic Church wrote a lot of stuff. The Church picks and chooses which is "Tradition" and which is not. Some of what they wrote is just absurd. For example in the often-quoted Against the Heresies, 2.22.6, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that Jesus was nearly 50 years old when he died. Yet it's not a part of Catholic teaching. Why not?
I'm not alone in my "arrogant" beliefs. ;D Many "Bible Thumpers" say the Catholic Church has been wrong ... for a long time. I'm glad we've can discuss it and "argue" it peacefully. It's so much better this way than when our ancestors were killing each other over these issues. I learn so much about your faith but even more about my own.
TB
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 6, 2004 11:53:19 GMT -5
In its "proofs" of its many dogmas, the Catholic Church usually includes the claim to the effect, "this is true because we've always taught it to be true." The attitude of the Catholic Church is "we can't be wrong 'cause we been around so long." The age of the Catholic Church is no guarantee of its correctness.
Paul wrote several of his letters to correct errors that had crept into the early Christian churches. These false beliefs had crept in less than 40 years after Christ died on the Cross. The falsehoods spread despite the presence of the original apostles and other witnesses to the actual words and deeds of Jesus. Even the early church had its errors.
The "Fathers" of the Catholic Church wrote a lot of stuff. The Church picks and chooses which is "Tradition" and which is not. Some of what they wrote is just absurd. For example in the often-quoted Against the Heresies, 2.22.6, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that Jesus was nearly 50 years old when he died. Yet it's not a part of Catholic teaching. Why not?
I'm not alone in my "arrogant" beliefs. ;D Many "Bible Thumpers" say the Catholic Church has been wrong ... for a long time. I'm glad we've can discuss it and "argue" it peacefully. It's so much better this way than when our ancestors were killing each other over these issues. I learn so much about your faith but even more about my own.
TB Unfortunately, when I come here I feel myself shift into the defensive. I can be quite critical about the Catholic Church, some of its teachings, traditions and history. But when I come here and see the sacraments ridiculed, maligned, and disparaged I must defend. Ireneaus and a 50 year old Jesus? He probably did say something like that. You are right. The Church does pick and choose what will become teaching. What's wrong with that? In fact in a lot of areas it seems impossible to even define what church teaching is. With regard to Eucharist, I have come to understand it as a transcendental reality through which not only Christ offers himself for us but we come together in Him. It is a focus of many levels of meaning including literal, figurative, symbolic, and spiritual. Something happens there that transcends time and space and takes us into the eternal present of God which we open ourselves to, recieving as food for the soul. "The Body of Christ"..."AMEN!" Amen to this wafer, Amen to you and I, Amen to the Word of God in Human flesh broken for us. Amen to the Bread of Life, His teaching, His sacrifice, His mystery. I see it as a way to a higher level of consciousness surpkmtyolping the mundane limits of our normal way of looking at thinks and thinking about things. It seems to me the most intimate act possible in relation to Christ. He truly gives himself as food to become part of who we are who receive him in faith. I'm not even certain if my view is completely Catholic orthodox. I am certain that when I recieve this sacrament and close my eyes in prayer that Jesus Christ is living and present within me in a way totally different from His normal presence within us as christians. When the Holy Spirit is invoked during the Eucharistic Prayer something mystical happens, a change occurs. We are at the Last Supper, we are at the crucifixion, we are at the resurrection, we pkmtyolp from ourselves into Him and he into us. We embrace the paschal mystery.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Sept 6, 2004 13:14:38 GMT -5
John chapter 6 isn't about the Eucharist Alas, it appears we have reached an impkmtyolpe. I could not disagree with this statement more. Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Sept 6, 2004 19:45:05 GMT -5
In its "proofs" of its many dogmas, the Catholic Church usually includes the claim to the effect, "this is true because we've always taught it to be true." The attitude of the Catholic Church is "we can't be wrong 'cause we been around so long." The age of the Catholic Church is no guarantee of its correctness.
Paul wrote several of his letters to correct errors that had crept into the early Christian churches. These false beliefs had crept in less than 40 years after Christ died on the Cross. The falsehoods spread despite the presence of the original apostles and other witnesses to the actual words and deeds of Jesus. Even the early church had its errors.
The "Fathers" of the Catholic Church wrote a lot of stuff. The Church picks and chooses which is "Tradition" and which is not. Some of what they wrote is just absurd. For example in the often-quoted Against the Heresies, 2.22.6, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that Jesus was nearly 50 years old when he died. Yet it's not a part of Catholic teaching. Why not?
I'm not alone in my "arrogant" beliefs. ;D Many "Bible Thumpers" say the Catholic Church has been wrong ... for a long time. I'm glad we've can discuss it and "argue" it peacefully. It's so much better this way than when our ancestors were killing each other over these issues. I learn so much about your faith but even more about my own.
TB TB... You bring up a very valid point. Unfortunately, many of us rely on the scholarship of others to respond to questions regarding teachings of Early Church Fathers. In many cases, we have "skimmed" documents. And to be fair, Against the Heresies is not what one could call "light reading" in his service to debunk the Gnostic teachings of his day. There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a learned man. But even those who translated his original latin documents, found some of thoughts peculiar. I found this as part of the introduction to this document at www.ccel.org : In my opinion, although the Roman Catholic Church does cite these individuals as learned men, they also recognize that they were imperfect men as we all are and prone to error in some instances.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 6, 2004 21:10:37 GMT -5
In my opinion, although the Roman Catholic Church does cite these individuals as learned men, they also recognize that they were imperfect men as we all are and prone to error in some instances. Where does the Catholic Church make this recognition concerning the Church Fathers?
On the contrary, the Catholic Church states that the words of the Church Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The words of the Church Fathers are to be held in equal reverence as the the Scriptures themselves.
If one is going to quote from part of a Church Father's work to prove a doctrine not found in the scriptures, one must take the whole book. If a part of the book is in error, it calls into question the whole book because the Holy Spirit doesn't inspire error. It even calls into question the judgement of the leadership of the Catholic Church for choosing such a work to develope doctrine from in the first place.
TB
P.S. Irenaeus wrote in Greek, not Latin.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Sept 7, 2004 4:13:20 GMT -5
Where does the Catholic Church make this recognition concerning the Church Fathers? Everything I've ever read usually has some sort of commentary or bio that would kind of 'set the srage' so to speak of the pecularity of the writers. I've never heard of this. I know their writing have been studied through the centuries, but I've never heard any of their work recited in Church as Scripture. Again, I have understood that the early Church had many inspired writers, but not all their works were without error. In fact some went on to be considered antipopes. Are you sure? The site I referenced indicated that much of his work that Eramus provided was written in Latin. Maybe it was he who translated it from Greek to Latin.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 7, 2004 9:08:11 GMT -5
on Sep 6th, 2004, 10:10pm, TarueBeliever wrote: Where does the Catholic Church make this recognition concerning the Church Fathers? on Sep 7th, 2004, 05:13am, RealistState wrote: Everything I've ever read usually has some sort of commentary or bio that would kind of 'set the srage' so to speak of the pecularity of the writers. Are these "official" pronouncements made by the Pope? Or are they the opinion of lay writers and thus meaningless in the eyes of the Catholic Church?I didn’t post that Catholics call the writings of the Church Fathers scripture. I posted that the Catholic Church holds their writings (called "Tradition" with a capital "T") in equal with reverence as the scriptures. For this teaching on the Relationship between Tradition and Sacred Scripture see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1.1.2.2.2 (82).I wasn’t posting about just any inspired writer during the early Church Age. I posted about a Church Father's work that was considered to be inspired. Against the Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons is considered to be inspired. From parts of it, quotes are taken as "proof" of Church doctrine. Irenaeus was not considered an "antipope" but was made a "saint." Yet other parts of the same work are dismissed as error. How can this be?From the Catholic Encyclopedia, "St. Irenaeus," Robert Appleton Company, 1910 …Irenaeus wrote in Greek many works which have secured for him an exceptional place in Christian literature, because in controverted religious questions of capital importance they exhibit the testimony of a contemporary of the heroic age of the Church, of one who had heard St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and who, in a manner, belonged to the Apostolic Age. None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.). Two of these works, however, have reached us in their entirety in a Latin version: … Adversus haereses … and Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.TB
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Sept 7, 2004 20:33:00 GMT -5
Are these "official" pronouncements made by the Pope? Or are they the opinion of lay writers and thus meaningless in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Official? I don't think the papal office comments on all the Catholic writers. However what you may be referring to is how often catechist cite how the early Church responded under given conditions. Basically they're looking for precedence. Much of what becomes Catholic doctrine comes work of the Magisterium. There are differences in sacred tradition that is considered oral, and those that are considered written. I am assuming you wish to remain in the discussion of the Catholic position of written tradition. What may answer your question in this regard is in the following paragraph of the document you referenced: Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1.1.2.2.2 (83)Consideration for sainthood has nothing to do with whether the individual made any errors in thier lives. Irenaeus main claim to fame was to refute the influence of the Gnostics on the early Church. The error regarding the length of Jesus's life or ministry is contained in Against the Heresies.This portion, although in error, may be an arguement that Irenaeus was setting up for.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 7, 2004 21:53:39 GMT -5
I think we've a misunderstanding of the definition of "Tradition." When capitalized, "Tradition" refers to "Apostolic Tradition." According to the Catholic Church, the Word of God consists of two parts: the Scriptures as canonized by the Church and the Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition started as those truths Jesus told and exemplified to the first Apostles and what they themselves learned from the Holy Spirit. The Apostles then pkmtyolped down these truths orally to their successors. Some of their successors learned more truths from the Holy Spirit and added these truths to what they in turn pkmtyolped down to their successors. As questions about doctrines arose, teacher/leaders in the Church wrote down inspired works drawing from the Scriptures and from the pkmtyolped down oral truths. What is now known about the pkmtyolped down oral truths is contained in the written works of these early Church teacher/leaders. Am I on the right track so far?
The other "tradition," un-capitalized, is "ecclesial tradition." It consist of the day-to-day songs and words said by the Church members (outside of scripture), images, etc. that can be changed by the Church without affecting the Church's relationship to doctrine. TB
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 8, 2004 7:57:56 GMT -5
I think we've a misunderstanding of the definition of "Tradition." When capitalized, "Tradition" refers to "Apostolic Tradition." According to the Catholic Church, the Word of God consists of two parts: the Scriptures as canonized by the Church and the Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition started as those truths Jesus told and exemplified to the first Apostles and what they themselves learned from the Holy Spirit. The Apostles then pkmtyolped down these truths orally to their successors. Some of their successors learned more truths from the Holy Spirit and added these truths to what they in turn pkmtyolped down to their successors. As questions about doctrines arose, teacher/leaders in the Church wrote down inspired works drawing from the Scriptures and from the pkmtyolped down oral truths. What is now known about the pkmtyolped down oral truths is contained in the written works of these early Church teacher/leaders. Am I on the right track so far?
The other "tradition," un-capitalized, is "ecclesial tradition." It consist of the day-to-day songs and words said by the Church members (outside of scripture), images, etc. that can be changed by the Church without affecting the Church's relationship to doctrine. TB That sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 8, 2004 9:26:06 GMT -5
I think we've a misunderstanding of the definition of "Tradition." When capitalized, "Tradition" refers to "Apostolic Tradition." According to the Catholic Church, the Word of God consists of two parts: the Scriptures as canonized by the Church and the Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition started as those truths Jesus told and exemplified to the first Apostles and what they themselves learned from the Holy Spirit. The Apostles then pkmtyolped down these truths orally to their successors. Some of their successors learned more truths from the Holy Spirit and added these truths to what they in turn pkmtyolped down to their successors. As questions about doctrines arose, teacher/leaders in the Church wrote down inspired works drawing from the Scriptures and from the pkmtyolped down oral truths. What is now known about the pkmtyolped down oral truths is contained in the written works of these early Church teacher/leaders. Am I on the right track so far?
The other "tradition," un-capitalized, is "ecclesial tradition." It consist of the day-to-day songs and words said by the Church members (outside of scripture), images, etc. that can be changed by the Church without affecting the Church's relationship to doctrine. TB Also in regard to Tradition, almost no one here has a problem recognizing scripture as the "Word of God" even though it was written by men. We believe these men were inspired by God to write as they did and so we have a written record, frozen in time, of the reflections of the early church as Traditions were forming. As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is not stangnant or frozen in time but rather a living presence that continues to inspire the Church in every changing age. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are on equal footing. This is, of course, the point of departure with not Catholics. As for the Eucharist, No opinion or anything anyone can say would shake the certainty of Christ's Real Presence in that sacrament and the peace it gives. I'm not sure why any one would even want to question it. Except that for non Catholics not to doubt it would be an admission that the Catholic Church as access to the presence of Christ in a way that no other church has.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Sept 8, 2004 10:14:42 GMT -5
Except that for non Catholics not to doubt it would be an admission that the Catholic Church as access to the presence of Christ in a way that no other church has. I'm not sure I agree with this. The RCC (and confessional Lutherans) may understand the depth of our acces to Christ, but just because the other denominations don't "get" it doesn't mean they don't have it. Peace, LJ
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Sept 9, 2004 8:46:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with this. The RCC (and confessional Lutherans) may understand the depth of our acces to Christ, but just because the other denominations don't "get" it doesn't mean they don't have it. Peace, LJ I get it. ;D
|
|