Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
Religion Moderator:
Fair enough.
redleghunter:
I already have.
Great answer.
I did not look up antinomian.
Anti - against
Nom Name
necro = Death
The Trinity? Is it in question???
Trinity is a given. No trinity= not Lord
You have no idea FRiend. See the “damnable heresies” thread. I was quite shocked there were no Roman Catholics posting there.
Is there such a one?? There are people who do not believe in the Trinity???
Are you quite sure???
No knowledge; none.
We might as well be Muslims if we don’t get the nature of the Trinity??
Are you sure = This is very upsetting to me.
If you say so. You took a lot of St Thomas Aquinas data and reached back to the first century to correlate overseer as priest and then the words breaking and bread to mean the Roman Catholic communion. A far stretch if I may say so.
Perhaps when Paul met with the elders of Ephesus he should have emphasized the priests should have met with him as well to give them instructions on how to properly handle and store remaining consecrated bread. Considering early Christians were meeting in homes, open air and by rivers this could pose quite a problem.
Or perhaps in 13 epistles Paul could have mentioned how only priests should break the bread or only apostles or those ordained. No not found there either. Perhaps the bishop of Rome, Peter when writing from Babylon should have instructed all on who and how the Eucharist is to be handled. That seems to be absent as well as in John’s epistles, Jude and even James. It seems the apostles missed the establishment of priests, the mass, the changing of the elements. All not there other than bread and breaking and doing so in remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Sure there are plenty who post at FR. Mormons, Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals are just a few.
If you are interested in joining the discussion here is the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=2554#2554
This should give you a snapshot of the positions.
And he is not alone.
If you'd like, we can ping you to them when we see them.
Long thread, but start at this post. Scanning the thread, I think this is where the discussion begins.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=1811#1811
“Perhaps when Paul met with the elders of Ephesus he should have emphasized the priests should have met with him as well to give them instructions on how to properly handle and store remaining consecrated bread. Considering early Christians were meeting in homes, open air and by rivers this could pose quite a problem.
Or perhaps in 13 epistles Paul could have mentioned how only priests should break the bread or only apostles or those ordained. No not found there either. Perhaps the bishop of Rome, Peter when writing from Babylon should have instructed all on who and how the Eucharist is to be handled. That seems to be absent as well as in John’s epistles, Jude and even James. It seems the apostles missed the establishment of priests, the mass, the changing of the elements. All not there other than bread and breaking and doing so in remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.”
Hmmm, very short and to the point answer:
Lots of things absent in the NT epistles, they are not that long. My answer stands. And perhaps St. Paul new what he
told the Church and new what the other Apostles told the Church and he new the starting with Clement of Rome, the Didache, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp and St. Ireneaus, all writing between 80-90AD and 185AD, that orthodox Apostolic Tradition would be preserved [just as it is recorded in those letters] and none of them had any idea that Protestantism in its various stripes would erupt from the 16th century onward hence they had no need to address your points noted above.
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
Based on your statement, we are to believe that the holy scriptures, “are not” able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
And then conclude the scriptures “are not fully” profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
So therefore Paul said one thing in writing and yet another by tradition?
I am of the mind that God is not in the confusion business.
The Didache explains transubstantiation?
redleghunter:
I refuse to answer your questions using the Protestant heretical and unorthodox doctrine of sola scriptura. I answered the question in line with the Catholic Theological framework, i.e. the 3-leged chair approach, the Church as the Body of Christ interpreting the Scriptures in Light of Apostolic Tradition, as recorded and defined in the consensus of the Church Fathers, the Liturgy [Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, Law of Prayer explains the Law of Creed/Belief], the Creeds of the early Church and the COuncils of the Early Church and that Tradition in Light of the Sacred Scriptures.
And for the record, the Eastern Orthodox, while having a different understanding of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, have 7 Sacraments [Divine Mysteries] and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, just as the Catholic Church does.
I have answered what I have answered. And I stand by said answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.