Yes. Is this the Spirit's fault? ;)
if Christ had intended for any men to have the power after the Apostles, He would have given it to them. :)
Didn't He?
To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: Titus 1:4-5
Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:1-2
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 1 Tim 4:14
Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. Acts 14: 22-23
...there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:7b-9
So much for just anyone grabbing their scrolls and interpretating for themselves the Word of God. Seems the first followers of the Lord meant for the Church to continue through THEIR teachings from God, not only in space, but in time...
I think we would disagree if even the Apostles had the actual authority to forgive sin. I would say the same for binding and loosening, since that can only come from heaven.
WHO gave the Apostles this power? Christ did. And WHO was given ALL power and authority on earth? Christ. So Christ, upon HIS Divine authority, commissioned the Apostles. I don't quite understand the disagreement, it is pretty clear in Sciptures that "As My Father has sent me, so I send you (Apostles)" with power and authority.
Are you saying that all oral teachings, including the ones that were later written down and became Apostolic Tradition were ALL in place and fully functioning from the beginning?
We don't know at what point various doctrines were ORALLY taught! However, it would be fair to say that some were discovered after more profound meditation on God's Word. The Word of God will never be fully understood by humans while in this life. It would be silly to say that every Christian knew everything that Christ taught, all of the nuances and profound teachings directly. They "knew" in a sense, though, what they believed - thus, when questioned, they would recognize correct or permissible teachings.
I agree that there is only one truth and I believe the Spirit has recently either brought me to the absolute truth or closer to it, and I am thankful.
So we really cannot know, of ourselves, if we have achieved the truth on a doctrine, correct? So how is a Christian supposed to KNOW these important issues? This is why Christ left a power to certain people to bind and loosen. Would God leave us totally in the dark, not knowing if we are just following a whim, rather than truth?
That's because you don't believe the Spirit talks to scrubs like us. :) We believe in a personal God.
You keep misunderstanding me on this concept. God speaks to us. We have a personal relationship with God through the Scriptures, through our daily lives, and for Catholics, through the sacraments, visible comings of God to us. I think it should be obvious, though, that we can't determine doctrine individually, though. If there can be only one truth, and men separately cannot agree on it, what does that say about the Spirit of Truth revealing such matters to you and me? God reveals DOCTRINE through the Church - ONE truth.
I'm not sure why, but I have been thinking of the "real presence" as that Jesus is "there" at the ceremony and present. Now, I see that He actually enters the body of the partaker. Yes?
Yes to both. Christ is present in a more substantial manner through the Eucharist. But He is also present through the Body of the faithful, as well ("when two or more are gathered in my name, I am there with them"). If we say Christ must abide in us, how better than through the Eucharist, when He enters us visibly?
So, I thought there was some element of symbolism
There is. The Eucharist is both symbol and reality. The physical eating of the elements is supposed to recall to mind HIS giving of Himself and instill within us the same desires for other people. But we also realize He is there as He promised - and it is through this partaking of His flesh under the appearance of bread that we have life. But not physical life - spiritual life.
At the moment of partaking, if I have this right so far, does that mean that both the Spirit and Christ are indwelling simultaneously?
Where Christ is, there is the Father and Spirit - remember the teachings of the Trinity. All Three act together, as there is not three separate wills among the Three Persons of the Trinity. What One does, they ALL do. While we say Christ has entered us through the Eucharist, the Spirit is THE Gift, as He is the one who blesses us with the gifts and virtues that we need to walk the Christian walk. It is the Spirit that makes the Eucharist "operative" in our transformation into another Christ. But note that all Three are present and all Three are giving of themselves to us and transforming us. We, as men, "assign" different roles to each of the persons of the Trinity.
If Christ enters at every partaking, when does He leave?
Christ is present in this manner as long as the Eucharist remains - 15 minutes is generally what I have heard. But it is His effects, the Spirit's gifts, that remain. As long as His effects remain within us, He continues to grace us with His presence, in a different manner. Thus, He doesn't "leave us", unless we sin mortally, a proposition that is not very likely in a communicant who has worthily received the Lord in this manner.
With proper disposition, the frequent reception of the Eucharist begins to transform us, making us more patient, more loving, more faithful, etc. The Eucharist is thus called the summit and source of our Christian life. Certainly, there are other means that Christ graces us with His presence and gifts. But the Eucharist is the most effective and most substantial.
Brother in Christ
:)
So much for just anyone grabbing their scrolls and interpretating for themselves the Word of God. Seems the first followers of the Lord meant for the Church to continue through THEIR teachings from God, not only in space, but in time...
Thank you for the verses. I just don't see how any of them speak of transferring supernatural powers. I do see them as an exhortation to train the next generation in correct teachings so the faith may continue in tact. I am just not assured that this has actually happened flawlessly over the last 2000 years. I would agree that no one should interpret scripture based on only their own authority.
WHO gave the Apostles this power [to forgive sin]? Christ did. And WHO was given ALL power and authority on earth? Christ. So Christ, upon HIS Divine authority, commissioned the Apostles. I don't quite understand the disagreement, it is pretty clear in Sciptures that "As My Father has sent me, so I send you (Apostles)" with power and authority.
Well, it seems that we both find ourselves in an interesting predicament. :) If I want to argue that the verse in John does not really transfer the power to forgive sin, but rather only the authority to DECLARE that God will forgive sin, then it seems I am rejecting a plain reading of the verse. That is unlike me. If you, however, take a verse reasonably subject to interpretation at its face value, then that is unusual for Catholicism. This is most difficult for both of us. :)
It just grates against all of my instincts to even grant that the Apostles had the authority to forgive sin. I really don't know. But, I really don't believe that even if the Apostles could do that, they could pass the ability on to others. I just don't see God delegating to that level across time to wholly fallible humans.
We don't know at what point various doctrines were ORALLY taught! However, it would be fair to say that some were discovered after more profound meditation on God's Word.
That's what I thought. Some oral teachings came later, and yet they are still infallible. I was focused on your saying that all teachings originated orally. Is it correct that some of extra-Biblical Apostolic tradition originated on the printed page?
FK: "I agree that there is only one truth and I believe the Spirit has recently either brought me to the absolute truth or closer to it, and I am thankful.
So we really cannot know, of ourselves, if we have achieved the truth on a doctrine, correct? So how is a Christian supposed to KNOW these important issues?
It depends on what your degree of certitude is. Throughout, it has seemed that you do not believe in assurance because you set the threshold so high, as in beyond, beyond, beyond a reasonable doubt, and covering certainty philosophically, scientifically, and in other ways. I have resolved to not need that level in order to live my life with what I call "assurance". About my salvation, I am as sure as I know how to be. If there is a higher level of assurance, it doesn't matter to me. That is how I lead my life.
On doctrine, I absolutely know that I have so much to learn, and that some beliefs I have now may very well be "no longer operative" when I die. I think that is a wonderful thing about sanctification. It's a lifelong process with continual growth. The Spirit will bring me down the path as He sees fit, and I will stray, and He will bring me back, NEVER EVER losing sight of me.
FK: "That's because you don't believe the Spirit talks to scrubs like us. :) We believe in a personal God."
You keep misunderstanding me on this concept. God speaks to us. We have a personal relationship with God through the Scriptures, through our daily lives, and for Catholics, through the sacraments, visible comings of God to us. I think it should be obvious, though, that we can't determine doctrine individually, though.
How can you have a "personal" relationship with Christ when nothing that you actually experience and nothing that you "know" counts for anything? It appears that the Church tells you what your experience is, the Church tells you what your knowledge is, and the Church tells you what your feelings (opinions) are. I understand that this gives you all a sense of security, but from an outsider's perspective, it looks like the "relationship" is equally important between man and (the men of) the Church as it is between man and God.
If there can be only one truth, and men separately cannot agree on it, what does that say about the Spirit of Truth revealing such matters to you and me? God reveals DOCTRINE through the Church - ONE truth.
But even good Catholics cannot agree on it. Even good hierarchy cannot agree on it. On many things in the past, there were many great Catholic hierarchy who disagreed. Your solution has been to say that any single man may error, but the Church as a body cannot error. In other words, take a poll! Whatever is most popular, that's our doctrine. :) I know, I know. You'll say that the Church is both "full of grace" from the beginning, and also "highly favored" from the beginning.
---------------
Thank you very much for all of your comments on the Eucharist.
It is the Spirit that makes the Eucharist "operative" in our transformation into another Christ. But note that all Three are present and all Three are giving of themselves to us and transforming us. We, as men, "assign" different roles to each of the persons of the Trinity.
I don't think I understand "transformation into another Christ". (See, I'm being good, I'm waiting. :) On your last sentence, is it wrong for us to identify different roles for the three persons of the trinity?
[Re: after the Eucharist is performed] But it is His effects, the Spirit's gifts, that remain. As long as His effects remain within us, He continues to grace us with His presence, in a different manner. Thus, He doesn't "leave us", unless we sin mortally, a proposition that is not very likely in a communicant who has worthily received the Lord in this manner.
The last sentence puzzles me a little because I thought I learned on this thread that a "mortal sin" was not nearly as bad as it sounds. It is serious, and intentional, but it doesn't have to include things like murder or anything. Another possibility would be if a mortal sin is what is the subject of Heb. 10:26. Is the "high hand" and defiant sin of Hebrews what is meant by a mortal sin?
God bless.