The “Necessity” of Being Catholic (Ecumenical Caucus)

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy Council ... [b]asing itself on Scripture and Tradition ... teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.... [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).

Many modems explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for non Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full fledged Catholic is damned. As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than absolute necessities,

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the Catholic Church.

A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

But it is also possible to be “associated" with or "partially incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Plus XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God.... [I]f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so.... Charity ... more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity no exceptions at all to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, ''the universal sacrament of salvation, 'by which Christ is' at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men... (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45: 1).

To many this teaching sounds extremely offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian. But is it really? While non-Catholic Christians balk at the claim one must be a Catholic to be saved, many do not balk when it is said that one be a Christian to be saved. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are well known for claiming precisely this. Many say it is an absolute necessity no exceptions allowed and are critical of Catholics for saying some non-Christians may make it into heaven. They claim that in allowing this possibility the Church has compromised the gospel.

(For a scriptural rebuttal to this, see Acts 10:34 35, in which Peter declares that anyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to the Lord. See also Acts 17:23, in which Paul says some Greeks worshipped the true God in ignorance. And see Rom. 2:13 16, in which Paul states that some gentiles who do not have the law of Moses meaning non Christian gentiles, since they do have the law of Moses may be excused by their consciences and declared righteous on the day of judgment.)

Vatican II stated: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life . . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasoning, having exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (c.f Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s commands, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions” Lumen Gentium 16).

We would cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX’s allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Plus XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.

Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them ... men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated]." This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]. " Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44 48, also Luke 23:42 43).

Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better whatever that drug might be and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it Is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Plus XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth wherever that might be found rather than his primary desire being membership in a non Catholic church.

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.

In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism Justifies, Trent defines Justification as "a translation ... to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is In a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

As Trent also states: "Justification ... is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he did not lose the grace he prayed for... (Summa Theologiae 111:68:2, citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.

What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body ... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally. . . incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST 111:68:2).

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,

The same is true of those who misuse papal and conciliar statements on the other side, privately interpreting them in a way contrary to what they explicitly state that all religions are equal, that every religion leads one to God, and that there is no need for evangelism. The Church teaches the exact opposite!

While elements of truth may be found in other religions (for example, the truth that there is a supernatural world), elements of truth do not make equality in truth.

In fact, it can be the presence of elements of truth which make a counterfeit believable and lead one away from God. A lie is not credible if it bears no resemblance to reality, as illustrated by the serpent's lie to Eve, which most definitely contained elements of truth Adam and Eve did become "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5, 22) but it was the believability of the serpent's lie that led Adam and Eve away from God.

So though it is possible for a person to be led toward God by elements of truth that are found in a false religion, this does nothing to diminish the need for evangelism.

Vatican II may teach that it is possible for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church" to receive salvation, but it immediately follows it up by stating that, despite that fact, "very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

And Pope Pius XII stated concerning "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love" (Mystici Corporis 103).

These quotes show the Church's insistence on people's need to receive evangelization to hear the good news but most fundamentally evangelism is necessary because Christ calls us to dispel all ignorance concerning him and the means of salvation he has established (including the Church), for Christ commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19 20). We are to dispel all ignorance, including innocent ignorance, for we are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

Those who represent, even through silence, the Magisterium as not requiring and stressing the urgent need for world wide evangelism are distorting the teaching of the magisterium as much as those who represent it as saying absolutely no one who is not formally a Catholic can be saved.

(For a look at what the early Church Fathers believed, and how they supported both the necessity of being Catholic and the possibility of salvation for non Catholics in some circumstances, see "The Fathers Know Best: Who Can Be Saved? ", This Rock, Nov. 94.)

When the scripture says ‘do it’, it means partake in the Eucharist

This is a very bizarre spin. At the time of the Last Supper the sacrifice -- the giving of the body -- is still in the future. So how can a command to do something in commemoration refer to the present, when the time of commemorating lies in the future?

Further, this is not how the Holy Apostles understood Him, because from history and from 1 Corinthians 11 we know that they offered the Eucharist, just as their heirs do today.

There is not a single verse anywhere in scripture that says we are to regularly offer Jesus in sacrifice

The words of the institution in all synoptic gospels "this is my body given up for you" plainly mean that the Eucharist at the Last Supper was offer of sacrifice, and since the Apostles took that command seriously, they did the same, -- see 1 Cor 11 again.

no where in the NT are any believers designated priests

We discussed it earlier. Use Greek, search for "presbyter" and keep in mind that "episcopos", bishop, is also a priest.

there is no longer any offering for sin

Indeed. The Mass is offering for sin, but that is not a new offering, just like Hebrews 10 explains. That, too, was discussed earlier on this thread.

is no hint here of offering Jesus in sacrifice

If the body of Christ is really present in the Eucharist then it is the sacrifice of Golgotha that is happening, and St. Paul plainly teaches that it is present.

The usage in Luke 1:9 is referring to a Hebrew priest.

The usage in St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 387) is not exactly 1c. There is no doubt that the switch to "ιερεύς" meaning Christian priest occurred at some time, and that paragraph shows that it occurred as early as late 4c.

The question is, do "episcopos" and "presbyteros" in the New Testament refer to consecrated Christian clergy or not. I think it is plain that they do, in light of Acts 6:6 (consecration of deacons), 1 Timothy 4:14 (Timothy ordained into priesthood, although later we understand that he also functioned a sbishop, ordaining others), 1 Timothy 5:22 (Timothy to select carefully whom to ordain) Titus 1:5 (specific instruction to "ordain priests in any city", followed by instruction on how they are to be selected). 1 Timothy 3:1-2 speaks of the "office of a bishop"; Acts 20:28 refers to bishops "ruling the Church". "Episcopos" and "presbyteros" are indeed used, it seems interchangeably (cf 1 Timothy 4:14 and 1 Timothy 5:22), but the hirerarchical nature of the Early Church is evident from these verses.

Where does Paul suggest Jesus is still being offered as a sacrifice at Calvary?

Where he condemns those who do not discern His body, 1 Cor. 11:29. Also see 1 Cor. 10:16, the entire discourse there is about different understanding of the altar sacrifice:

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 19 What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? 20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.

Note that he doesn't say "Israel eats of the sacrifices and we don't"; he compares the two sacrifices and says that one precludes another.

That the Eucharist is an act of thanksgiving is Catholic teaching: we come to thank Christ for His sacrifice. If no sacrifice were occurring at Mass, we could just as well do the thanking at home.

He is not teaching that Jesus is being offered in sacrifice. He is teaching about not associating with idolaters via eating food sacrificed to idols. In similar manner, we are identified as followers of Christ via Eucharist.

So just as taking Eucharist identifies us as Christians, eating food sacrificed to idols identifies them with demons.

Mega bad idea.

From Barnes, who ties it all together in a context spanning multiple chapters:

(3.) Whether, when invited to the houses of the heathens, they might partake of the meat sacrificed to idols, and which was set before them as a common meal. I regard this chapter as having a very close connexion with \\1Co 8\\. In the close of chapter 8, (1 Corinthians 9:13,) Paul had stated, when examining the question whether it was right to eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols, that the grand principle on which he acted, and on which they should act, was that of self-denial. To illustrate this he employs the ninth chapter, by showing how he acted on it in reference to a maintenance; showing that it was this principle that led him to decline a support to which he was really entitled. Having illustrated that, he returns in this chapter to the subject which he was discussing in chapter 8; and the design of this chapter is further to explain and enforce the sentiments advanced there, and to settle some other inquiries pertaining to the same general subject. The first point, therefore, on which he insists is, the danger of relapsing into idolatry—a danger which would arise, should they be in the habit of frequenting the temples of idols, and of partaking of the meats offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 10:1-24. Against this he had cautioned them in general, in 1 Corinthians 8:7,9-12. This danger he now sets forth by a variety of illustrations. He first shows them that the Jews had been highly favoured, had been solemnly consecrated to Moses and to God, and had been under the Divine protection and guidance, (1 Corinthians 10:1-4;) yet that this had not kept them from the displeasure of God when they sinned, 1 Corinthians 10:5. He shows that, notwithstanding their privileges, they had indulged in inordinate desires, 1 Corinthians 10:6; that they had become idolaters, 1 Corinthians 10:7; that they had been guilty of licentiousness, 1 Corinthians 10:8; that they had tempted their leader and guide, 1 Corinthians 10:9; that they had murmured, 1 Corinthians 10:10; and that, as a consequence of this, many of them had been destroyed. In view of all this, Paul cautions the Corinthians not to be self-confident, or to feel secure; and not to throw themselves in the way of temptation by partaking of the feasts of idolatry, 1 Corinthians 10:12-14. This danger he further illustrates (1 Corinthians 10:15-24) by showing that if they partook of those sacrifices, they in fact became identified with the worshippers of idols. This he proved by showing that in the Christian communion, those who partook of the Lord’s Supper were identified with Christians, 1 Corinthians 10:16,17; that in the Jewish sacrifices the same thing occurred, and those who partook of them were regarded as Jews, and as worshippers of the same God with them, 1 Corinthians 10:18; and that the same thing must occur, in the nature of the case, by partaking of the sacrifices offered to idols. They were really partaking of that which had been offered to devils; and against any such participation Paul would solemnly admonish them, 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Going on the supposition, therefore, that there was nothing wrong in itself in partaking of the meat that had been thus killed in sacrifice, yet Paul says (1 Corinthians 10:23) that it was not expedient thus to expose themselves to danger; and that the grand principle should be to seek the comfort and edification of others, 1 Corinthians 10:24. Paul thus strongly and decisively admonishes them not to enter the temples of idols to partake of those feasts; not to unite with idolaters in their celebration; not to endanger their piety by these temptations.

There were, however, two other questions on the subject which it was important to decide, and which had probably been submitted to him in the letter which they had sent for counsel and advice. The first was, whether it was right to purchase and eat the meat which had been sacrificed, and which was exposed indiscriminately with other meat in the market, 1 Corinthians 10:25. To this Paul replies, that as no evil could result from this, as it could not be alleged that they purchased it as meat sacrificed to idols, and as all that the earth contained belonged to the Lord, it was not wrong to purchase and to use it. Yet if even this was pointed out to them as having been sacrificed to idols, he then cautioned them to abstain from it, 1 Corinthians 10:28. The other question was, whether it was right for them to accept the invitation of a heathen, and to partake of meat then that had been offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 10:27. To this a similar answer was returned. The general principle was, that no questions were to be asked in regard to what was set before them; but if the food was expressly pointed out as having been offered in sacrifice, then to partake of it would be regarded as a public recognition of the idol, 1 Corinthians 10:28-30. Paul then concludes the discussion by stating the noble rule that is to guide in all this: that everything is to be done to the glory of God, 1 Corinthians 10:31; and that the great effort of the Christian should be so to act in all things as to honour his religion, as not to lead others into sin, 1 Corinthians 10:32,33.

Peter did not lord over other Apostles, nor did the Apostles go to Peter to ask for permission or correction.

Peter never used a flush toilet, either. What other irrelevancies would you like to discuss?

Peter did however settle the famous dispute in Jerusalem which saw turmoil in the Church until he stood and spoke giving the "doctrinal" understanding of gentiles, for which James gave "local" rules.

By extension, the same is true of their successors.

What "extention" is that? I know of no "extention" for you to toss around like corner church theologian.

And you are engaging in teaching something the Church never taught. Talk about vanity...

Postulating is not "teaching" but I wouldn't expect you to recognize the difference between rolling grain in ones hand, and "harvesting."

Patristic commentaries never ever suggested it had anything to to even remotely with the Bishop of Rome. Your statement is not hypocrisy by my standard; it is simply not what the Church taught and would therefore qualify as heresy, by definition, if you are actually an ordained cleric.

So your argument is still from silence, and your definition of "heresy" is protestant except your totem is patristic instead of scriptural.

How ironic.

And, based on that you conclude that I am Greek but have not studied Greek?!?

It seemed a reasonable conjecture at the time.

Clearly, you and your faction expect deferrence, but have consistently avoided answering my questions in the context they were asked. I have to speculate SOME reason for such duplicitous conceit.

I hate to ask how long were you at a university considering that you seem to think Greek is written in lower-case letters for some strange reason—consistently!

Bwahahaha!

And I hate to think how much you learned about Greek considering that it never occurred to you that presvyia could be transliterated as presbeia, while complaining that presvyia returns only 4 hits.

You seem to miss the fact my opposition claimed the term known far and wide.

Anyone who speaks more than one language knows very well that some things simply cannot be expressed in another languages directly, but only approximately.

Nobody said anything about "directly." And anyone familiar with languages knows "this can't be translated" is the same as "you can't get there from here." i.e. nonsense.

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.