Posted on 06/29/2016 4:03:52 PM PDT by NYer
Chapter 11 of the Acts of the Apostles says that Antioch was the city in which, for the first time, the disciples of Jesus were called “Christians.” Tradition has enthroned Peter as the founder of the Church of Antioch, following the narration of the very same Book of Acts, which tells not only of the arrival of Peter and Barnabas to the Turkish city, but also of their preaching.
Moreover, this very same tradition claims that it was in the Knisset Mar Semaan Kefa (“Grotto of St. Peter” in Aramaic) where Peter would celebrate the Eucharist for this community. That is to say, this little cave could be the first place of worship of the ancient Church of Antioch.
Located in one of the slopes of Mount Starius, the cave has a depth of just thirteen meters and a height of seven, from floor to ceiling. The oldest parts of the building we see today, built around the original, simple cave dug in the mountain, are from the 4th and 5th centuries, and include a series of mosaic floors and a few frescoes which have been preserved on the right side of the altar.
Centuries ago, a series of small aqueducts brought water (considered miraculous) from nearby springs into a small designated area where baptisms were celebrated, but a series of relatively recent earthquakes rendered these channels useless.
When the Crusaders took Antioch during the First Crusade in 1098, a facade was added to the cave, which was rebuilt eight centuries later, in 1863, by Capuchin friars, by order of Pope Pius IX.
Today, the cave is only used as a museum, but, with permission, some religious ceremonies are held, especially on Feb. 21, the day on which Antioch celebrates the feast of their patron, Saint Peter.
Today, the cave is only used as a museum, but, with permission, some religious ceremonies are held, especially on Feb. 21, the day which celebrates the region San Pedro as their patron.
Irrelevant. The Church doesn’t decide what its members truly believe, or what they say they believe when asked. Deciding what to teach and telling the flock what they are to believe is simply not the same.
The Real Presence couldn’t be more obvious in Holy Scripture
Repeating such delusional assertions will never make it true. In contrast, as explained and shown, the Catholic Real Presence is obviously absent in the life of the NT church. And it is Scripture and its history that judges extraScriptural history, and not vice versa as with Catholicism.
You disagree, and have your own opinion. That’s fine for you, I don’t put much credence in your authority; nothing personal.
Your opinion of my authority is irrelevant, but the veracity of my argument is what matters, which rests upon the degree of warrant from Scripture - which is supremely authoritative - and in contrast to your assertion, only the veracity of my substantiated argument is shown to warrant credence.
If you do not want to see more, stop posting such outlandish provocative assertions as that belief in the Catholic Real Presence was re-iterated by Paul in his epistles, and that most Christians belief in it today.
>>>"The Church doesn’t decide what its members truly believe.."
The Church teaches doctrine - which is not determined by poll. Or is it in your church? This is a really obvious error in your logic. Does your denomination have a Confession, a Statement of Principles, or What We Believe? Or do you take a survey to determine what it will teach?
What is your church's confession? How was it determined?
St. Paul did not survey those in the Church at Corinth and teach them the results. No, he rebuked their divisions and heretical beliefs. ("For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you..")
And then he taught them right doctrine, including discerning the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
>>>”Great numbers of folks ‘believe’”
FIrst you argue that it’s not the majority teaching, then, when rebutted, you say it doesn’t matter if it is.
Whack-A-Mole.
Not really interested in playing that game with you.
My statement was: “I believe it is accurate to say most Christians today, including non-Catholics, believe in the Real Presence.”
It’s a true statement.
I didn’t say most non-Catholics believe in the Real Presence, although a large number do.
Among non-Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists believe in the Real Presence. Those who split from them historically, reforming the reformation, began with the Swiss Reformation of Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin and do not.
The traditions who followed this split include: Calvinists/Presbyterianism/Baptist and the many flavors of Evangelicalism which took recognizable form in the 18th Century.
Which, as obvious an usual, is what applies to you "rebuttal."
The Church teaches doctrine - which is not determined by poll.
Dude, the issue was what Catholics believe, as that was what your argument was about, but what Rome teaches simply does not necessarily translate into what RCs personally believe, and which is what polls reveal. Thus your rebuttal is specious or illogical. Do you understand that?
What is your church's confession? How was it determined?
Any church confession must be based on the weight of Scriptural warrant, however, unlike you, i am, not defending a particular church, but a common faith shared by many churches.
St. Paul did not survey those in the Church at Corinth and teach them the results. No, he rebuked their divisions and heretical beliefs. ("For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you..")
And then he taught them right doctrine, including discerning the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. WRONG, and once again you skew reality! Paul here actually sanctioned divisions (For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. - 1 Corinthians 11:19), for the word for heresies simply means "sects," as in sects of the Pharisees which Paul states he was part of, (Acts 26:5) and the NT church was actually called a sect, (Acts 24:14; 28:22) and which word can be distinguished as being in the negative sense by the context and or the word "damnable." (Gal. 5:20; 2Pt. 2:1)
And rather than teaching discerning the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, as in "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body," (1 Corinthians 11:29) instead (as heretofore explained) Paul is contextual referring to not recognizing church as being the Lord's body by treating members of it as if they were lepers, which is what he is reproving.
For proceeding from v. 19 above,
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
By eating independently and even to the full (the Lord's supper was not that of eating a wafer of bread) while ignoring others then they were despising ye the church of God, which body Paul said Christ purchased with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and was very passionate about, and which theme continues into the next chapter (1Co. 12).
Paul thus reiterates the Lord's words at the last supper, the interpretation of which is the issue, but Paul does not states that when they consume the elements then they were actually consuming Christ, but that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew[proclaim] the Lord's death till he come," (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Thus the purpose was to commemorative, remembering=showing the Lord's death for the church by sharing food with each other in that feast of charity, and since some were not doing so then Paul states that they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but instead they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, as by his previous censure, that of eating independently, while ignoring others, even to the "shame of them that have not." It is thus this despising of the Lord's body, the church that Paul refers to as "not discerning the Lord's body," not some failure to discern the nature of the elements, and thus the solution is not that of recognizing the nature of the elements consumed, but to correct this failure of recognizing the church was being the body for which Christ died:
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. (1 Corinthians 11:33) And also to eat at home if hungry so that one be not moved by lust for food and eat independently while ignoring others.
That this is what Paul by the Spirit is censuring is even confirmed by the notes in your own NAB Bible:
[11:27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).
* [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). - http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11
Regardless, like as homosexuals read homosexuality into any description of close friendships, so Catholics ignore context in order to force Scripture to say what they want.
A majority of Christians belong to Churches whose doctrine includes the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist.
Better?
It is specious to define Church doctrine by whatever survey. Again I doubt your’s does this. To compare: What is your church’s confession or statement of belief? How and when was it determined?
Corinthians includes “discerning the body of the Lord.” It takes effort here, and elsewhere in Holy Scripture to disappear the Real Presence.
You would have this “error” in the Church for over 1500 years until the Swiss reformers. Silliness.
“Denying the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist”
See the problem is that you and your false priest’s attempt to call Christ down from Heaven to have that real presence which is against Paul’s teachings (Romans 10:6). As a born again Christian I have that “Real Presence” living within me (Gal 2:20)! I don’t have to call Christ down to earth as a true believer my spirit is already seated with Christ in the heavenly realm (Eph 2:6). The reason you have to try and call Him down is that you are not saved thus you are still trying to find Him.
Again I will tell you to look at Jewish wedding tradition and you will find what Communion points to and it’s not real presence.
“St.Paul cautions against this error in First Corinthians.”
Well if you want to follow Paul I suggest you read Gal 1:8 and dump that ccc and you will see just how deviant your religion has become.
“Old Time Religion”
The Jews said the same to Christ.
Obtw your old time religion has had major changes in the last 500 years, just the COT changed your religion completely. So with that being said it was either faulty to begin with or it’s wrong now you pick.
“You’re welcome to your innovative tradition”
I don’t have religious traditions I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and I follow the Holy Bible and only that.
Tradition is exactly what caused the Jews to not accept Christ as the Messiah. They were so busy making sure their tradition was adhered to that lost the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
“Holy Scripture and in the history of the Church.”
You ignore Holy Scriptures that’s why every point you made is contradictory to Scripture. Even the Scripture you attempted to bring up actually points back at you and proves your doomed. RCC history actually points that either it was fallible before COT or after either way it still proves error.
Put away the ccc and study a Bible and you can be seated in the heavenly realm with Christ also. He will never come down to you He is either IN you and you in Him or not there is just no in between.
Obtw when Jesus defeated Satan in the wilderness He used Holy Scriptures NOT tradition.
Ephesians 4:11 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,
And therein lies the error. Rome has passed on false teachings that were NOT present from the beginning.
I agree the church has not failed, but man has failed to correct the false teachings that have crept into the roman catholic church.
>>>I don’t have religious traditions
Sure you do. The unaffiliated traditions of the Church of Daniel. You can survey Daniel, and that’s what your church believes. It’s Solo Mio.
From the Catholics, you likely picked up the Most Holy Trinity and a few other basics. Your other interpretations and doctrines, the one’s expressed here are not new, although they are - relatively - recent in the Christian faith.
You can trace your doctrine on denying the Real Presence back to the 16th Century, when the Swiss branched off of Luther over the issue and back to Luther who branched off the Church over authority, and the unbiblical doctrine of solo scriptura. (He would have kicked you out when you soloed your way following Zwingli in ‘your’ tradition.)
Those are the roots of your tradition in history. Add in the further branches in the 17th/18th Century and whatever other bits you have picked up, and there’s the Church of Daniel.
Your welcome to your tradition and your interpretation of Holy Scripture. I’ve studied Holy Scripture and Church history extensively -in formal study and on my own - for over 40 years. I’ve seen your arguments, been through all of them and more, many times. As I’ve said, they torture the plain meaning of Christ, his Apostles, the writings of the early church and history of Christianity. I just don’t find your arguments persuasive when examined critically and factually. And, of course, there is no appeal to authority possible, when you are the sole authority of your doctrine.
We’ve circled around again, said our piece; and, again, I’ll leave you with the last word.
thanks for your reply.
I just now realized I thought I was posting to Daniel in my last reply.
Mea culpa!! Very sorry. If it fits you can apply to your post, if not, don’t.
In any case, I apologize to you both for my mistake.
For a church that claims beginnings and traditions from Peter I would have to say that your first pope must have forgot to tell you a few really important things.
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-—————————……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………-————…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, “Mother of God” applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .-———————————————————— 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………————————… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………——————……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-—————————————————……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
You didn’t read a word I said. I don’t deny “Real Presence” because I have the real presence of Christ that lives in me and I in Him. Keep dancing, but your words will not work before that Great White Throne.
Finally, for sure.
It is specious to define Church doctrine by whatever survey.
Which was not what you were doing, but were stating what souls believed, as if that necessarily meant the same thing as what their churches simply professed, contrary to their own statements as found by surveys. Do i need to keep repeating this?
Corinthians includes “discerning the body of the Lord.” It takes effort here, and elsewhere in Holy Scripture to disappear the Real Presence.
Meaning, as usually, just the opposite, as showed.
You would have this “error” in the Church for over 1500 years until the Swiss reformers. Silliness.
Meaning in reality that how the NT church saw the Lord's supper was manifestly not that of Catholicism, as showed, and which Swiss reformers basically recovered as regards the metaphorical understanding. . Which is the only one that easily conflates with the totality of Scripture. Glory to God.
Do you remember The Neverending Thread? Brings back memories.
Anyway, here’s a link for your list:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scriptural-reference-guide
>>>”You didn’t read a word I said. “
I did read it. Sounded like Daniel; that’s why I made the mistake in replying. :)
>>”I don’t deny “Real Presence because I have..”
The discussion is about the Real Presence *in Holy Eucharist*.
Thanks for your replies. I’ll leave you the last word if you wish also.
Wrong as usual, for unlike you, I can show from Scripture that the doctrines that I believe my fellowship and of any church I have been part in the last 35 since leaving Rome, and even the core truths we both affirm. And likewise I can show from Scripture that the doctrines I reject of Rome are not of Scripture, and thus do not conform to the most ancient and authorative tradition.
You objection must then be to individuals ascertaining the veracity of what is taught by examination of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2; 18:28 etc.) and in its place argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
However, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Your other interpretations and doctrines, the one’s expressed here are not new, although they are - relatively - recent in the Christian faith.
Wrong again, for I can show from Scripture that they are ancient, while you cannot even find one prayer to Heaven among the approx. 200 in Scripture of anyone but pagans praying to anyone else in Heaven but God, nor of any NT pastor being distinctively called a priest, and offering up the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, or of it being the central supreme sacraments as per Catholicism, nor of pastors being normatively celibate, or of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning over the church, nor of the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome. Etc, Etc.
I’ve seen your argument
And are unable to refute them.
And, of course, there is no appeal to authority possible, when you are the sole authority of your doctrine.
Which is an absurd charge as was made against itinerant preachers of the 1st century who showed from the Scriptures that a certain magisterial - rejected itinerant preacher was the Christ. But the church began because common Jews correctly discerned both men and writings as being of God, while the idea that an ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for this is what is novel. They nor we are not the authority of our doctrine, but point to Scripture as the supreme source and judge.
We’ve circled around again, said our piece; and, again, I’ll leave you with the last word.
Since your mere assertions have been refuted time and time again, and would be more so, by the grace of God, if you continue with the like, then thus your retreat would be wise.
Recovered? Actually, they seem to have been more influenced by the "scientific" reductionism that was in the air at the time. And it suffuses much of Protestantism to this day, at least as exemplified in many FR posts.
It follows that there is one holy catholic apostolic church that has proclaimed the good news of the Messiah to every nation in the known world from the time of the Jewish apostles, prophets, and evangelists into this very day. This church did not fail because the Messiah founded it on Peter and the other apostles and the prophets, with himself as the chief cornerstone. It was neither re-formed nor recreated for the Messiah himself founded it and gave his word that it would not fail (the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Bless his holy name and blessed be he who comes in the name of the LORD.
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.