Christ Ascended Into Heaven

[Katholikos]

But I question wether transubstantiation is a legitimate development of Scriptural and Patristic teaching, in light of the fact that Christ ascended, body, soul, and divinity into Heaven, and Scripture makes no mention of His coming back down until the second coming (save for the conversion of St. Paul, of course)

I emphatically assert that transubstantiation is not a development out of Scriptural or Patristic teaching. It is not a "development" at all, but is simply the teaching of the Apostles, who learned it from the lips of Jesus Christ, who was God, and who, in turn, taught it to the Catholic Church, so that she might teach others.

The Scriptures and Patristic teaching, however, are developments out of the Apostolic Teaching, as expressed through the mind and soul of the Catholic Church, "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15 RSV).

Oremus pro invicem, Likos

[geetarplayer]

What about when Satanists steal the Eucharist and then go and defile it by stomping on it, urinating on it, etc? Didn't He have enough of that in His 33 years on earth? I know that these cases are probably rare, but what kind of effect does this have on Jesus? Does it affect him at all? Or does it un-conscecrate before anything bad can happen to it?

-Mark

[ICTHUS]

There's a very simple proof to every issue one could possibly have. 1 Timothy 3:15

*plays "devils advocate" to the so-called "Reformed" position*

Sure, the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, but according to John 17:17, the Word of God is truth.

Thus, the Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth requires that Truth be built atop the foundation - requiring, therefore, that the Church be subordinate to the Word - which is Truth itself!!!

Edited December 5, 2003 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

ICTHUS,

I can assure you that the average Presbyterian thinks of "communion" as a symbolic act.  If pressed, many will say it is something more that "just a symbol", but much less than the Real Prescense.  I went through deacon formation in the PCA, I know Scott Hahn's brother-in-law.  I'm sure that Prof. Hahn was simply using a well known short cut in evangelical language.  Remember that "Rome Sweet Home" is a memoir, not an apologetic. 

peace...

Pedro, are you an ex-Presbyterian?

[ICTHUS]

I emphatically assert that transubstantiation is not a development out of Scriptural or Patristic teaching.  It is not a "development" at all, but is simply the teaching of the Apostles, who learned it from the lips of Jesus Christ, who was God, and who, in turn, taught it to the Catholic Church, so that she might teach others.

The Scriptures and Patristic teaching, however, are developments out of the Apostolic Teaching, as expressed through the mind and soul of the Catholic Church, "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15 RSV). 

Oremus pro invicem, Likos

Likos, how can you say that the Scriptures are developments out of the apostolic teaching? I thought the Scriptures WERE apostolic teaching?

[Katholikos]

*plays "devils advocate" to the so-called "Reformed" position*

Sure, the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, but according to John 17:17, the Word of God is truth.

Thus, the Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth requires that Truth be built atop the foundation - requiring, therefore, that the Church be subordinate to the Word - which is Truth itself!!!

"Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth" John 17:17.

But what is "thy word"?

Protestants say the word of God is the Bible. But the Bible doesn't say it's the Bible. The Bible says the Word is Christ (John 1:1). And the oral teaching of the Apostles (e.g., Ephesians 1:13). But the word "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible at all. Nor is there an "inspired list of the table of contents" in the Bible. The only list of writings that constitute the "inspired Word of God" has been added to the Bible by the Catholic Church.

It's the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, that first said the Bible (all 73 books) is the Word of God when she formed it c. A.D. 400.

Centuries later, Martin Luther, followed by John Calvin, said to the Church that wrote the NT and formed the Bible, 'No, THAT'S not the Bible. THIS is. And this Bible is the inerrant word of God. We don't need no stinkin' Church.'

But what good is an inerrant book without an infallible interpreter?

That's how we got 33,820 answers to the same questions.

Sola Scriptura won't withstand the test of logic. A book cannot vouch for itself.

JMJ Likos

[Katholikos]

Likos, how can you say that the Scriptures are developments out of the apostolic teaching? I thought the Scriptures WERE apostolic teaching?

The New Testament Scriptures resulted from oral Apostolic teaching. Some of the teaching of the Apostles was written down by the Church and was later canonized. Some was not canonized in Sacred Scripture but was preserved in other forms, by other methods. Both are Sacred Apostolic Tradition, equally "inspired." I'm saying that the oral Sacred Apostolic Tradition preceded the written.

The Bible came out of the Church . The Church did not come out of the Bible .

JMJ Likos

[Katholikos]

P.S. What I'm saying is that the Catholic Church learned her doctrines directly from the Apostles, not from the Bible. The New Testament is based on the dynamic, living, teaching Church -- not the other way around.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[ICTHUS]

The New Testament Scriptures resulted from oral Apostolic teaching.  Some of the teaching of the Apostles was written down by the Church and was later canonized.  Some was not canonized in Sacred Scripture but was preserved in other forms, by other methods.  Both are Sacred Apostolic Tradition, equally "inspired." I'm saying that the oral Sacred Apostolic Tradition preceded the written. 

The Bible came out of the Church .  The Church did not come out of the Bible . 

JMJ Likos

How, Likos, can you say that Scripture, as well as Tradition, are "inspired", for Scripture only is described at qeopneustoV (theopneustos) or BREATHED OUT BY GOD.

Even if the claim that Scripture is an integral part of the Apostolic Tradition is true, even then, it is the ONLY integral part of that Apostolic Tradition which can be described at "Theopneustos"

[ICTHUS]

We don't need no stinkin' Church.'   

To be fair to Calvin and Luther, they didn't say that they had no need for the Church, but that the Church should submit to the Word of God as revealed in Scripture, which, in their views, the Roman Catholic Church did not.

[ICTHUS]

I should add to my previous post that our good buddy Mustbenothing described it kinda like this:

The "Reformers" wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within, but she excommunicated them, so they had to basically recover the Biblical doctrines that had been lost by the Church of Rome and start afresh.

[Katholikos]

I should add to my previous post that our good buddy Mustbenothing described it kinda like this:

The "Reformers" wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within, but she excommunicated them, so they had to basically recover the Biblical doctrines that had been lost by the Church of Rome and start afresh.

Luther and Calvin did not "recover" Biblical doctrines. The "Reformed" doctrines had never in history been taught by the Church; they were 16th century innovations that L & C "discovered" in their "fresh" reinterpretation of the New Testament that had been written centuries earlier by the Catholic Church!

They had to have believed that "the powers of death," or "the gates of hell" did prevail against Christ's Church.

Luther and Calvin rejected the authority of the Church -- including the authority to interpret her own Scriptures.

I was having surgery and recuperating when mustbenothing was posting on phatmass, so I've seen only a few of his arguments.

[Katholikos]

How, Likos, can you say that Scripture, as well as Tradition, are "inspired", for Scripture only is described at qeopneustoV (theopneustos) or BREATHED OUT BY GOD.

Even if the claim that Scripture is an integral part of the Apostolic Tradition is true, even then, it is the ONLY integral part of that Apostolic Tradition which can be described at "Theopneustos"

I don't know Greek, Icthus. Perhaps "inspired" was not the best word to use? But the Church's teaching on Divine Revelation is in the documents of Vatican II, which reads in part:

"Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church."

It was this fact that I wished to convey. I view the entire "Word of God" as "God-breathed," (God-inspired) but perhaps you (and others) make theological distinctions between Scripture and Tradition that I should be aware of but am not.

"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that is proposed for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from the single deposit of faith."

"It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

From Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents edited by Austin Falnnery, O.P., New Revised Edition 1992. (underscore added)

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[p0lar_bear]

ICTHUS

Maybe it would help to think of it this way...It's not that Jesus is coming back down to earth every time the Eucharist is consecrated. In the Eucharist we are participating in the self-same sacrifice of the Cross. The Eucharist is trans-historical. Therefore, we are participating in something that happened before the Ascension.

Also, there is no indication in Scripture that the words "body," "flesh," and "blood" had any "spiritual" conotation.

Also, regarding the quote about the inspiration of Scripture...Where'd you get the word "only"? I don't recall that being in Scripture. There is a verse that says all Scripture is inspired by God, but that does not preclude other channels of His inspiration or revelation. In addition, the verse is only referring to the Old Testament as the New Testament was not formed yet....

[ICTHUS]

ICTHUS

Maybe it would help to think of it this way...It's not that Jesus is coming back down to earth every time the Eucharist is consecrated. In the Eucharist we are participating in the self-same sacrifice of the Cross. The Eucharist is trans-historical. Therefore, we are participating in something that happened before the Ascension.

Ah! Now the waters become slightly less muddy! However, could you point me to where the Catechism teaches this?

Also, regarding the quote about the inspiration of Scripture...Where'd you get the word "only"? I don't recall that being in Scripture. There is a verse that says all Scripture is inspired by God, but that does not preclude other channels of His inspiration or revelation. In addition, the verse is only referring to the Old Testament as the New Testament was not formed yet....

Well, if we take other writings other than Scripture as inspired, be prepared for a s..l..i...p..p..e..r..y...s..l..o..p..e!!!

What, then, is to keep us from saying the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, or the Kama Sutra is inspired and useful for teaching doctrine?????