1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by Grailhunter, Aug 12, 2019.

  1. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,146
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    Yes. There really shouldn't be priests anymore since we don't sacrifice anymore.
    Unless you consider the Mass a sacrifice..which in an eternal way, it is.
     
  2. farouk

    farouk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,336
    Likes Received:
    5,081
    Hebrews 9 and 10 speak of the Lord Jesus 'once offered'; He now 'ever lives to make intercession' for His blood bought people (Hebrews 7.25).
     
    GodsGrace likes this.
  3. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,146
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    Amen brother.
     
    farouk likes this.
  4. farouk

    farouk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,336
    Likes Received:
    5,081
    Thanks! :)
     
    GodsGrace likes this.
  5. Philip James

    Philip James Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Hi GG,

    The Divine Liturugy is the pure offering of Malachi 1:11 . such has the Church always taught and believed.

    Peace be with you!
     
  6. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,146
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    If we NEED a Mass, it means the sacrifice is happening again and the priest is offering it.

    As I think you must surely know,,,the sacrifice happened only that one time but it is being
    re-offered so to speak...it is NOT happening again. It is "bloodless".

    I have been assured by priests that they are NOT re-sacrificing Jesus as most Protestants believe...

    So why would a priest be necessary if the sacrifice is no longer necessary?
    I really, having Catholic knowledge, cannot understand this.
     
  7. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    593
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I think there are some clues about how people will be as priests by observing how they behave in seminaries.

    If they don't want gay priests being actively gay, why are some seminaries so gay? We had some here in the US; and now we find out they do in Brazil too.

    Homosexuals In the Seminaries. A Startling Survey In Brazil - CatholicCitizens.org

    First of all, the interviewees say, homosexuality in their seminaries “is a common thing, a reality ever more present.” So normal “that it even reaches the point of being trivialized.” It is the widespread conviction among them “that in reality 90 percent of seminarians today are homosexual.”

    Spain had the same problem with gay priests when the Inquisition was to ferret them out. (I wish I could remember where I read this.) The Pope wrote to Spain asking how it was going; and the answer came back that if they got rid of all the actively gay priests, there wouldn't be enough priests to function. England had the same problem. Anselm was probably gay but I think also probably abstinent; but he knew there were lots of gay priests in the English church.

    St Anselm

    Most of the following letters were written during his early residence at Bec, though he was already becoming noted for his scholarship and philosophy, infectious enthusiasm, and spiky personality (his high principles would eventually create friction with his English rulers, William II and Henry I. There is little reason to doubt the purity of Anselm’s theological concept of friendship, or even his celibacy, but neither can we deny the erotic force behind his yearning and frustrated desire, his heartbreak and even jealousy. The intensity of his emotional experience with his pupils and the `beloved lover’ (dilecto dilectori) to whom he addresses his epistles makes clear his gay sensibility.

    The Council of London in 1102 wanted to enact ecclesiastical legislation which declared – for the first time in English history – that homosexual behaviour was a sin, and they recommended that offending laymen be imprisoned and clergymen be anathematized. But Anselm as Archbishop of Canterbury prohibited the publication of their decree, advising the Council that homosexuality was widespread and few men were embarrassed by it or had even been aware it was a serious matter; he felt that although sodomites should not be admitted to the priesthood, confessors should take into account mitigating factors such as age and marital status before prescribing penance, and he advised counselling rather than punishment. St Anselm’s letters appeared during the last flowering of homosexual love before fanatical anti-gay prejudice swept across Europe in the twelfth century, as documented by John Boswell in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1980).

    I think they just have to learn to deal with it. And some don't and create problems. Mostly they get changed from one parish to another.

    What about heterosexuals in seminaries? Watch them to see if they're chaste. I think being married to enter a seminary might be a good idea.

    What's for sure is that Peter was married. I'm not sure when they decided men had to be unmarried, nor do I know what rules they had before that.
    So you know what I mean, and the problems the practice seem to encourage.

    The same problem is found today in some Protestant churches when the minister is married. There was one case recently when a man must have decided he wanted to be straight so he married a woman and became a minister. When it came out he was having flings with men, his wife stood by him at first; later she gave up trying to defend the indefensible.
    He also introduced what I'd call a heresy with his views on "original sin." That was his invention completely. There will never be a complete reconciliation with the Orthodox Church as long as the Catholic Church hangs onto that. I find the idea repugnant; and I also think he derived it as a way to explain his own spiritual failure.

    I adore Augustine's mother, St. Monica. But I could do without him. He fell into bad hands when he met Ambrose. I see him as one of the worst ever influences on the Catholic Church. I would say he invented the "Apostles Creed" in its present form, claiming it had always existed.

    Apostles' Creed - Wikipedia

    The title Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles) appears for the first time in a letter, probably written by Ambrose, from a Council in Milan to Pope Siricius in about AD 390 "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled".[5][6] But what existed at that time was not what is now known as the Apostles' Creed but a shorter statement of belief that, for instance, did not include the phrase "maker of heaven and earth", a phrase that may have been inserted only in the 7th century.[7]

    If they always had it, why was Ambrose the first to know of it? Why hadn't they produced it at Nicea?
     
  8. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    593
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    How Ambrose became a Bishop is also scandalous. The canons of Nicea meant nothing to them.

    Ambrose - Wikipedia

    In the late 4th century there was a deep conflict in the diocese of Milan between the Nicene Church and Arians.[11][12] In 374 the bishop of Milan, Auxentius, an Arian, died, and the Arians challenged the succession. Ambrose went to the church where the election was to take place, to prevent an uproar, which was probable in this crisis. His address was interrupted by a call, "Ambrose, bishop!", which was taken up by the whole assembly.[12]

    Ambrose was known to be Nicene Christian in belief, but also acceptable to Arians due to the charity shown in theological matters in this regard. At first he energetically refused the office, for which he was in no way prepared: Ambrose was neither baptized nor formally trained in theology.[1] Upon his appointment, Ambrose fled to a colleague's home seeking to hide. Upon receiving a letter from the Emperor Gratian praising the appropriateness of Rome appointing individuals evidently worthy of holy positions, Ambrose's host gave him up. Within a week, he was baptized, ordained and duly consecrated bishop of Milan.


    I think he was so clever, he planned most of that. People didn't use to run for President in the US. Some wouldn't even attend the conventions. Their underlings attended and if they got him nominated, then they'd send for him to come accept the nomination. That way it looked like he wasn't a power-hungry politician. I think Ambrose had that election rigged. Clever how both sides supported him. He was not elected in a canonical way since the church at Milan was filled with Bishops who could vote and others who could not.

    Ever since the heroic Bishop Dionysius, in the year 355, had been dragged in chains to his place of exile in the distant East, the ancient chair of St. Barnabas had been occupied by the intruded Cappadocian, Auxentius, an Arian filled with bitter hatred of the Catholic Faith, ignorant of the Latin language, a wily and violent persecutor of his orthodox subjects. To the great relief of the Catholics, the death of the petty tyrant in 374 ended a bondage which had lasted nearly twenty years. The bishops of the province, dreading the inevitable tumults of a popular election, begged the Emperor Valentinian to appoint a successor by imperial edict; he, however, decided that the election must take place in the usual way. It devolved upon Ambrose, therefore, to maintain order in the city at this perilous juncture. Proceeding to the basilica in which the disunited clergy and people were assembled, he began a conciliatory discourse in the interest of peace and moderation, but was interrupted by a voice (according to Paulinus, the voice of an infant) crying, "Ambrose, Bishop". The cry was instantly repeated by the entire assembly, and Ambrose, to his surprise and dismay, was unanimously pronounced elected. Quite apart from any supernatural intervention, he was the only logical candidate, known to the Catholics as a firm believer in the Nicene Creed, unobnoxious to the Arians, as one who had kept aloof from all theological controversies.

    Why would decide who would be Bishop that way? Why they want an unbaptized man for Bishop? Why too was what the Emperor Gratian wanted a factor? I think too we can see his "moderate" position towards the Arians was a big factor. If you have the power to persecute hetetics, you can; if you need their support to become Bishop, better be more moderate.

    Worst of all was what he did about Jews. He was responsible for synagogues across the empire being burned.

    Ambrose - Wikipedia

    In 388, Emperor Theodosius the Great was informed that a crowd of Christians, led by their bishop, had destroyed the synagogue at Callinicum on the Euphrates. He ordered the synagogue rebuilt at the expense of the bishop,[18] but Ambrose persuaded Theodosius to retreat from this position.[19] He wrote to the Emperor, pointing out that he was thereby "exposing the bishop to the danger of either acting against the truth or of death"; in the letter "the reasons given for the imperial rescript are met, especially by the plea that the Jews had burnt many churches".[20] Ambrose, referring to a prior incident where Magnus Maximus issued an edict censuring Christians in Rome for burning down a Jewish synagogue, warned Theodosius that the people in turn exclaimed "the emperor has become a Jew", implying that if Theodosius attempted to apply the law to protect his Jewish subjects he'd be viewed similarly.[21] In the course of the letter Ambrose speaks of the clemency that the emperor had shown with regard to the many houses of wealthy people and churches that had been destroyed by unruly mobs, with many then still not restored and then adds: "There is, then, no adequate cause for such a commotion, that the people should be so severely punished for the burning of a building, and much less since it is the burning of a synagogue, a home of unbelief, a house of impiety, a receptacle of folly, which God Himself has condemned.

    What the article at Wikipedia didn't include is that when Theodosius backed down, Christians across the empire felt free to burn synagogues and they did. Augustine fell into bad hands when he met Ambrose.

    Augustine could have benefited by getting married if he had been willing to love a woman instead of using women as sex toys as he had in his youth. He should also have seen his mother as a valuable influence on his life. His father was a pagan. The trials she had just to get her children baptized. She could have left him -- not only was he a pagan, he was horrible in other ways -- but Monica persevered. Her loving patience paid off too. Her husband became a Christian. How could Augustine not see what a precious treasure his mother was?
     
  9. farouk

    farouk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,336
    Likes Received:
    5,081
    Where the Lord Jesus said to His disciples about the Lord's Supper: 'This do in remembrance of Me', He was instituting a remembrance, not the re-sacrifice of an already, gloriously finished work.
     
  10. Philip James

    Philip James Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Hello farouk,
    What are we to do in rememberence? What Jesus did, offer HIS one paschal sacrifice to the Father.

    This is why we are 'devoted to the breaking of bread'


    Peace be with you!
     
  11. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    593
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Jesus offered his Blood and Body to the disciples before he was crucified. What does that mean?
     
  12. Philip James

    Philip James Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight.

    This is 'the hour' in which Jesus offers Himself as the paschal Lamb, and establishes the new covenant.

    In giving Himself to His bride, HE unites her forever with Himself. 'the two made one flesh'
    And what God has joined together, no man can separate...

    Peace be with you!
     
  13. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    593
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The children of Israel did not partake of the paschal lamb before it was slaughtered, so how could Jesus offer the Bread and Wine before the crucifixion?

    Also the paschal feast was not to establish a covenant. The covenant of circumcision preceded the paschal feast. Only the circumcised were allowed to partake. The "new covenant" is made with humans only if they shed a little of their own blood by circumcising their hearts.

    The paschal feast was also not a sacrifice for sin. The yeast shows that they had to get rid of something before partaking -- the way Christians need to before taking Communion. Thus the pronouncement of sins being forgiven is made before the Eucharist, is it not? I hope no one believes Communion has something to do with the forgiveness of sins.

    The blood also needed to put on their doors -- in locations that correspond to head and hands. The Blood of Christ must be in our minds and also our actions. Otherwise when the angel of Vengeance passes over, the feast was in vain. People who partake of the Eucharist unworthily remain in peril. I'd say they weren't willing to put the blood on the lintel and two side posts of their minds and hands. When the Angel of Vengeance passes over, they may find they ate and drank damnation to themselves.
     
  14. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    4,681
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    It means that Christ SYMBOLICALLY offered His body (as bread) and His blood (as the fruit of the vine) when He instituted the Lord's Supper. Then He offered His body and blood in reality on the cross. What the Mass does is make a mockery of that ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER.
     
  15. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    593
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    You may say so, but I don't see him saying that they were symbols. He uses the word "is" --not "is a symbol of" -- so it seems simple to me that while I disagree with Catholics and the Orthodox on many things, I think they got this right. "Is" means "is."

    And if they are just symbols, we have to ask how eating and drinking symbols could lead to damnation?

    1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

    I would say you are one of those who do not "discern" the Lord's body. It may be a good thing then if you attend a church that gives you symbols and not the Lord's Body for you might be tempted to partake unworthily.
     
  16. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    4,681
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Except that what they had in their hands was ordinary unleavened bread served at the Passover mean. Therefore "is" is BY IMPLICATION symbolic. That was not the flesh of Christ and no one believed in such a bizarre idea.
     
  17. epostle

    epostle Active Member

    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    191
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Anti-Popes are false claimants to the Chair of Peter. Their election as “Pope” is not recognized as canonically valid and hence they are what we might call “pretenders”, and practically anyone can always claim to have been “elected”. They always try to exercise their “office” as “Pope” in defiance of the legally and validly elected Pontiff. Since they were never validly elected, and Papal elections are governed by rules and procedures which must be followed to be legitimate, hence they are not Popes in any real sense of the word. Hence, there is no conflict with the unity and apostolicity of the Catholic Church, simply because the Church can produce a complete list of all legitimate, validly elected Popes from St. Peter to the present.
     
  18. epostle

    epostle Active Member

    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    191
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    All the Early Church Fathers UNANYMOUSLY "believed in such a bizarre idea", But you have nothing to do with THEM. The Real Presence was not formally contested until the 16th century. What the anti-Catholic must do is claim the Church was wrong in the first place, and they cannot do that without re-writing history. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

    "Symbolic by implication but not physically . . .The Real Absence.

    This is so obviously driven by a prior (quite unbiblical) antipathy to matter and sacramentalism in the proper traditional sense of the word. Calvin (Enoch) wants everything about the Eucharist except the physical aspect, which is essential to it.

    Eucharist: Radical Symbolism & Docetism (vs. Calvin #48)
     
  19. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    593
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Do all the implying you wish, you are altering the text. I prefer not to insert implications into the text.

    If you cannot believe God has the power to place His Presence wherever He wishes, you will doubt that God could raise up sons of Abraham out of stones. I tell you if you cannot believe God has the power to place something of Himself in piece of "ordinary unleavened bread," you do not have enough faith to believe He can raise you up in the Resurrection. Oh ye, of little faith.

    Paul talked about people who do not discern the Body of Christ. They are spiritually blind. All they see ordinary bread. That's all you can see. I wonder if you are like those of the church of Laodicea?

    Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
    18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
    19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
    20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
     
  20. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    4,681
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERPRETING THE TEXT AND ALTERING THE TEXT. We are to rightly divide (interpret) the Word of Truth which the Catholic church has not done. And all the Reformers (former Catholics) rejected their nonsense.

    Jesus said that His words are spirit and they are life. He certainly did not promote cannibalism. But the Jews could not understand this and were disgusted at His words. Those who eat Christ's body and drink His blood are those who receive Him in the spirit and sup with Him in Spirit. His actual body is in Heaven, not subject to cannibalism.

    Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Rev 3:20) Christ comes into believers in Spirit and communes with them in Spirit.

    And at the Lord's Supper (which is Communion or fellowship) Christians commune with Him in Spirit and commune with each other through the sharing of the bread and the cup which are purely symbolic.

    At the same time when a Catholic priest -- NOT AUTHORIZED BY GOD -- claims that he is literally RE-SACRIFICING CHRIST -- that is a mockery of the finished work of Christ. Only Christ could offer Himself as a sacrifice to God. He was both High Priest and Supreme Sacrifice. And there can be no more sacrificing of Christ. That ONE SACRIFICE was sufficient for God.
     
Loading...