Transubstantiation. What is it?

[David H.]

Apostolic Succession has to do with authority. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave that authority to their successors, the bishops. Those bishops gave that authority to their successor bishops, etc. Authority is "given" not taken. Power is taken.

Today's bishops go back through a line of bishops to the Apostles. Christ established the Catholic Church, not man (unless you are considering that Christ was both God and man). It is not a manmade institution. It has, as its earthly leader, the Pope, the first of which was Peter. Christ set Peter as the first Pope to govern His Church on earth. Peter had successors, through today.

The office of Pope was established by Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Every first century Jew knew that the king always had a second-in-command, who ran the kingdom in the king's absence (away at war, visiting another kingdom, etc.) or when he was incapacitated (sick, injured, etc.). This second-in-command would rule in the king's place, and the king, upon his return, would uphold whatever the second-in-command had ruled. (See an example of this office in Isaiah 22:22.) This position of second-in-command was dynastic. If he died, then another was appointed in his place. In other words, it was an on-going position. (Like the Pope.) The symbol of the office of the second-in-command was a large (2-3 ft.) key (or sometimes two keys), which he carried over his shoulder to let people know his authority. When Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19) He was clearly establishing such a second-in-command position, because Jesus (Our King!), was going to ascend to heaven and He needed someone to run the Church here on earth until He returned. The person that occupies this office has Christ's authority to do so.

And God also replaced the priesthood in the OT when it fell into corruption, Taking those "keys" away from the existing Priesthood.... Curiously this happened twice to the catholic church, The Great schism and the Protestant Reformation. Better check your keychain

If there is anything that describes the Papacy it is corruption, plain and simple.

 

[Philip James]

Way too many contradictions between your church teaching and the Bible's teaching.

Hello marks,

Any examples?

Merry Christmas!

 

[marks]

Hello marks,

Any examples?

Merry Christmas!

Many of them but alas, I have only 10 minutes remaining, so I'm afraid this will have to wait.

Happy New Year!

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hello marks,

Any examples?

Merry Christmas!

We could do one quick one maybe . . . What is your church teaching concerning this?

2 Peter 1:20 KJV
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I've been told that the CC teaching on this is the no one is to have any personal or private interpretations of the Bible, so it's wrong to not make sure your interpretation is the same as the CC. Is that right?

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

I've been told that the CC teaching on this is the no one is to have any personal or private interpretations of the Bible, so it's wrong to not make sure your interpretation is the same as the CC. Is that right?

No sir it is not.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.



The whole section on Sacred Scripture starts at 101.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Taken]

@marks ~

Interpreting,
Explaining,
Comprehending,
Meaning,
Application,
Therefore,
Testing / Verifying,
Understanding…

Are common words that are routinely a mixed bag, depending on the individual speakers, and if they are speaking for themselves or an other.

Scripture has clear and concise words of “so n so” SAID.
God SAID, the Lord SAID, Jesus SAID, is of no confusion, that is Trusted TRUTH.

Scripture also has “accounts” of men, who “SAID”, according to what “they heard and witnessed”, at any given time.

Human men are Not all knowing, nor all seeing. Two men at the same “event” can hear and see differently, thus their account will be similar, but not necessarily exact….which not only applied to the Disciples / disciples / Scribes / Recorders / Transcribers / Reporters / Writers / Editors but also occurred throughout history of manKind and to this day.

** The Biggest Difference IS: God inspired and approved Scripture, TO BE, a man’s TRUSTED SOURCE for Testing / Verifying what a man is Hearing, being it IS in accordance with Gods Approval.

** Personally, I find the words:
2 Tim 3:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God…
Inclusively by, thorough, of and Exclusively Approved of the Spirit of God Himself.

No doubt the largest and most widely division among Christians is:
Non-Catholics and Catholics.
They each collectively and as individual persons adhere to particular similar views and have particular extreme different views.

It is a puzzling, quirky mind-set, to claim:
One “Sect” has historically accredited their own “Sect” with historically collecting documents, assembling the documents, calling the assembly a book, calling that Book, The Holy Bible, then Rejecting that same Book is Exclusively Trustworthy to Be Used, for Verifying Gods Truth.

Every person in the world, regardless of their National citizenship, religious beliefs, their personal Standing IN Christ:
HAVE friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, acquaintances, governors, clerics, who ARE:

2 Tim 3:
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

2 Tim 4:
[3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
[4] And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Individuals have to decide to follow the Lord Gods DOCTRINE or the doctrines of men.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[marks]

No sir it is not.

Ok, so you recognize that passage to be speaking of the origin of prophecy, is that right?

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

Ok, so you recognize that passage to be speaking of the origin of prophecy, is that right?

Hi marks,



105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72




As for that passage in particular, imo, certainly, but not just that of the Septuagint that he had, but of all that the apostles were sharing to 'those with ears to hear'.

And it it also speaks to the need for that one and same Spirit that inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture, to interpret those same texts.


Happy New Year!

 

[L.A.M.B.]

2 Tim 3:
[16] ALLSCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Perhaps you can share where Scripture itself teaches a " non scriptural " source, INSPIRED OF GOD"

******", profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteousness….

AMEN!

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Matt 16
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I find no reference to Ignatius in Scripture implying any importance to such person.

Matt 10
[1] And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
[2] Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
[8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
[9] Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
[10] Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
[11] And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
[12] And when ye come into an house, salute it.
[13] And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
[14] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

This is the context of the discourse between Jesus and his disciples,especially Peter about whom the Christ Jesus is.

Matthew 16:15-18
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The lie that has been told is that the apostle Peter was anointed with some special favour to be head of the apostolic sucession and that Christ church would be built on him.

The truth is the declaration of faith & the revealing of the truth of whom Jesus is, to Peter, is WHAT THE CHURCH IS BUILT UPON, not a mere fisherman but the revelation of Christ. The truth is the rock, the chief cornerstone that the Jews rejected is Christ !

Hebrews 11:
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The lie started and as they rightly say has continued some 2000 years !

 

[Robert Pate]

This is the context of the discourse between Jesus and his disciples,especially Peter about whom the Christ Jesus is.

Matthew 16:15-18
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The lie that has been told is that the apostle Peter was anointed with some special favour to be head of the apostolic sucession and that Christ church would be built on him.

The truth is the declaration of faith & the revealing of the truth of whom Jesus is, to Peter, is WHAT THE CHURCH IS BUILT UPON, not a mere fisherman but the revelation of Christ. The truth is the rock, the chief cornerstone that the Jews rejected is Christ !

Hebrews 11:
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The lie started and as they rightly say has continued some 2000 years !

Right. Peter was not really very strong in the faith. Paul had to correct him, Galatians 2:11-21. And then he denied knowing Jesus three times.

 

[marks]

As for that passage in particular, imo, certainly, but not just that of the Septuagint that he had, but of all that the apostles were sharing to 'those with ears to hear'.

And it it also speaks to the need for that one and same Spirit that inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture, to interpret those same texts.


Happy New Year!

OK, good, then you agree that Peter was writing concerning the origin of the prophecies rather than the interpretation of Scripture. That's good. It seems then that not all Catholics agree about that.

but not just that of the Septuagint that he had, but of all that the apostles were sharing to 'those with ears to hear'.

On this part, I have to refer back to the passage,

2 Peter 1:16-21 KJV
16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter is speaking towards the authentification of Christ, "we have not followed fables", and he gives his testimony to what he saw. And he gives even greater credence to the prophecies, to which we are to take heed, knowing that the prophecy didn't come in old time by the will of man - it's not something the prophet himself thought of - but the Holy Spirit carried them to speak being holy men of God.

So my thinking here is that since he names the prophecy of old time, that's what he's referring to, specifically the prophecies of the coming Christ, that Jesus fulfilled, that show it's not a cunningly devised fable.

And happy new year to you!!

Much love!

 

[marks]

Right. Peter was not really very strong in the faith. Paul had to correct him, Galatians 2:11-21. And then he denied knowing Jesus three times.

Some of my thoughts on this . . .

When Jesus said to Peter, they will take you where you do not what to go, Jesus said this to tell Peter how he was going to die. Peter died being crucified. If Jesus' saying to him, "where you do not want to go" meant to Peter "to the cross", that tells me this was the worst death Peter could imagine.

Peter told Jesus that he'd die fighting for Jesus, and when the time came, Peter drew and used his sword, even though that gave the soldiers the right to kill him on the spot.

But when Peter saw Jesus meekly allowing Himself to be walked into crucifixion, he knew, that to continue to stick with Jesus may mean the same thing for him, and he just couldn't do it, not then. But he would later.

I don't fault Peter for this. Who knows what horror was happening in his soul in those moments? He did what he could understand, he drew his sword to defend Jesus. But Jesus said no, to a man who did not have the Holy Spirit in him yet, who then did as Jesus knew he would, and recovered from it as Jesus had prayed for. Even as Jesus prays for you and I.

And are we able to imagine Peter's horror in himself, those simple words, Jesus looked at him, and he went out and wept bitterly! Yet Jesus had prayed for him, and Peter returned. Do we ever really recover from these kinds of deep wounds? But Jesus has ways to lead us.

I imagine Peter living his life in the shadow of that knowledge, they will take me there, and his lifelong intent to be found worthy to die as his Savior had died. To be worthy of his Jesus.

Much love!

 

[Robert Pate]

Some of my thoughts on this . . .

When Jesus said to Peter, they will take you where you do not what to go, Jesus said this to tell Peter how he was going to die. Peter died being crucified. If Jesus' saying to him, "where you do not want to go" meant to Peter "to the cross", that tells me this was the worst death Peter could imagine.

Peter told Jesus that he'd die fighting for Jesus, and when the time came, Peter drew and used his sword, even though that gave the soldiers the right to kill him on the spot.

But when Peter saw Jesus meekly allowing Himself to be walked into crucifixion, he knew, that to continue to stick with Jesus may mean the same thing for him, and he just couldn't do it, not then. But he would later.

I don't fault Peter for this. Who knows what horror was happening in his soul in those moments? He did what he could understand, he drew his sword to defend Jesus. But Jesus said no, to a man who did not have the Holy Spirit in him yet, who then did as Jesus knew he would, and recovered from it as Jesus had prayed for. Even as Jesus prays for you and I.

And are we able to imagine Peter's horror in himself, those simple words, Jesus looked at him, and he went out and wept bitterly! Yet Jesus had prayed for him, and Peter returned. Do we ever really recover from these kinds of deep wounds? But Jesus has ways to lead us.

I imagine Peter living his life in the shadow of that knowledge, they will take me there, and his lifelong intent to be found worthy to die as his Savior had died. To be worthy of his Jesus.

Much love!

Can you see Peter going to Rome to start a Catholic church? I Can't.

 

[Augustin56]

Can you see Peter going to Rome to start a Catholic church? I Can't.

Peter didn't go to Rome to start a Church. The Church already existed. Next...

 

[Robert Pate]

Peter didn't go to Rome to start a Church. The Church already existed. Next...

So, it wasn't founded by an apostle?

 

[Augustin56]

So, it wasn't founded by an apostle?

No. It was founded by Jesus Christ. See Matt. 16:18. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

 

[marks]

Peter didn't go to Rome to start a Church. The Church already existed. Next...

Well, if you want something next, I think there were a couple of posts of mine you haven't replied to, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Much love!

 

[Robert Pate]

No. It was founded by Jesus Christ. See Matt. 16:18. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

If it was founded by Christ there would have been a Gospel. There is no Gospel in the Catholic religion.

 

[Augustin56]

If it was founded by Christ there would have been a Gospel. There is no Gospel in the Catholic religion.

The Catholic Church wrote the Gospel. The writers of the New Testament were all Catholic. There was no other Christian religion until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off. They retained Apostolic Succession, however, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments. Protestantism didn't start till way late in the game, the 16th century. And it has continually splintered every since. The Gospels were not written in the 16th century.