When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[OzSpen]

I agree with the first part of each statement (as above). But that is not what is claimed.

After the consecration the bread is no longer bread; the wine in no longer wine.

Says who?

 

[Mungo]

Says who?

Says Jesus:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)

And he took a cup [of wine], and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood… (Mt 26:27-28)

 

[OzSpen]

Says Jesus:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)

And he took a cup [of wine], and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood… (Mt 26:27-28)

Mungo,

It's amazing the theological gymnastics you can pull off when you don't quote the entire verses. Let's look at these verses in context:

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt 26:26-29 ESV).

The fact is that verse 26 has eating the bread (his body) and in verse 27 the cup (of wine) was his blood. However, verse 28 provides the interpretation of what Jesus had done, 'for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'.

You conveniently left out the interpretation of these verses. They are 'for the forgiveness of sins'. That is what is being taught. It is not teaching about some literal bread becoming his literal body or literal drink/wine becoming his literal blood. Jesus has provided an amazing metaphor to remind the disciples of what Jesus was implementing through his broken body and shed blood. Through this means, people would have access to forgiveness of sins.

But you conveniently censored that emphasis from the partial verses you quoted. That's called eisegesis.

Oz

 

[Mungo]

Mungo,

It's amazing the theological gymnastics you can pull off when you don't quote the entire verses. Let's look at these verses in context:

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt 26:26-29 ESV).

The fact is that verse 26 has eating the bread (his body) and in verse 27 the cup (of wine) was his blood. However, verse 28 provides the interpretation of what Jesus had done, 'for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'.

You conveniently left out the interpretation of these verses. They are 'for the forgiveness of sins'. That is what is being taught. It is not teaching about some literal bread becoming his literal body or literal drink/wine becoming his literal blood. Jesus has provided an amazing metaphor to remind the disciples of what Jesus was implementing through his broken body and shed blood. Through this means, people would have access to forgiveness of sins.

But you conveniently censored that emphasis from the partial verses you quoted. That's called eisegesis.

Oz

No Oz, verse 28 does not provide an interpretation of what Jesus said and there are no theological gymnastics - at least from me. The part I left out (and indicated I left some out by the ellipsis) was not relevant to my reply to your question.

Jesus said “Take, eat; this is my body.” The interpretation is that he was instructing his disciples to actually eat his body, just as he was telling people they should do in John 6:51-58

Jesus said “"Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood.”. The interpretation is that he was instructing his disciples to actually drink his blood, just as he was telling people they should do in John 6:51-58

In verse 28 Jesus adds “for this is my blood of the covenant…”. That provides an explanation of why his blood had to be shed, for as Heb 9:18-20 says:
‘Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you."’

The shedding of blood ratified the New Covenant. In the New Covenant sins are forgiven (verse 28 continues “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”).
As Heb 9:14 explains ‘how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.’

That is why Jesus added “for this is my blood of the covenant”. He didn’t add that when he said “this is my body” because it was the shedding of blood that ratified the covenant.

 

[OzSpen]

No Oz, verse 28 does not provide an interpretation of what Jesus said and there are no theological gymnastics - at least from me. The part I left out (and indicated I left some out by the ellipsis) was not relevant to my reply to your question.

Jesus said “Take, eat; this is my body.” The interpretation is that he was instructing his disciples to actually eat his body, just as he was telling people they should do in John 6:51-58

Jesus said “"Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood.”. The interpretation is that he was instructing his disciples to actually drink his blood, just as he was telling people they should do in John 6:51-58

In verse 28 Jesus adds “for this is my blood of the covenant…”. That provides an explanation of why his blood had to be shed, for as Heb 9:18-20 says:
‘Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you."’

The shedding of blood ratified the New Covenant. In the New Covenant sins are forgiven (verse 28 continues “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”).
As Heb 9:14 explains ‘how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.’

That is why Jesus added “for this is my blood of the covenant”. He didn’t add that when he said “this is my body” because it was the shedding of blood that ratified the covenant.

No, Mungo,

You deliberately left out the key phrase, 'for the forgiveness of sins' as that is the meaning of Jesus bread/body and wine/blood. It has nothing to do with bread becoming Jesus' literal body and the wine becoming Jesus' literal blood. It has everything to do with teaching that this refers to 'the forgiveness of sins' - which you chose to leave out.

I don't plan any further discussion with you on this as you continue to commit the red herring fallacy.

Oz

 

[Mungo]

No, Mungo,

You deliberately left out the key phrase, 'for the forgiveness of sins' as that is the meaning of Jesus bread/body and wine/blood. It has nothing to do with bread becoming Jesus' literal body and the wine becoming Jesus' literal blood. It has everything to do with teaching that this refers to 'the forgiveness of sins' - which you chose to leave out.

I don't plan any further discussion with you on this as you continue to commit the red herring fallacy.

Oz

If you want to back off that's up to you.

I have given you the proper explanation for both the 'eat' & 'drink', 'this is my body/blood' and, for the 'forgiveness of sins', and with relevant scriptural support.

All you give is opinions.

 

[OzSpen]

If you want to back off that's up to you.

I have given you the proper explanation for both the 'eat' & 'drink', 'this is my body/blood' and, for the 'forgiveness of sins', and with relevant scriptural support.

All you give is opinions.

opcorn:

 

[Mungo]

opcorn:

Stuffing that much popcorn down you will make you fat.

 

[tom55]

You missed the point.

Jesus still used a figure of speech - a metaphor - for 'I am the door', but as he used a figure of speech for the example you gave of the body and blood.

Could you have a blind spot with this one, based on your RC interpretation?

Oz

Can you quote the part of Scripture that says Jesus used a figure of speech when he said we must eat/drink his body/blood?

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Was it OK to kill before God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments?

Was it OK for Gentiles, who were never given the Ten Commandments, to kill?

Surely the answer to both is no. It was wrong to kill from the very beginning (as Cain was aware).

So if it was not OK to kill before the Ten Commandments were promulagated to the Israelites in the desert, why would it be OK when the Old Covenant Law, including the Ten Commandments, was abolished? Why did that change anything?

So it is not ok to Kill...Commandment #6

You didn't answer my question is it OK to steal or worship false Gods??

 

[tom55]

Bread cannot literally be fleshly body, so it must be a figure of speech - a metaphor.

Wine cannot literally be Jesus' blood, so it must be figure of speech - a metaphor.

That's the only logical interpretation that makes sense of the semantics.

Oz

Or you can believe what Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 5:7

John 6:52-59

Mark 14:22

Luke 24:30-35

 

[tom55]

Mungo,

It's amazing the theological gymnastics you can pull off when you don't quote the entire verses. Let's look at these verses in context:

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt 26:26-29 ESV).

The fact is that verse 26 has eating the bread (his body) and in verse 27 the cup (of wine) was his blood. However, verse 28 provides the interpretation of what Jesus had done, 'for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'.

You conveniently left out the interpretation of these verses. They are 'for the forgiveness of sins'. That is what is being taught. It is not teaching about some literal bread becoming his literal body or literal drink/wine becoming his literal blood. Jesus has provided an amazing metaphor to remind the disciples of what Jesus was implementing through his broken body and shed blood. Through this means, people would have access to forgiveness of sins.

But you conveniently censored that emphasis from the partial verses you quoted. That's called eisegesis.

Oz

Jesus is such a horrible teacher and the Christians that walked and talked with the Apostles OBVIOUSLY did not know what they were doing.

First He says we must eat his body and drink his blood in John 6:52-59.

Then shortly before he is crucified he offers His body and blood in the form of bread/wine saying it is his body/blood and to do this in remembrance of me.

Then after he raises from the dead what was the first thing he did with two of his disciples? He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them. What happened after he broke the bread and gave it to them? Their eyes were opened and they recognized him. (He isn't recognized in the breaking of the bread 2,000 years later)

And then what did those stupid first Christians do? They began to get baptized and devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the breaking of bread. (Acts 2:41-42)

And of course we know that the Apostles teachings about the bread was that it was NOT his body because they knew that Jesus meant it as a metaphor. Paul made it very clear it was a metaphor when he said whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. CLEARLY Paul was taught by someone that it was a metaphor. It only makes sense that we are held accountable to God for our use of metaphors. Like the door or the vine or the salt or the sheep metaphor. Scripture CLEARLY says we are accountable for those metaphor's also!!!

Who was the idiot that wrote the Didache? They obviously didn't know Jesus meant it as a metaphor and whoever taught them taught them wrong. They thought the Eucharist was Holy (Do not give what is holy to the dogs) Such idiots. Don't they know metaphor's can't be Holy?? Such fools!!

Of course ALL of the Apostolic Fathers made it clear that it was a metaphor also. opcorn:

 

[Mungo]

So it is not ok to Kill...Commandment #6

You didn't answer my question is it OK to steal or worship false Gods??

Tom,

I'll give you the long explanation:

From the beginning God made certain moral laws that are applicable to all men in all times. We call them eternal moral laws.
Mankind knew these laws from the beginning because they were made known to him by his conscience. Thus Cain knew that he had done wrong when he murdered Abel. We believe that man can know something about God and his moral laws from our nature and our consciences.

As the psalmist says:
The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. (Ps 19:1-2)

Paul says:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him (Rom 1:20-21)

And
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15)

Thus God’s eternal moral law already exists before man is created (and before the Ten Commandments were promulgated) and is embedded in our hearts.

When God called the Israelites of Egypt he had to build them into a nation, a kingdom. He did this by means of a Covenant where he bound them to a set of laws, a code of law. This Covenant was accompanied by blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it. This was standard for Ancient Near East Covenants (ANE Covenants).

All these laws were written down and can be found particularly in Exodus and Leviticus or in Deuteronomy. The Book of the Law (which contained the Ten Commandments) was put on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments were also written on stone, by God, and placed inside the Ark.

The Ten Commandments are a summary of the most important part of the Law. In the Sinai Covenant they summarise the Covenant Law, the breaking of which can trigger the Covenant curses. Since the Gentiles were never a part of the Sinai Covenant they had no part in the Covenant blessings or curses when the Israelites kept or broke them. The Ten Commandments were not applicable to them, or us, as a legal code.

From the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light by which the depraved morals and long­ continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

Note the two parts I have emboldened.
Firstly it declares the Mosaic Law is abrogated. In other words as a legal code it is no longer valid (for anybody).

Secondly it says we obey them, not because they were delivered by Moses. In other words we do not obey them because they the Law of Moses (the Sinai Covenant).
Again we considering them as part of the legal code of the Sinai Covenant

Thirdly we obey them because they are implanted in the hearts of all. In other words we obey them because they are a summary of the eternal moral law, implanted in our hearts (i.e. the natural law)

Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis (1943)
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ……… on
the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."

Again he is saying that the Old Law is abolished.

I live in the UK. If I commity murder (or steal) in the UK I am convicted under UK law.
I I travel to the USA and commit murder (or steal) in the USA I am convicted under USA law not under UK law.
It depends which jurisdiction we are under.

As Christians we live under the New Covenant and will be convicted under the laws applicable under the New Covenant.
The laws of the Old Covenant are not applicable to us.
Both Covenants may have laws that are similar (e.g. against murder, stealing and worshiping false gods) because they are based on the eternal moral law. We do not murder, steal or worship false god's because they are wrong under God's eternal moral law - and prohibited in the New Testament - not because they are prohibited by the Ten Commandments

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I'll give you the long explanation:

From the beginning God made certain moral laws that are applicable to all men in all times. We call them eternal moral laws.
Mankind knew these laws from the beginning because they were made known to him by his conscience. Thus Cain knew that he had done wrong when he murdered Abel. We believe that man can know something about God and his moral laws from our nature and our consciences.

As the psalmist says:
The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. (Ps 19:1-2)

Paul says:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him (Rom 1:20-21)

And
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15)

Thus God’s eternal moral law already exists before man is created (and before the Ten Commandments were promulgated) and is embedded in our hearts.

When God called the Israelites of Egypt he had to build them into a nation, a kingdom. He did this by means of a Covenant where he bound them to a set of laws, a code of law. This Covenant was accompanied by blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it. This was standard for Ancient Near East Covenants (ANE Covenants).

All these laws were written down and can be found particularly in Exodus and Leviticus or in Deuteronomy. The Book of the Law (which contained the Ten Commandments) was put on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments were also written on stone, by God, and placed inside the Ark.

The Ten Commandments are a summary of the most important part of the Law. In the Sinai Covenant they summarise the Covenant Law, the breaking of which can trigger the Covenant curses. Since the Gentiles were never a part of the Sinai Covenant they had no part in the Covenant blessings or curses when the Israelites kept or broke them. The Ten Commandments were not applicable to them, or us, as a legal code.

From the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light by which the depraved morals and long­ continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

Note the two parts I have emboldened.
Firstly it declares the Mosaic Law is abrogated. In other words as a legal code it is no longer valid (for anybody).

Secondly it says we obey them, not because they were delivered by Moses. In other words we do not obey them because they the Law of Moses (the Sinai Covenant).
Again we considering them as part of the legal code of the Sinai Covenant

Thirdly we obey them because they are implanted in the hearts of all. In other words we obey them because they are a summary of the eternal moral law, implanted in our hearts (i.e. the natural law)

Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis (1943)
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ……… on
the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."

Again he is saying that the Old Law is abolished.

I live in the UK. If I commity murder (or steal) in the UK I am convicted under UK law.
I I travel to the USA and commit murder (or steal) in the USA I am convicted under USA law not under UK law.
It depends which jurisdiction we are under.

As Christians we live under the New Covenant and will be convicted under the laws applicable under the New Covenant.
The laws of the Old Covenant are not applicable to us.
Both Covenants may have laws that are similar (e.g. against murder, stealing and worshiping false gods) because they are based on the eternal moral law. We do not murder, steal or worship false god's because they are wrong under God's eternal moral law - and prohibited in the New Testament - not because they are prohibited by the Ten Commandments

No false gods....Commandment #2
Do not steal.......Commandment #8

Instead of destroying your theory one commandment at a time how about I just use YOUR SOURCE (that you claim backs up your theory) to destroy your theory?

2068: The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them'; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." Catechism of the Catholic Church

That quote you gave from the Cathecism....what section or chapter is that in?

 

[OzSpen]

Can you quote the part of Scripture that says Jesus used a figure of speech when he said we must eat/drink his body/blood?

Can you quote the part of Scripture around John 10:9 (ESV) where Jesus said, 'I have used a figure of speech - a metaphor - and you need to interpret it as such?

Scripture assumes we are bright enough to know the difference between a figure of speech and literal understanding in our hermeneutics. Didn't you learn how to identify figures of speech in your school's English grammar lessons?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus is such a horrible teacher and the Christians that walked and talked with the Apostles OBVIOUSLY did not know what they were doing.

First He says we must eat his body and drink his blood in John 6:52-59.

Then shortly before he is crucified he offers His body and blood in the form of bread/wine saying it is his body/blood and to do this in remembrance of me.

Then after he raises from the dead what was the first thing he did with two of his disciples? He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them. What happened after he broke the bread and gave it to them? Their eyes were opened and they recognized him. (He isn't recognized in the breaking of the bread 2,000 years later)

And then what did those stupid first Christians do? They began to get baptized and devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the breaking of bread. (Acts 2:41-42)

And of course we know that the Apostles teachings about the bread was that it was NOT his body because they knew that Jesus meant it as a metaphor. Paul made it very clear it was a metaphor when he said whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. CLEARLY Paul was taught by someone that it was a metaphor. It only makes sense that we are held accountable to God for our use of metaphors. Like the door or the vine or the salt or the sheep metaphor. Scripture CLEARLY says we are accountable for those metaphor's also!!!

Who was the idiot that wrote the Didache? They obviously didn't know Jesus meant it as a metaphor and whoever taught them taught them wrong. They thought the Eucharist was Holy (Do not give what is holy to the dogs) Such idiots. Don't they know metaphor's can't be Holy?? Such fools!!

Of course ALL of the Apostolic Fathers made it clear that it was a metaphor also. opcorn:

I'm not doing another merry-go-round on transubstantiation. I've already provided my exegesis and exposition on this forum and it disagrees with your RCC perspective. We'll be wasting each other's time by doing it again.

Bye,
Oz

 

[StanJ]

Can you quote the part of Scripture around John 10:9 (ESV) where Jesus said, 'I have used a figure of speech - a metaphor - and you need to interpret it as such?
Scripture assumes we are bright enough to know the difference between a figure of speech and literal understanding in our hermeneutics. Didn't you learn how to identify figures of speech in your school's English grammar lessons?
Oz

It's only people that don't understand hermeneutics that failed to see or deliberately don't see the figures of speech in Scripture. If they read ordinary books in this manner they would be just as confused.

 

[Mungo]

No false gods....Commandment #2
Do not steal.......Commandment #8

Instead of destroying your theory one commandment at a time how about I just use YOUR SOURCE (that you claim backs up your theory) to destroy your theory?

2068: The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them'; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." Catechism of the Catholic Church

That quote you gave from the Cathecism....what section or chapter is that in?

Tom,
You are arguing like a protestant - ignoring what I say and diving off somewhere else, pulling a quote out of context.

At the beginning of this discussion I said:

The Ten Commandments, and I emphasise the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17, or Dt 5:6-21), are Covenant Law for the Old (Sinai) Covenant. They were given to the Israelites alone. They were never given to Gentiles. As Christians we are not a part of the Old Covenant (which anyway has been abrogated).

The Ten Commandments, as part of that Law, are therefore not binding on Christians.

Then the quote from The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Ten Commandments Introduction)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory…..
The Mosaic Law is abrogated. That is what Pope Pius XII said in the quote I gave.

This is what scripture says:
Are you unaware, brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law [i.e. Jews]), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.
In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter. (Rom 7:1-6)
We [Jews] are put to death to the Law
We [Jews] are released from the Law

Note particularly that this is particularly relevant because God considered himself “married” to Israel. When Jesus died the Covenant ended and Jesus was free to take a new bride – the Church.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, (Eph 2:13-15)
The Law has been abolished.

Col 2 says much the same:
And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14)

Does this include the Ten Commandments? Yes, because the Law in indivisible.
For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not kill.” Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas 2:10-11)
There are more scriptures I could quote on this.

BUT, as I have (I thought) been trying to point out the Ten Commandments are a codification of God’s eternal moral law, also called natural law. Abolishing the old Law does not abolish God’s moral laws.

In the catechism of Trent the section on the third commandment say this:
The other Commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

The part I have emboldened is saying the same as the quote I gave from the Introduction section
It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

And the quote I gave earlier (note the emboldened)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory…
The precepts of the Decalogue are obligatory insofar as they express God’s moral law which lies behind them.

We therefore have to obey the moral content of the Decalogue but, as I have already stated, as a legal code they were never applicable to Gentiles and have been abolished.

Not all of the Decalogue are moral commands and we have no obligation to obey them.

This differentiation between the Ten Commandments as Law for the Israelites under the Sinai Covenant and the Ten Commandments as a summary (for the most part) of God’s eternal moral laws is important.

Now let us turn to the Catechism before the quote you gave (para 2068) because that is important for the context of 2068.

There is a Section called The Moral Law. Within that there are several sections

The Natural Moral Law (paras 1954 to 1960)
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men…..

It then moves on to The Old Law (1961 to 1964)
1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbour and prescribe what is essential to it. the Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

The next section is The New Law or the Law of the Gospel (para 1965 to1974)
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law…….

You see the context of this is all about the Decalogue as moral precepts. As the catechism of Trent says they “render more luminous that divine light by which the depraved morals and long­ continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured”.

 

[tom55]

Tom,
You are arguing like a protestant - ignoring what I say and diving off somewhere else, pulling a quote out of context.

At the beginning of this discussion I said:

Then the quote from The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Ten Commandments Introduction)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory…..
The Mosaic Law is abrogated. That is what Pope Pius XII said in the quote I gave.

This is what scripture says:
Are you unaware, brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law [i.e. Jews]), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.
In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter. (Rom 7:1-6)
We [Jews] are put to death to the Law
We [Jews] are released from the Law

Note particularly that this is particularly relevant because God considered himself “married” to Israel. When Jesus died the Covenant ended and Jesus was free to take a new bride – the Church.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, (Eph 2:13-15)
The Law has been abolished.

Col 2 says much the same:
And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14)

Does this include the Ten Commandments? Yes, because the Law in indivisible.
For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not kill.” Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas 2:10-11)
There are more scriptures I could quote on this.

BUT, as I have (I thought) been trying to point out the Ten Commandments are a codification of God’s eternal moral law, also called natural law. Abolishing the old Law does not abolish God’s moral laws.

In the catechism of Trent the section on the third commandment say this:
The other Commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

The part I have emboldened is saying the same as the quote I gave from the Introduction section
It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

And the quote I gave earlier (note the emboldened)
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory…
The precepts of the Decalogue are obligatory insofar as they express God’s moral law which lies behind them.

We therefore have to obey the moral content of the Decalogue but, as I have already stated, as a legal code they were never applicable to Gentiles and have been abolished.

Not all of the Decalogue are moral commands and we have no obligation to obey them.

This differentiation between the Ten Commandments as Law for the Israelites under the Sinai Covenant and the Ten Commandments as a summary (for the most part) of God’s eternal moral laws is important.

Now let us turn to the Catechism before the quote you gave (para 2068) because that is important for the context of 2068.

There is a Section called The Moral Law. Within that there are several sections

The Natural Moral Law (paras 1954 to 1960)
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men…..

It then moves on to The Old Law (1961 to 1964)
1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbour and prescribe what is essential to it. the Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

The next section is The New Law or the Law of the Gospel (para 1965 to1974)
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law…….

You see the context of this is all about the Decalogue as moral precepts. As the catechism of Trent says they “render more luminous that divine light by which the depraved morals and long­ continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured”.

You Said: The Ten Commandments, as part of that Law, are therefore not binding on Christians.

You then used the Catechism to back up what you said.

I then quoted the Catechism (YOUR SOURCE) to prove you wrong: The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them';

Pretty dang clear to me that you were not being totally honest on what the Catechism fully and completely says about the matter. You selectively quoted the Catechism to make your point. How sad!

 

[tom55]

Can you quote the part of Scripture around John 10:9 (ESV) where Jesus said, 'I have used a figure of speech - a metaphor - and you need to interpret it as such?

Scripture assumes we are bright enough to know the difference between a figure of speech and literal understanding in our hermeneutics. Didn't you learn how to identify figures of speech in your school's English grammar lessons?

Oz

I already did in post #151. Once again it is John 10:6

Can you quote the part of scripture when His disciples questioned him about being a vine or a door and they walked away from him because it was to hard of a saying for them??

Weird how you couldn't answer my original question and totally ignored me!! How sad. Wanna try again??

Can you quote the part of Scripture that says Jesus used a figure of speech when he said we must eat/drink his body/blood?