I suspect that the FRoman Catholic issue with Paul is that he contradicts most modern (post-Trent) Roman Catholic teaching.
The last totally Pauline teaching emanating from Rome I am aware of is the Council of Orange.
Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
There is so much evidence against Peter being the foundation of the church yet the RCC stands basically on one verse, misinterpreted, and steadfastly maintains it’s arrogant opposition to God and His word.
Sure do.
Typical, too. It’s not the only doctrine of theirs that they rest on one verse.
I suspect that the FRoman Catholic issue with Paul is that he contradicts most modern (post-Trent) Roman Catholic teaching.
The last totally Pauline teaching emanating from Rome I am aware of is the Council of Orange.
I remember some of those quotes as they happened...
Yeah. It was kind of surreal, wasn’t it.
How do Protestants respond to this quote from Saint Paul? He affirmed the Eucharist in many places in his letters. Yet you reject the Eucharist?
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
New International Version (NIV)
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Protestants don't reject the Lord's Supper Communion service and "Eucharist" means thanksgiving. Most churches regularly schedule this remembrance ceremony. What is rejected is the Roman Catholic interpretation of what Jesus and Paul actually said. We believe Jesus' body was broken and his blood was shed to make propitiation for our sins and the act of partaking of the Communion bread and wine is an outward testimony that we have ALREADY received Jesus as our savior by faith. We don't look to this "sacrament" as an avenue to receiving a portion of grace needed to BE saved since we ARE saved when we first believed on Christ and were born again as children of God. So, just like Paul said Jesus said, we do this in remembrance of Him and testify of his death for us until He comes again in glory. Why do so many Catholics reject what Paul said?
The next few verses from Corinthians also point to its sacramental nature:
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.34If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
I pray that you get to ask Him that. You weren’t the only disturbed and disgusted at what Jesus was proposing.
From John 6
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
“Christian positions (like the Trinitarian view) were not self-evident. In other words, while a strong argument for the Divinity of Christ could be made from Scripture. One could not pretend that it was the only possible interpretation.”
No, those positions are quite self-evident, but only to those of us who have “eyes to see, and ears to hear”. Surely, there are mysteries in Scripture that aren’t well understood even by true Christians, but those aren’t serious matters of doctrine that are important to us in our lives right now.
The reason that there was so much disputation on these matters, even in the early church, is because apostacy and heresy was already happening even while the apostles were still alive, as they attested in the NT. So, you cannot assume any conclave was composed purely of Christians led by the Holy Spirit. One must assume that there were a fair number of imposters among any group of Christians, at any time, and they are the most likely culprits for misinterpretations of Scripture, since they don’t possess the essential tools for understanding it.
Documentation? Who needs documentation when you have an infallible magisterium? If they say it is true now, then it must always have been true, and no further documentation is necessary.
I see you’re with the program. :)
“There were many, many gospels, documents and letters. Which ones were authoritative? None of them had yet been compiled into a book.”
The same ones that have always been authoritative: those authored by the one true God.
Really the question is not which are authoritative, it is “how do we know which are authoritative?” For Catholics, the answer boils down to “somebody said so”, and for Protestants the answer boils down to “God’s handiwork is self-evident”. It’s all a bit of a moot point, since we mostly agree on which are authoritative. So the whole question only comes up either to defend the need for a magisterium (though it’s not a convincing argument to most Protestants, because they still won’t see the need), or to defend certain doctrines that are denounced by the majority of Scripture, but which Catholics adhere to anyway (which again, won’t be convincing to most Protestants).
So, I don’t know why Catholics keep bringing it up, except that they haven’t thought of a better way to defend themselves against those arguments yet.
“I believe it is and you believe it is, but can you or any of us prove it?”
How silly is it to ask for proof of something that God demands we believe on faith? If God wanted to provide indisputable proof of authorship (or his miracles, or of Jesus’ life, etc), then He certainly would have provided it.
Instead, He simply asked us to believe, because the Scripture is the truth, and those who love truth will be drawn to it. The sheep will hear the Shepherd’s voice, even if they can’t see the Shepherd.
Jesus said he is a gate. Does he have hinges?
Yes but in other instances when Jesus was speaking figuratively he would clarify what he was saying. Explaining parables was one example. However Jesus did not do that in John 6. Jesus did not tell his disciples to come back and explain what he “really” meant. No, that is because he was speaking literally here.
By the way He did not say this is my body and bread mixed together. It sure sounds like Jesus wanted no part of consubstantiation - transubstantion only.
Sure He did. He said: John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
If the verse you mention means he was speaking figuratively then verse 66 wouldn’t have happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.