/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16013620]

Does transubstantiation have a biblical foundation? John 6:35 seems too vague to me

[Anonymous No.16013653]

>>16013620
Matthew 26 seems quite convincing.
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Seems quite direct to me.

[Anonymous No.16013668]

>>16013620
Christ told his followers that they were to eat his body and drink his blood. This caused many people to fall away from him. Do you think that if it were a metaphor, he would not have made sure that people know this so that they did not abandon him (and thus salvation) on a misunderstanding?

[Anonymous No.16013681]

>>16013620
The Real Presence? Sure, read what the other two anons have said.
Transubstantiation, however, relies on Aristotelian notions that aren't in Scripture, so anything more than "This is His Body and Blood" comes from philosophy and theology, not Scripture itself.

[Anonymous No.16013692]

>>16013620
John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. Its a completely different discourse.

[Anonymous No.16013917]

People have completely been misinterpreting for hundred years. All Jesus was trying to say was that his disciples should have eaten his body after the crusifiction but nobody got the memo. That’s why he noped the fuck out of here.

[Anonymous No.16014036]

>>16013653
Leviticus 17:10 and other verses that tell people not to drink blood contradicts the notion of transsubstantiation. If it really were Christ’s blood, then he would be going against one of his own commandments, so obviously Christ was just speaking symbolically, and then Catholics turned it into a blasphemous ritual, like everything else they’ve done.

[Anonymous No.16014063]

The Real Presence has a biblical foundation. Transubstantiation is a different kettle of fish.

[Anonymous No.16014171]

>>16014036
Jewish sacrificial rites said that the parts of the sacrificed lamb not dedicated to God were to be eaten by the priest and the person offering the sheep. If Christ is the Lamb of God and the Sacrifice for the Atonement of sins, it makes perfect sense that we consume His Body and Blood, especially since Christ said he came not to overturn the Law but to fulfill it. and that passage in Leviticus is talking about eating the offerings of foreign idols, which often were human sacrifices (which God explicitly forbids since that would violate the Commandment against not murdering your neighbor). You literally got rid of the context of the passages before and after it to prove your wonk point.

[Anonymous No.16014245]

>>16014171
>and that passage in Leviticus is talking about eating the offerings of foreign idols

> And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood
>any manner of blood

As in, all blood, no matter what, no matter what context, should never be eaten. There’s no getting around that. Clearly God is not talking about sacrifices to idols. The text simply doesn’t support that notion.

[Anonymous No.16014282]

I think the later verses of John 6 are more convincing. 51-57

51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b

Of course there is the dialogue where he institutes the eucharist (Matthew in >>16013653) "this is my body"
Luke 22:19, Mark 14:22

Put these together with the bread of life discourse John 6:22-59

[Anonymous No.16014294]

>>16014171
Leviticus 17:13 also makes it clear God isn’t just talking about sacrifices when he said:

>And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

So outside of sacrifices, if you just catch any animal and you’re gonna eat it, you have to drain the blood no matter what.

[Anonymous No.16014331]

>>16013681
Like it or not, the intellectual connection of Christianity to the likes of the Stoics, Aristotle and Plato, while not as important as our spiritual decent from Abraham, is a key feature of Christianity. The whole Gospel of John is literally describing Christ as the Logos of the world, which is a Stoic term meaning the Ultimate Reason behind all things. St. Paul is very well educated in terms of Greek philosophy, as seen by his many citings of Greek thinkers over the ages (like Titus 1:12 and all of Acts 17). You can't just say "It's not is Scripture therefore it's not true" which doesn't even hold up anyways because it is in Scripture. It's the same God these men are seeing dimly through the glass of reason, but they have no real way to real Him. It's only through Christ that we can see the God of Aristotle, Plato and Epictetus could only dream of meeting through faith in Christ and Christ alone.

>>16014245
>>16014294
Okay, but then the dietary commands of the Old Law are overturned when St. Peter has the vision of the sheet of Animals in Acts 10? Even St. Paul says eating food dedicated to idols isn't a sin, but it could scandalize some people so it's best no to do it in 1st Corinthians 8:13, which is very much opposed to the Old Laws notions of food dedicated to idols. So that doesn't apply to Christians for one. Plus, there's Lev 17:11 which states "the life of the flesh is in the blood", so if Jesus's bread and water are the Bread of Life and the Water of Life, that would imply that they are His Body and Blood respectively.

[Anonymous No.16014381]

>>16014331
I didn't say "It's not in Scripture so it's not true", I merely answered the OP's "Is it in the Bible?", and the particular means by which the Real Presence occurs isn't explained in Scripture.

[Anonymous No.16014875]

>>16013917

[Anonymous No.16014935]

>>16013653
I'm pretty sure metaphor is a thing

[Anonymous No.16015029]

>>16013620
You have to understand that having or not biblical foundation doesn't matter. Priests forgiving sins, the apostolate, exorcisms, ministerium, faith + works, apostolic succession, even purgatory have their foundation in the Scriptures and yet no pr*testant admits them.

[Anonymous No.16015346]

>>16015029
>Priests forgiving sins, the apostolate, exorcisms, ministerium, faith + works, apostolic succession, even purgatory have their foundation in the Scriptures
Okay Scott Hahn, whatever you say.

[Anonymous No.16015568]

>>16013620
John 6:53 says it much more clearly
>Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

[Anonymous No.16015589]

>>16015568
don't stop at 53, keep reading.
>63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
>>16013692
this

[Anonymous No.16015713]

>>16014935
I'm pretty sure Jesus' parables were just extended metaphors, which you can usually tell right afterwards because he either states "X is like Y" before or gives an explanation for said parables right afterwards. And then there's that moment where he literally doubles down on eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood when the crowd of Jews are wondering if he's being facetious or making a metaphor when he said it the first time.

[Anonymous No.16016742]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’"

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord’s Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is such a concept biblical? There are some Scriptures that, if interpreted strictly literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. Examples are John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. The passage pointed to most frequently is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”

Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

[Anonymous No.16016749]

The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the Holy Eucharist.

The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

[Anonymous No.16016757]

>>16016742
>>16016749
So you just jumped into another thread like an asshurt faggot, huh?

[Anonymous No.16016770]

Why were Jesus’ disciples such brainlets? Didn’t they realize that this was a subtle way of giving a direct order to eat his body after his death to become physically immortal? Now as a result of them not getting it and not eating him we have to pretend that there is a “deeper” more metaphorical to this order until the end of time. Fucking brainlets I swear.

[Anonymous No.16016790]

>>16013620
The Eucharist is the most Christian ceremony of their religion.

[jesus No.16016968]

>>16013620
facepalm. all matter in Universe is body of God. and matter is driven by energy, spirit, "blood". I, God, used meat of jesus to say these words for me, on my behalf.

[Anonymous No.16016971]

>>16016968
Based schizo

[Anonymous No.16018297]

>>16013653
>>16014935
>>16015713
Yes, this is an important point. Jesus speaks in parables and metaphors near-constantly, but never about Himself directly. He remains consistent that this "IS" His body and His blood. The most important word for transubstantiation is "is" in Matthew 26, when read in the full context of the rest of the Bible. Though I do find >>16014282 very convincing supporting evidence as well

>>16016742
This is a good overview of the debate. But your conclusion is in error. John 6:63 is Jesus referring to the supremacy of his spiritual gifts and eternal life over the mortal realm. In fact this passage further supports my point above that He never spoke about Himself in metaphor, and so the Catholic reading is clearly the accurate one. The Real Presence is by no means mutually exclusive with "spiritually receiving Him by grace through faith."

>>16016749
This is just plainly a heretical reading even by many Protestants' standards. The Eucharistic celebration is not a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but you probably already know that.

>>16016770
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

[Anonymous No.16018775]

>>16014036
Doesn't matter because OT was rendered non-canon by Disney

[The Living One. No.16019646]

>>16013620
Ironically all the "proofs" of "Christianity" are found in the bhagavad gita.
You only eat one thing and drink one thing.

[Anonymous No.16019669]

>>16019646
You know he's actually very insecure in this view because he resorts to ridiculous affectations like posting with a trip. Wow, you used punctuation! Here's your validation

[jesus No.16020004]

>>16016971
molecules constantly go in and out of "your" body. if you are not your body you are everything.

[Anonymous No.16020226]

>>16016770
didnt Christs body disappear?

[Anonymous No.16020481]

>>16013620
>Transubstantiation | Encyclopedia.com
https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/roman-catholic-and-orthodox-churches-general-terms-and-concepts/transubstantiation

>Transubstantiation - New World Encyclopedia
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Transubstantiation

>Transubstantiation and the Real Presence | CARM.org
https://carm.org/catholic/transubstantiation-real-presence

>Transubstantiation for Beginners | Catholic Answers
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners

[Anonymous No.16020534]

>>16013653
>>16014282

Do Catholics believe there is another transubstantiation whereby it becomes regular food again prior to excretion, or do they take delight in degrading Jesus physically as well?

[Anonymous No.16020641]

>>16020534
I know I shouldn't be replying to this kind of bait, but this is just too easily dealt with. The Catechism says:

>1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

Meaning that the Eucharist is physically within you until it is broken up and the species no longer subsists. For most human beings this is a matter of minutes, given the size of a standard communion host.

I don't know what kind of wild anti-Catholic defamations you were raised on, but it wasn't good for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.16020668]

>>16020641

When does the ritual end then?

[Anonymous No.16020671]

From the Catechism
>Question 170: How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s Supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
>Answer: As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.

[Anonymous No.16020692]

>>16018775
lol

[Anonymous No.16020693]

>>16020668
I don't understand what you mean by "the ritual." Do you mean the process of transubstantiation itself?

[Anonymous No.16020729]

>>16020671
Please don't call your Calvinist ravings "the Catechism." you don't even have an authoritative body by which to write one

still it's funny because even this protestant definition is clearer on the meaning and significance of the Eucharist than most posters at the beginning of this thread, meaning they are heretics even by your definition

[Anonymous No.16020732]

>>16020693

Yes, the quote suggests that it is contingent on ritual, so when does it end? Does the priest perform desecration?

[Anonymous No.16020746]

>>16020732

read
>>16020641

[Anonymous No.16020766]

>Please don't call your Calvinist ravings "the Catechism." you don't even have an authoritative body by which to write one

[Anonymous No.16020803]

>>16020766
it's all in good fun, you all are definitely my favorite heretics

[Anonymous No.16020828]

>"There is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined."
- Benedict XVI

[Anonymous No.16020838]

>>16020828
except that denying the Real Presence is heresy

[Anonymous No.16020848]

Why do Protestants always claim Catholics don't follow the Bible when they removed seven books from the Old Testament because the Jews told them to?

[Anonymous No.16020877]

time to get back to it

[Anonymous No.16020886]

>Why do Protestants always claim Catholics don't follow the Bible when they removed seven books from the Old Testament because the Jews told them to?

[Anonymous No.16020910]

>>16020886
Why would someone who claims to want to follow scripture remove parts of the scripture?

[Anonymous No.16020918]

>>16020910
How can you remove something that was never part of the canon in the first place?

[Anonymous No.16020930]

>>16020918
Only the Jews said that.

[Anonymous No.16020932]

>>16020930
St Paul was jewish, yes.
>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[Anonymous No.16020938]

>>16020918
Yes, there was no Biblical canon whatsoever until Luther decided in the 15th century which books should be in or out, and his decision was the first of its kind.

Listen to yourself, man.

[Anonymous No.16020950]

>>16020918
>>16020918
Yes, there was no Biblical canon whatsoever until Luther decided in the 16th century which books should be in or out, and his decision was the first of its kind.

Listen to yourself, man.

[Anonymous No.16020957]

>>16020932
The Apostle Paul was a Christian. When he lived, Christianity was still considered a sect of Judaism

[Anonymous No.16021101]

>>16020950
I'm not Lutheran

[Anonymous No.16021114]

>>16020957
What does that have to do with that passage? The Jews decided what was OT Scripture. They never considered the Apocryphal books to be Scripture.

[Anonymous No.16021135]

>>16021114
But the Christians did consider the deuterocanonical to be Scripture for hundreds and hundreds of years

[Anonymous No.16021146]

>>16021135
But the Christians weren't OT Jews.
>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[Anonymous No.16021168]

>>16021146
So when it comes to deciding what books should be in the Old Testament, you'd rather listen to the people who don't believe in Jesus than the people who do believe in Jesus? Also why don't you put the books of the Old Testament in the order that the Jews have their Tanakh in? if they're the ones we need to turn to for guidance on the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.16021182]

>>16021168
>So when it comes to deciding what books should be in the Old Testament, you'd rather listen to the people who don't believe in Jesus than the people who do believe in Jesus?
Nice strawman. I'd rather listen to St Paul.
>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[Anonymous No.16021197]

>>16021146
And? We're not bound to the Law of the Jews as Christians, otherwise we would still have kosher dietary laws and still have circumcisions. As Christians, Councils decide the edicts of our faith and it's the Council of Rome in 382 AD that formally set the Biblical canon, which included the deuterocanon even then.

[Anonymous No.16021246]

>>16021182
The Jews were given the word of God, but they also rejected the word of God by rejecting the message of Jesus. Using them as your ultimate final authority for the Old Testament is foolish

[Anonymous No.16021259]

>>16021197
We're not talking about laws. We're talking about canon.
>As Christians, Councils decide the edicts of our faith
Scripture decides the edicts of our faith. Councils are good but can err, and have since they must have not read St Paul's epistle to the Romans.
>>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[Anonymous No.16021272]

>>16021246
>Using them as your ultimate final authority for the Old Testament is foolish
Tell that to St Paul
>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[Anonymous No.16021299]

>>16021272
If the Jews are so knowledgable on the Old Testament, then why don't you put the books in the same order that the Jews have them in? Do you agree with what the Jews say Isiah 7:14 is?

[Anonymous No.16021336]

>>16021299
*Isaiah 7:14

[Anonymous No.16021339]

>>16021299
>If the Jews are so knowledgable on the Old Testament, then why don't you put the books in the same order that the Jews have them in?
I'm not familiar with their order and I fail to see how it matters. The order is convenient.
>Do you agree with what the Jews say Isiah 7:14 is?
Jews are no authority in determining the meaning of Scripture. Only the OT canon.
St Paul didn't write
>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the exegesis of Scripture.
he said
>Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

[Anonymous No.16021347]

>>16021259
>We're not talking about laws. We're talking about canon.
You're making the implicit assumption the laws Jews use to govern themselves matter to use Christians when we aren't under the Old Law. They don't. Plus, there's the blatant fact that Jews just don't consider the deuterocanon inspired simply because they were written in Greek by Alexandrian Jews instead of Palestinian ones, which is th e personally the weakest defense of such a view. If you were to hold that view, then all of the New Testament isn't inspired because it was originally written in Greek.


>Scripture decides the edicts of our faith. Councils are good but can err
They literally can't because they are inspired, convened and guided by the Holy Spirit. Unless the Holy Spirit is wrong, they can't be wrong. Also, the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD (Acts 10) occurred before there was any Scripture so not being able to use Scripture, they had to rely on the Spirit to guide them then and set a precedent for how doctrine is developed. There's no reason to assume they are wrong unless you want to deny things like the Trinity or not having to get circumcised to convert to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16021360]

>>16021339
>Jews are no authority in determining the meaning of Scripture. Only the OT canon.
But it's more than just a disagreement on interpretation. The Jews have a different Isaiah 7:14, and say that the Christians have "molested" that verse

[Anonymous No.16021371]

>>16021347
>They literally can't because they are inspired, convened and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Chapter? Verse?

[Anonymous No.16021412]

>>16021371
Matthew 18:20
>For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Acts 15 (not Acts 10, my bad) details the actual Council and 15:27-29.

[Anonymous No.16021426]

>>16021412
>Matthew 18:20
>>For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
If that is your exegesis from that then all councils and synods, even Protestant ones are valid. Lul.

[Anonymous No.16021497]

>>16021426
Jesus is there, that doesn't mean it's anything more than an opinion without the proper recognition of the Church Christ founded. It's like how Anglicans allow gay marriage but some mainline Protestants don't. Without any actual authority, hierarchy and tradition, any sort of decision one makes is just an opinion, especially if you don't recognize said council or synod as having any. It's why Apostolic Succession is a big deal in the Orthodox and Catholic churches: It's a recognition of the power these Traditions hold due to them being linked to the Apostles that waked alongside Jesus and whom he gave authority to act in His Name during the Great Commission.

[Anonymous No.16021560]

>>16021497
>It's why Apostolic Succession is a big deal in the Orthodox and Catholic churches:
And yet its something that firstly cannot be proven, and secondly is a doctrine with no foundation in Scripture.
Apostolicity > Apostolic Succession

[Anonymous No.16021645]

>>16021560
>And yet its something that firstly cannot be proven
It really can just based on where the Apostles went in Acts and what communities the tended to the most alongside just basic common sense. If a church wasn't connected to the Apostles in the Early days of Christianity, it most likely was a heretical sect and an enemy of the Church. Ie even appears in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived between 35-207 AD:
>"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop."

>secondly is a doctrine with no foundation in Scripture.
Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, Acts 1, and John 20 aren't Scripture any more. Good to know.


>Apostolicity > Apostolic Succession
Except you actually prove Apostolicity without Apostolic Succession. If a Church wasn't tended to by an Apostle of Jesus Christ under his direct command, then it's not Apostolic. It's ahistorical at best and flat out heretical at worst. Even 5th and 6th century Gnostics tried to say they were representing the views of the Early Church. It's through Apostolic Succession that we know that's not the case.

[Anonymous No.16021648]

>>16021560
Also Protestants must have apostolic succession as the Reformers were ordained in the Roman Church. Those ordinations were valid so that means that those they ordained are also valid through this day.

[Anonymous No.16021669]

>>16021648
They were excommunicated so it's not really the case since they were outside the Church and left the graces of Apostolic Succession behind with them.

[Anonymous No.16021717]

>>16021669
Mega cope. They were ordained in the Catholic Church. Their ordinations were valid. Anything else is cope.
>since they were outside the Church
Says who? How do you know the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic church and not the Reformed church? Apostolic succession? The Reformers had that.

[Anonymous No.16021732]

>>16021717
Also since we are quoting Church fathers now I want to preemptively post this.
St Jerome believed the office of presbyter equal to bishop.
>For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced?

[Anonymous No.16021763]

literally afraid to read this thread because i don't want to undermine my personal understanding as a Catholic with the interpretation of scripture by protestants, bored internet intellectuals, and charlatans

[Anonymous No.16021789]

>>16021763
You're a Roman Catholic, not a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.16021793]

>>16021717
>>16021732

>Matthew 18:18 is cope
Whatever the Apostles bind on Earth is bound in heaven by Christ. Likewise, whatever they unbind on Earth is unbound by Christ. That means you can have Apostolic Successional rights if you follow the Church's teaching but if you become a heretic, you can be excommunicated and have that removed. It's not all that hard to understand. Luther, Pelagius and all the leaders of the Gnostic sects who were originally clergy who had Apostolic Succession, but they became heretics and had that removed the moment they assented to non-truths. Unless you don't like Scripture now, you're viewpoint is kinda indefensible.

[Anonymous No.16021804]

>>16021793
The Roman Church is the one that has removed themselves from the Church's teaching as clearly evidenced by Scripture showing how they have no apostolicity.

[Anonymous No.16021806]

>>16021732
Okay. I don't authoritatively go by the views of the Church Fathers. The only reason I posted St. Ignatius was to show you that in the Early Church they had a conception of Apostolic authority, as far back as the earliest Church.


>>16021804
Nice non-argument.

[Anonymous No.16021815]

>>16021806
Anyways, I trust the Councils and Edicts of the Church, which are guided by the Spirit, more than men (even holy men) who are prone to err.

[Anonymous No.16021828]

>>16021806
>Nice non-argument.
Cope.
>Anyways, I trust the Councils and Edicts of the Church, which are guided by the Spirit, more than men (even holy men) who are prone to err.
Which church? The Roman church of the Catholic church?

[Anonymous No.16021853]

>>16021828
>Cope.
Nice non-argument

>Which church? The Roman church of the Catholic church?
The Roman Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church. It's why there are such things as Byzantine, Assyrian Melkite and Maronite rite Catholics, all of which have liturgies that are more archaic than the Mass of St. Peter, but literally all of the same basic form.

[Anonymous No.16021859]

>>16021815
>I trust the Councils and Edicts of the Church, which are guided by the Spirit,
Nice. Good to know that the Westminster Confession and Augsburg Confession were guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.16021886]

>>16021859
They weren't. Like I said before, they have no Apostolic authority (Calvin wasn't even clergy in the first place) and no access to the graces that the come with it. Unless you think someone like Joseph Smith was guided by the Holy Spirit because he says he was.

[Anonymous No.16021899]

Just want to remind this thread to practice charity, prudence and honestly when discussing the faith and to avoid disrespecting fellow Christians even if you believe them to be gravely errant

[Anonymous No.16021918]

>>16021886
>they have no Apostolic authority
Cope. The Augsburg was written by men ordained in the Roman Church. Westminster by men who received their succession from the laying on of hands of men of men ordained by the Roman Church.
>Unless you think someone like Joseph Smith was guided by the Holy Spirit because he says he was.
According to your (shitty) exegesis of Matthew 18:20 here >>16021412 maybe he was lmao.

[Anonymous No.16021936]

>>16021899
Should be in more of the /christian/ threads, but it's easier (or more fun) to fight as aggressively and rudely as possible, though this thread is far better than many I've seen on /his/. It's a waste to try and change it yourself, just let them burn out and hopefully end up out of the convertitis naturally.
Really nice gif by the way, very relaxing.

[Anonymous No.16021938]

>>16013620
wait they literally think they are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ? it's not just a metaphor?

[Anonymous No.16021954]

>>16021918
>The Augsburg was written by men ordained in the Roman Church. Westminster by men who received their succession from the laying on of hands of men of men ordained by the Roman Church.
But he was excommunicated, meaning he has no Apostolic Authority by Matrthew 18:18 and the fact that Christ allowed the Apostles to act as his vicars on Earth. So, even if he DID have Apostolic authority, he didn't by the point he was in grave error. It's the same deal with St. Augustine and Pelagius or any number of heresies in the first few centuries AD between the Church and a cleric professing a heresy. It is not that difficult to understand. Unless Judas himself had Apostolic authority to betray Jesus, it's kinda clear that you can lose it by not following the Christ and His Church.

[Anonymous No.16021962]

>>16021954
*Matthew 18:18

[Anonymous No.16021975]

>>16021938
The Catholics (Romans, Easterners, Old, and 'regular' sedes), Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern), Anglicans (at least most of them, even the Episcopalians), Lutherans, and some other denominations believe that the Eucharist is actually Jesus' Body and Blood, which is well over the vast majority of Christians. The particular means by which the Real Presence occurs is debated upon though.

[Anonymous No.16021977]

>>16021954
>But he was excommunicate
By the Roman church? How can a church with no apostolicity excommunicate anyone. Lul.

[Anonymous No.16021982]

This religion is such a fucking mess

[Anonymous No.16022003]

>>16021954
>It's the same deal with St. Augustine and Pelagius or any number of heresies in the first few centuries AD between the Church and a cleric professing a heresy.
Except this time it was the Roman bishops who were professing heresy and those godly (and ordained) members of the church fighting back.

[Anonymous No.16022031]

>>16021936
Thanks anon. I may just dedicate myself to reposting this in /christian/ threads when they start getting bitter

[Anonymous No.16022065]

>>16021977
The Roman Church is the Catholic Church. Stop with your facetiousness. Even the Orthodox admit as such.

>>16022003
Martin Luther was excommunicated. He wasn't ordained anymore. He literally created his own Church for that reason. Plus, if the Roman Catholic bishops were professing heresy, why do Coptics, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox along with St. Thomas Orthodox Christians in India all profess a similar viewpoint to that Catholic Church than that of Luther's or Calvin's church?

[Anonymous No.16022081]

>>16022065
>The Roman Church is the Catholic Church.
Source?
I must have missed in the three creeds where the it says the Roman church is the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.

[Anonymous No.16022121]

>>16022081
You do realize that the Filioque controversy was between the Eastern(Greek) Catholic Church and the Western (Roman) Catholic Church was the main cause of the separation of the two in 1054 AD right? Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church. It's just one rite out of many. There are many Eastern rites in the Catholic Church as well, with Traditions handed down from other Apostles and reconciled since from Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.16022129]

>>16022121
>Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church.
Then Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are part of the Catholic church as well as they have apostolic succession and profess the three creeds.

[Anonymous No.16022175]

>>16022129
Literally all the people that founded those churches were either excommunicated from the Catholic Church or never a part of it so no they don't have Apostolic Succession and they aren't part of the Catholic Church. If you go by that logic then Mormons (which is descended form Presbyterianism) that say the three creeds are part of the Catholic Church. That's clearly not true, ergo you have to go on something more substantial than just saying creed and saying you have Apostolic Succession, especially when so many Protestant churches disagree on so many things, like Episcopalians and Presbyterians on whether gay marriage is a real marriage (it's not) or whether the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist or even some modern Modalists and Univeralist Unitarians that deny the reality of the Trinity. Professing something doesn't automatically make it true. You have to be able to show it's true in a more meaningful way than that, which really only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can with regards to Apostolic Sucession.

[Anonymous No.16022192]

>>16022175
Isn't ordination an indelible mark on the soul? So excommunication doesn't affect the ability to confer the sacraments, only their licitness. QED any denomination that has bishops/a line of ordinations from the bishops is technically in the Apostolic Succession.
Further, it's clear "being theologically wrong" doesn't remove the mark, not just because it's indelible, but because if it were the case then the Romans couldn't recognize Orthodox sacraments.
QED no u

[Anonymous No.16022214]

>>16022175
>Literally all the people that founded those churches were either excommunicated from the Catholic Church
Wrong.
>so no they don't have Apostolic Succession
"They don't have it because we say so" is cope.
Now you bring up non-Christians (Mormons) because you are grasping at straws.

> ergo you have to go on something more substantial than just saying creed and saying you have Apostolic Succession, especially when so many Protestant churches disagree on so many things, like Episcopalians and Presbyterians on whether gay marriage is a real marriage (it's not) or whether the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist
Yes. We go by apostolicity. If Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Presbyterians all have apostolic succession then we look at apostolicity. The early church fathers appealed to apostolic succession AND apostolicity at different times, against different heresies, when it was most convenient for them.

>or even some modern Modalists and Univeralist Unitarians that deny the reality of the Trinity.
Why do you insist on lumping in non-Christians? Because you are desperate.

[Anonymous No.16022304]

>>16022192
It's an indelible mark, but your ability to confer and to effect them (especially the Eucharist) can be removed if you fall into grave error. Literally the whole point of the priesthood is to act in the person of Christ. If you can't do any of the liturgical basic requirements of a priest, then you may still may have the mark of priesthood, but the graces that come with being a spiritual descendant of the Apostles goes away and hence you lost that grace. Again, unless Judas was using his Apostolic authority to betray Christ, then this is immediately clear. It's not impossible to lose graces even if you had the mark of having said grace in the first place. It's the reason why Gnostic sects founded by excommunicated priests are recognized as not having Apostolic authority.


>>16022214
>Wrong
They were. King Henry the 8th and Martin Luther were both excommunicated as was John Calvin.

>Now you bring up non-Christians (Mormons) because you are grasping at straws.
Why is Joseph Smith's account of Apostolic Succesion invalid if yours is valid? He literally stated with the same amount of proof you are using right now that he was going back to what the original church believed. Same thing with Mohammed really.

>Yes. We go by apostolicity.
>The early church fathers appealed to apostolic succession AND apostolicity at different times, against different heresies, when it was most convenient for them.
Those two words mean the exact same thing so yeah.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apostolicity

>Why do you insist on lumping in non-Christians? Because you are desperate.
Or maybe you are calling them non-Christians because if you say they are Christians, it undermines your argument about Apostolic Succession. They both were founded as by Congregationalists of the Reformed Tradition, so it stands to reason they should have Apostolic Succession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism#Puritan_roots_and_Congregationalist_background

Again, this is the exact reason why hierarchy, Tradition and Scripture are all important when trying to find out who has Apostolic authority or not: literally anybody can claim anything and without any sort of metric to distinguish which claims are valid or not, anything goes. And if anything goes, then everyone's right even when they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.16022319]

>>16022304
Forgot to post this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregationalism_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous No.16022360]

>>16022304
>your ability to confer them can be removed if you fall into grave error
This is categorically untrue, given that the official view of 'defrocked' clergymen is that their sacraments are valid but illicit, at least from a Catholic perspective (I understand the Orthodox go about it differently, though I don't believe they believe in an indelible mark). For an Anglican perspective of how they still have a valid priesthood (which occurred even before they had the Union of Utrecht Old Catholics come behind them just to make sure) read Saepius Officio, which never received a Catholic response.
In any case, I jumped into this halfway, why are you and the other guy arguing about Apostolic Succession?

[Anonymous No.16022393]

>>16022304
Are you obtuse or just disingenuous?

>Why is Joseph Smith's account of Apostolic Succesion invalid if yours is valid?
Because as I've said repeatedly they don't have apostolicity. They don't hold to the teachings of the apostles in the SCRIPTURES.

>Those two words mean the exact same thing so yeah.
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apostolicity
>References
>Catholic Encyclopaedia
Yeah, I'm going with disingenuous. This is your last (You) troll.

>Again, this is the exact reason why hierarchy, Tradition and Scripture are all important when trying to find out who has Apostolic authority
Good to know we are somewhat on the same page and that you recognize that the Roman church doesn't have authority since they go against Scripture and thus lack apostolicity.

[Anonymous No.16022397]

>>16022360
Yeah, that's defrocked clergymen not flat out excommunicated. Excommunication means you lose all your rights as a priest and as a Christian, barring baptism. Defrocking means that you more or less just lose the status as a priest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_(Catholic_Church)
>Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. There can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, and interdict. Excommunication, however, is distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. Excommunicated persons do not cease to be Christians, since their baptism can never be effaced; they can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, their status before the church is that of a stranger. They may not receive any of the sacraments. Moreover, if a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.


Also, I don't even remember how I got here.

[Anonymous No.16022412]

>>16022393
>Because as I've said repeatedly they don't have apostolicity. They don't hold to the teachings of the apostles in the SCRIPTURES.
They read the Bible along with they retarded LARP of a book.

>Yeah, I'm going with disingenuous. This is your last (You) troll.
Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean it's not true.

>Good to know we are somewhat on the same page and that you recognize that the Roman church doesn't have authority since they go against Scripture and thus lack apostolicity.
Except I'm saying that Protestants don't have the authority to go against not only Scripture, but Tradition and the Deposit of Faith and hence aren't lack apostolicity, unlike the Catholic and Orthdox Churches.

[Anonymous No.16022424]

>>16022412
*hence lack apstolicity
Plus, Mormons say they follow the teachings of the Apostles. They can't prove it in the exact way that Protestants can't but they say they do. Why should their claims be any less valid in your paradigm?

[Anonymous No.16022436]

>>16022424
>Why should their claims be any less valid in your paradigm?
Because they preach another gospel!
Galatians 1:8
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

[Anonymous No.16022458]

>>16022436
But they say that the Christian churches ever since the time of Christ preached another Gospel and corrupted the original church. That's literally what Joseph Smith thought he was reviving via the book of Mormon. How is that any different than what Protestants say about the Catholic Church? You see what I'm getting at here?

[Anonymous No.16022476]

>>16022458
>But they say that the Christian churches ever since the time of Christ preached another Gospel and corrupted the original church.
Good thing we have the SCRIPTURES to prove them otherwise right? Haha, it would be really funny if the apostles hadn't left written word of what they believed. We might be in a really bad place now.

[Anonymous No.16022528]

>>16022397
It says they're forbidden from doing the sacraments, but the phrase "valid but illicit" is at hand; every source I've found more or less confirms this.
However, the best argument against this route of argument is that it's not what was used in Apostolicae Curae; were it so simple, that's probably an argument that would have been included or used in most other debates on the topic, whereas I haven't seen it used. That said I'm in agreement with you to some degree, insofar as I'm not sure about Presbyterians. Obviously Gnostics and Mormons are right out as well.
>Also, I don't even remember how I got here.
The story of every disagreement on 4chan.