So, you believe that the sacraments we celebrate today were instituted by the historical Jesus? What other 'sacraments' beside Eucharist and Baptism you believe are 'signs' of the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Catholic - Christian (Same or Different)
- Thread starter Israel Ramirez
- Start date
So, you believe that the sacraments we celebrate today were instituted by the historical Jesus? What other 'sacraments' beside Eucharist and Baptism you believe are 'signs' of the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Thanks. That clarifies things, hopefully for others, as well as me.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We have Biblical evidence that Jesus either performed, or participated in, all the sacraments. The ones recognized by the RCC are:
Eucharist (a Biblical term, BTW)
Baptism (also a Biblical term)
Marriage
(Jesus participated in these ceremonies and gave them new meaning)
Anointing of the sick (Jesus healed people)
Reconciliation (Jesus forgave people)
Conferring the Holy Spirit (Jesus blew Spirit on the disciples)
Holy orders (Jesus sent out the apostles to preach and to heal)
(Jesus gave authority to the apostles to do these things in his name)
Today the church, through its representatives called by her succeeding apostles, offers these signs of inward grace to her members (and others).
The Church does not say instituted by Jesus, but by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is the Church's interpretation that the sacraments are scriptural in the sense that Jesus continues to do what he did on earth. The sacrament of Anointing connected to the forgiveness of sins, the public confession of sins by Christians, but not related to baptism and Eucharist. The development of a common term (sacrament) in uniting these actions is beyond the NT. Christians baptized and celebrated the Eucharist long before any author wrote.
Yes, but they are a development of the NT.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I believe I said that, since the church is the body of Christ.
Why the game-playing?
DNB
Christian
I see, ...I am not sure either way?
Did you mean the qualifications for receiving it (Catechism, Communion, Sacramental status, ...)?
Thanks!
DNB
Christian
I would never say clear, or unequivocal. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, there is a focus on Peter more than the others. but for both better and for worse. And, quite evidently, Paul is the dominant Apostle in the book of Acts, and in regard to his contribution to the New Testament Canon. Paul, also rather explicitly, expressed his disregard for the so-called leaders of the Church, and his repudiation of Peter for his hypocrisy. And, finally, Paul was instructed directly from Jesus Christ, not being required to first, either, meet the Apostles, or to receive directives or teachings from them.
During the first Jerusalem council, both Paul and Peter offered their insights onto the matter, but it was James who, by his 'judgment', declared what the solution would be.
'Feed my sheep' was a general statement that all disciples should follow. The rapid growth of the early Church in both number and region, could not accommodate one man presiding over the entirety of believers., nor can it to this day. Peter's confession as to who Christ was, was shared by all the apostles, but it was just to Peter that Jesus posed the question. and, 'upon this rock' could have several connotations: 1. that Peter was a leader in some sense as far as precipitating such a swift propagation of the Gospel, 2. Or, that Peter's confession is what the Church would be built on - that Jesus was the son of God.
As far as Peter's lack of dominance is concerned:
Galatians 1:15-20
15But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.
Galatians 2:6-10
6But as for the highly esteemed—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—those leaders added nothing to me. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.9And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
You have you viewpoints and that’s your right so I’m not going to push the issue. I take refuge in the Lord and leave you in His care.
Well we each have our own understanding of things. I fully believe in Jesus and the Gospels but not all the superstitions and myths created afterwards that have nothing to do with Him.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That's like asking if an orange and a fruit are the same thing. Christianity is a large group that is roughly divided into three categories: Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. I realize that many fundamentalist protestants like to pretend that they are the only real Christians, but it is presumptuous -- unlike the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century.Are Catholic and Christian the same, of are thy different?
Aren’t the exact teachings of Jesus those that are in the Bible? If other people make up own interpretations and doctrines, they are not teachings of Jesus, but teachings of the interpreters.
Ok, thank you. So, maybe I should have said that I am speaking about “company” teachings or doctrines. I can believe that there are individuals that are not necessary thinking the exact same way. And for me the problem with Catholic Church is that its doctrines are not Biblical. But, even though I think the company is not Biblical in those issues, it can have also good things.
By what I know, they say Jesus is God all though Jesus says in the Bible:
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
…the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
And there are others, which you may think are not actually teachings of Jesus, like the second commandment that they seem to ignore and denying marriage.
You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6
But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage…
1 Tim. 4:1-3
I understood you to be saying that Jesus instituted the sacraments envisioning a priesthood.
DNB
Christian
Understood, thank you!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What you'ere missing with the above is the Jewish tradition of having major players be shown with having at least one defect of some type, and a Jewish commentary on this is to show that they are fully human and not demigods. Matter of fact, the Apostles in general are shown as being morally weak at times.
We know with certainty that the 1st and 2nd century Church saw Peter as being what can be called "the first amongst equals", such as what Ignatius of Antioch wrote.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And how could you possibly know that they are just "superstitions" and made-up "myths"?
As for myself, I look at all scripture as being allegorical thus focusing on the general set of morals that are being taught, thus whether a narrative is factual, a "myth", or "superstitious" is not something I fret about.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Everything we read in the scriptures is what the authors believed was done as they were written decades later. This is a general rule when reading any history, btw.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because some are interpretations, which can obviously vary, or applications, which also can vary from scholar to scholar. You do much of the same as well all do in any serious scriptural study.