Exactly.Maybe we leave it that he does not contradict CC teaching nor does he put it forth as she does today.
Yes, on same streets, but in past ignoring…or believing the other of the dark side. But, some of my Baptist friends aware of my recent move to Catholicism…are now investigating its beliefs for themselves. I’m very heartened by recent comments I hear from them…esp. about the new Pope. Everyone seems impressed with the Jesuit, and his style of Service First, and downplay of traditional papal vestments. Thats what we really needed …a true servant, rather than a Prince with crown. When a pope truly imitates mission/life of Christ …all Christians can see him fulfilling Peter 's role in our age. The old fears & mistrust of popes are put to rest.Let us not take for granted the freedom of having a baptist church and a Catholic church existing peacefully on the same street corner . This is a "recent’ transpiring ( in America first ?) I know you are thinking disunity but the historic alternative was bloodshed and strife, certainly no good testimony to the world either.
Interesting that my Methodist running partner said the same thing this morning. He was impressed by the Pope’s humility. I never viewed John Paul II or Pope Benedict as anything other than God’s true servants either but it’s interesting to see how a few words for prayer and not wearing a red garment can make such an impact on people. I reminded my friend that Catholic doctrine would not change with the new Pope, despite the hopes of the secular media that wants faith and morals to be a democratic vote of the populous.Yes, on same streets, but in past ignoring…or believing the other of the dark side. But, some of my Baptist friends aware of my recent move to Catholicism…are now investigating its beliefs for themselves. I’m very heartened by recent comments I hear from them…esp. about the new Pope. **Everyone seems impressed with the Jesuit, **and his style of Service First, and downplay of traditional papal vestments. Thats what we really needed …a true servant, rather than a Prince with crown. When a pope truly imitates mission/life of Christ …all Christians can see him fulfilling Peter 's role in our age. The old fears & mistrust of popes are put to rest.
What you say requires some thought, and am not sure what to say. Perhaps everything should be taken on it’s own -communion, trinity, Christology etc. Some things develop. That is good to admit, for some say all things are apostolic, from the beginning. As far as communion though, I would say Augustine is quite exhaustive. I am not willing to say the subject is so deep that it took a millenia to unfold, define, and that it was beyond Augustine. Sorry to say but I agree with others that say the final CC pronouncement on the Eucharist was not from the beginning, not apostolic and goes beyond what Augustine put forth. Sorry I could not leave it at my last statement.Exactly.
Same could be said for all the ECF’s homilies on the Trinity. That is an understanding that has developed through the Church.
And, I might add, the same could be said for all the ECF’s homilies on the hypostatic union. Their understanding was not put forth as we understand it today. We need the Church for that.
Oh, just to be clear, poco: the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. All things are, indeed, apostolic.What you say requires some thought, and am not sure what to say. Perhaps everything should be taken on it’s own -communion, trinity, Christology etc. Some things develop. That is good to admit, for some say all things are apostolic, from the beginning. As far as communion though, I would say Augustine is quite exhaustive. I am not willing to say the subject is so deep that it took a millenia to unfold, define, and that it was beyond Augustine. Sorry to say but I agree with others that say the final CC pronouncement on the Eucharist was not from the beginning, not apostolic and goes beyond what Augustine put forth. Sorry I could not leave it at my last statement.
The truth is eternal. Our understanding of the truth has been growing with time as events clarify our focus on particular doctrines. Nothing the Apostles said in scripture or tradition was incorrect, but on occasion, it was incomplete. You will therefore never see Catholic in opposition to scripture, but you will see Catholic doctrine clarify scripture and re-apply it to modern circumstances.What you say requires some thought, and am not sure what to say. Perhaps everything should be taken on it’s own -communion, trinity, Christology etc. Some things develop. That is good to admit, for some say all things are apostolic, from the beginning. As far as communion though, I would say Augustine is quite exhaustive. I am not willing to say the subject is so deep that it took a millenia to unfold, define, and that it was beyond Augustine. Sorry to say but I agree with others that say the final CC pronouncement on the Eucharist was not from the beginning, not apostolic and goes beyond what Augustine put forth. Sorry I could not leave it at my last statement.
The Eucharist evolved ? What Catholics believe is …from the beginning, John 6, Paul’s account, Justin Martyr’s account, Irenaeus’s …all before 200 AD.What you say requires some thought, and am not sure what to say. Perhaps everything should be taken on it’s own -communion, trinity, Christology etc. Some things develop. That is good to admit, for some say all things are apostolic, from the beginning. As far as communion though, I would say Augustine is quite exhaustive. I am not willing to say the subject is so deep that it took a millenia to unfold, define, and that it was beyond Augustine. Sorry to say but I agree with others that say the final CC pronouncement on the Eucharist was not from the beginning, not apostolic and goes beyond what Augustine put forth. Sorry I could not leave it at my last statement.
Understand your viewpoint.ThanksOh, just to be clear, poco: the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. All things are, indeed, apostolic.
But that is not to say that doctrines and dogmas cannot evolve and develop.
Luther did not make it non-sacramental . Not sure that transmutation is transubstantuiation , maybe more consubstantiation. That is at least the beginning of differences. Your point is well taken that by CC doctrine, Protestants have “taken away” from CC final doctrine of transubstantiation.The Eucharist evolved ? What Catholics believe is …from the beginning, John 6, Paul’s account, Justin Martyr’s account, Irenaeus’s …all before 200 AD.
Tell us what you believe,… that Catholics got wrong ? Justin saying Transmutation…that being the same idea/essence of Transubstantiation.
It is the Protestants who have reduced, changed the Eucharist to non-sacramental status…to their peril.
Yes, understand CC interpretation of scripture and early fathers on the matter . Luther may have been right for even after “consecration”, the elements are often still referred to as "bread, loaf, cup, fruit of the vine’ in scripture and by early fathers. I understand CC says of course they have that “appearance”.The truth is eternal. Our understanding of the truth has been growing with time as events clarify our focus on particular doctrines. Nothing the Apostles said in scripture or tradition was incorrect, but on occasion, it was incomplete. You will therefore never see Catholic in opposition to scripture, but you will see Catholic doctrine clarify scripture and re-apply it to modern circumstances.
AS for the Eucharist, that has always been understood to be the real presence of Jesus. You can understand that from John 6, the last supper narratives and from 1Corinthians 11, where Paul repeats the consecrating words of Jesus and points out that those who partake unworthily are bringing wrath upon themselves. This would hardly be the case if Paul believed that the Eucharist was only a memorial meal.
Tradition of the Institution. 23* For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”l 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.* 28A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself. 30That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
. This would hardly be the case if Paul believed that the Eucharist was only a memorial meal.
I thought that was his point, they forgot it was a memorial meal and were acting accordingly, in the flesh. They forgot the Body of Chrsit at Calvary and the Body of Christ, the Bride. They were terrible towards one another.
Quotes from the ECFs, please, of references to “bread, loaf, cup, fruit of the vine” AFTER consecration.for even after “consecration”, the elements are often still referred to as "bread, loaf, cup, fruit of the vine’ in scripture and by early fathers.
Strange interpretation. You do realize Paul just got done quoting the Lord, " this is my body… This is my blood…" and then he says that if you eat it unworthily, you would eat adn drink judgment on themselves. So clearly Paul takes Jesus at his word that clearly the eucharist is more than a memorial meal but is the true presence of Christ…I thought that was his point, they forgot it was a memorial meal and were acting accordingly, in the flesh. They forgot the Body of Chrsit at Calvary and the Body of Christ, the Bride. They were terrible towards one another.
So why would you choose Luther’s interpretation over that of the Church Christ founded if you understand the CC interpretation? What makes his version so credible to you?Yes, understand CC interpretation of scripture and early fathers on the matter . Luther may have been right for even after “consecration”, the elements are often still referred to as "bread, loaf, cup, fruit of the vine’ in scripture and by early fathers. I understand CC says of course they have that “appearance”.
wow …So why would you choose Luther’s interpretation over that of the Church Christ founded if you understand the CC interpretation? What makes his version so credible to you?
After all, Justin martyr was very clear in 155 AD about the real presence:newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
Don’t have my father notes in front of me. Several of the gospels have Jesus saying right after the consecration and drinking that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine till he returns to us again -something like that.Quotes from the ECFs, please, of references to “bread, loaf, cup, fruit of the vine” AFTER consecration.
Also, references from Scripture of “bread, loaf cup, fruit of the vine” AFTER consecration.
Thanks.
Yes–fruit of the vine means wine. The Blessing Cup. Or it can be a reference to Isaiah.Don’t have my father notes in front of me. Several of the gospels have Jesus saying right after the consecration and drinking that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine till he returns to us again -something like that.
So why would you choose Luther’s interpretation over that of the Church Christ founded if you understand the CC interpretation? What makes his version so credible to you?
After all, Justin martyr was very clear in 155 AD about the real presence:newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
I am not choosing Luther, but apparently there are four views on communion in Christendom and Luthers seems closest to CC. Will have to read Martyr’s comments you put forth and see if it is tran or consubstantiation.
pocohombre;10534074:
I know what you are trying to say , but in this case, the original is not so cut and dry. Remember, it took more than a millennia to"dognatize" and separate it from the other concurrent views apparently.why not stick with the original rather than man’s later attempts to redefine what Jesus had made clear to the Apostles: This is My body…