Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[pablope]

paul c;10534133:

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.

Poco…with all due respect…it was cut and dry for over a millenia…priot to Luther and his friends…can you find someone contesting the belief in the Real Presence?

Now, why was there a reason to dogmatize it, in the first place?

Ponder on these also: Why was a council needed to define the Trinity? The nature of Christ? Mary as the Mother of God?

Why was the Council of Jerusalem in acts 15 called for? Why was this council needed?

And secondly…are you start going out to believe as the first Christians or continue trying to figure it out for the rest of your life?

 

[pocohombre]

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

Which real presence ? Lutheran ? Symbolic or spiritual ? Tough to prove transubstantiation from Martyr. After the consecration prayer he continues to call it bread, wine, and water. Further it is remembrance and thanksgiving - it is not a sacrifice or offering that CC does. He does not denote a prayer designating/referring to a “change” in the elements. The transmutation/change is what happens during “digestion” which nourishes our body (says nothing of our “spirit” being nourished from the elements). Some argue that in other writings he specifically says Christians do not eat human flesh, though they are persecuted, even put to death for such a thing wrongly .He complains that other pagan religions do and are not persecuted. That is why he explains it is really bread wine and water to show the Lord’s incarnation in memorium. At best from CC point of view he is more Lutheran in Real Presence, and perhaps he is purely symbolic

 

[PRmerger]

After the consecration prayer he continues to call it bread, wine, and water.

Source, please.

 

[pocohombre]

QUOTE]

Poco…with all due respect…it was cut and dry for over a millenia…priot to Luther and his friends…can you find someone contesting the belief in the Real Presence?

Well yes. Augustine for one. You have your first refutation as soon as you had your first transubstantiation proclamation

Now, why was there a reason to dogmatize it, in the first place?

Becuase it was being disputed.

Ponder on these also: Why was a council needed to define the Trinity? The nature of Christ? Mary as the Mother of God?

Why was the Council of Jerusalem in acts 15 called for? Why was this council needed?

Because things were being disputed by Christians. Yes some were heretics before but many were Christians on both sides of the issue before any council with each particular issue. ARAR is valid for you but not for all. The nature of Christ, Trinity and other things the Church got right. I and many other Christians think Transubstantiation is one or two steps too many.

And secondly…are you start going out to believe as the first Christians or continue trying to figure it out for the rest of your life?

There is a time for milk and a time for meat. Milk is predigested food. That is the discussion, if I were to believe today as a Catholic, would I be in complete harmony with the first Christians ?

 

[paul_c]

Which real presence ? Lutheran ? Symbolic or spiritual ? Tough to prove transubstantiation from Martyr. After the consecration prayer he continues to call it bread, wine, and water. Further it is remembrance and thanksgiving - it is not a sacrifice or offering that CC does. He does not denote a prayer designating/referring to a “change” in the elements. The transmutation/change is what happens during “digestion” which nourishes our body (says nothing of our “spirit” being nourished from the elements). Some argue that in other writings he specifically says Christians do not eat human flesh, though they are persecuted, even put to death for such a thing wrongly .He complains that other pagan religions do and are not persecuted. That is why he explains it is really bread wine and water to show the Lord’s incarnation in memorium. At best from CC point of view he is more Lutheran in Real Presence, and perhaps he is purely symbolic

let’s review Justin’s account on the eucharist again:
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.

Indeed, it is clear that Justin thinks that the bread and wine really have become the body and blood of Jesus. This is transubstantiation. What Luther taught, consubstatiation holds that the bread is simultaneously bread and the body of christ… But Jesus didn’t say that and neither did Paul or Justin Martyr. They all said, this IS my body.

 

[pocohombre]

Source, please.

Thread 672

 

[pocohombre]

let’s review Justin’s account on the eucharist again:
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.

Indeed, it is clear that Justin thinks that the bread and wine really have become the body and blood of Jesus. This is transubstantiation. What Luther taught, consubstatiation holds that the bread is simultaneously bread and the body of christ… But Jesus didn’t say that and neither did Paul or Justin Martyr. They all said, this IS my body.

That is right. He said the bread was His body . Both tran and con fit the bill. Jesus did not have to say it was bread also, for you can see and taste that it is. Both are Real Presence are they not ? Why are the “consecrated”, prayed over elements often still referred to as bread, wine,cup afterwards ?

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post

Augustine is a Doctor of the Catholic Church/ He most certainly believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Back up your claim if you can prove otherwise.

Quote:
Now, why was there a reason to dogmatize it, in the first place?

that’s right. the church declares dogma to let the faithful know what is heretical.

Quote:
Ponder on these also: Why was a council needed to define the Trinity? The nature of Christ? Mary as the Mother of God?

The Church, and specifically the Pope was given the job of safeguarding the truth. The truth isn’t decided by popular vote. And anything in opposition to the truth is heresy.

Quote:
And secondly…are you start going out to believe as the first Christians or continue trying to figure it out for the rest of your life?

You would be in harmony with the first Christians if you believed as a Catholic because the truth does not change. How it is taught changes with the time and culture, but WHAT is taught does not change.

 

[PRmerger]

Thread 672

Ah, I see, then.

 

[pocohombre]

I think Ignatius ch 4-letter to Philly one eucharist one flesh and blood one loaf is broken /given to all(communicant),one cup is distributed to all. Didache talks of the eucharist thanksgiving for the cup and the bread.

 

[thenobes]

Augustine, from tractate 27 sermon on John six, 11th paragraph. (my bold and underline)

“…let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ **merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended,…”

“eat not the flesh and blood merely… but to the participation of the spirit.”

Sounds like Augustine was saying that consuming the Eucharist included consuming the Body, Blood of Christ and receiving His Soul and Divinity as well through spiritual recognition of Him

I think Ignatius ch 4-letter to Philly one eucharist one flesh and blood one loaf is broken /given to all(communicant),one cup is distributed to all. Didache talks of the eucharist thanksgiving for the cup and the bread.

peace
steve

 

[pablope]

QUOTE]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post

 

[brb3]

Which real presence ? Lutheran ? Symbolic or spiritual ? Tough to prove transubstantiation from Martyr. After the consecration prayer he continues to call it bread, wine, and water. Further it is remembrance and thanksgiving - it is not a sacrifice or offering that CC does. He does not denote a prayer designating/referring to a “change” in the elements. The transmutation/change is what happens during “digestion” which nourishes our body (says nothing of our “spirit” being nourished from the elements). Some argue that in other writings he specifically says Christians do not eat human flesh, though they are persecuted, even put to death for such a thing wrongly .He complains that other pagan religions do and are not persecuted. That is why he explains it is really bread wine and water to show the Lord’s incarnation in memorium. At best from CC point of view he is more Lutheran in Real Presence, and perhaps he is purely symbolic

Transmutation occurs during digestion ??? Wow … where did u get that notion from ECF’s, the Apostles, or the Lord’s teaching ?

Even the Lord blessed the host before giving to the 12. Even a Lutheran would take issue with you.

 

[brb3]

That is right. He said the bread was His body . Both tran and con fit the bill. Jesus did not have to say it was bread also, for you can see and taste that it is. Both are Real Presence are they not ? Why are the “consecrated”, prayed over elements often still referred to as bread, wine,cup afterwards ?

One could argue for consubstantiation…saying that Christ is fully present along with (under) the bread & wine. That is what Luther said/believed. Thinking both Christ & bread/wine existed simultaneously… & once the Lord’s Supper was completed …Christ left the hosts, and only bread/wine remained.

But, this is not what the early Apostles believed, and not what the Catholic Church teaches. So, Consubstantiation is not what Justin Martyr meant by Transmutation.

 

[brb3]

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.

St. Paul teaches here that the ‘reborn - justified adoption’ can be condemned, grow ill, … be lost again (having an ending fate with the 'seculars)…if the Eucharist is not perceived/received rightly.

So, OSAS (or SA) is not supported here by Paul.

 

[pocohombre]

One could argue for consubstantiation…saying that Christ is fully present along with (under) the bread & wine. That is what Luther said/believed. Thinking both Christ & bread/wine existed simultaneously… & once the Lord’s Supper was completed …Christ left the hosts, and only bread/wine remained.

But, this is not what the early Apostles believed, and not what the Catholic Church teaches. So, Consubstantiation is not what Justin Martyr meant by Transmutation.

I thought transmutation is how we assimilate the the elements for our body’s benefit, not the transformation of elements into Christ. Thanks for at least admittting some closeness of con to tran . Why would the Lord leave it ? Is that what Lutherans teach ? Even if they do, even Catholics say the elements are fully Christ until digested- it has to stop somewhere . What is the difference as long as you eat ? Not sure of the importance of what happens after that . Do you mean Lutherans do not have monstrances and say of itself the elements are transformed apart from "eating " ? Not sure early church (1st century) had monstrances, or left on any altar to adore. Some father said we are His monstrance I think .Interesting though .Thanks.

 

[pocohombre]

St. Paul teaches here that the ‘reborn - justified adoption’ can be condemned, grow ill, … be lost again (having an ending fate with the 'seculars)…if the Eucharist is not perceived/received rightly.

So, OSAS (or SA) is not supported here by Paul.

Not sure Paul is saying they are condemned as much as chastised, so as not to be condemned with the world ( suffer a second death).

 

[pocohombre]

Transmutation occurs during digestion ??? Wow … where did u get that notion from ECF’s, the Apostles, or the Lord’s teaching ?

Do you have a copy of The Faith of the Early Fathers by W.Jurgens ? Does Vol1 pg 57 say transmutation is assimilation of food ?

Even the Lord blessed the host before giving to the 12. Even a Lutheran would take issue with you

 

[pocohombre]

Augustine is a Doctor of the Catholic Church/ He most certainly believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Back up your claim if you can prove otherwise.

 

[pocohombre]

Augustine, from tractate 27 sermon on John six, 11th paragraph. (my bold and underline)"…let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended,…"

“eat not the flesh and blood merely… but to the participation of the spirit.”

Sounds like Augustine was saying that consuming the Eucharist included consuming the Body, Blood of Christ and receiving His Soul and Divinity as well through spiritual recognition of Him

peace
steve

Not sure that is what he meant, to say it was his divinity also in the elements. For sure, it is a spiritual communion, with Christ and the Body ,the one loaf symbol of unity, unity of the brethren. Paul says the same thing, this is a spiritual memorium, leave your carnality behind- don’t bring it to church-don’t offend or be offended…