L
- Status
S
SirShaun
Guest
All is well now. Thanks for your concern.
I haven’t yet found a (supposedly) complete interpretation of the Eucharist that I haven’t had problems with. I have problems with the purely symbolic view on other terms than its apparent divorce from history, among them that it is not interpreted as strictly a symbol even when it is taught purely as a symbol. (Except in one case… but my wife who takes it “purely as a symbol,” two pastors who take it “purely as a symbol,” a Christian camp director who takes it “purely as a symbol,” and myself who am undecided all ended up in a room trying to decide how the person could be politely excluded from the next service. I can give you the whole story if you care, but it’s really not as funny as I just made it sound, and I was completely discouraged at the results.)
My favorite explanation so far is one I heard from an Episcopalian. I’m not sure if this is the official Episcopalian doctrine, but so far, it’s the best I’ve heard so far. It went something along the lines of, “I’m not sure what, but something happens.” I go a little further myself, expecting that if certain things are true, other observable things will also be true. I don’t say what happens, only that if something is true, I expect certain other things to be true also.
To me, the arguments between the symbolists and the transubstantiationists remind me of what I read in my AP Science book about when Scientists were arguing about if light is a wave or a particle. All of their proofs came out with true answers. Ultimately math and science progressed to a point where they realized that both were true. I’m not so sure Consubstatiation is the answer, it seems more like a “no one gets along, so lets make no body happy” kind of stance. Right now, those are our only three choices, but it doesn’t mean that a better answer isn’t hanging just outside our reach, something that would sound like religious science fiction to us today, but when we’re ready for it, someone will propose, and it will make perfect sense. And in the meantime is good enough for (church) government work. Or, to use other terminology, not only do I not expect to find a fully developed doctrine in the early Church, I don’t expect to find it today. Kind of like the doctrines that may have been around regarding mariage in the resurection before Christ cleared it up. Sure, none were right, but when the truth was revealed, it made sense, and we looking back on it go, “Well duh!”
The problem with that set of beliefs is, I couldn’t well stand in front of a congregation and swear before God and men that I will uphold the doctrines of the Church, now could I?
But again, Augustine goes even further than I, and yes, he does have a very nuanced belief, but would be separate from the Roman Catholic Church of today in that he does not believe the bread becomes human flesh, nor the blood human blood, but that it is symbolic of human flesh and human blood, of the Church and people of the Church, and the Word and Faith. He also believes the symbol is real (as in, there are metaphysical truths behind the acts which are not perceptible, but nonetheless happen, and Christ is really coming in contact with the people who eat the bread in a very real, non symbolic way) which goes beyond the purely symbolic faith taught (though as stated above, not strictly believed as such) in many of the Baptist and congregational circles I’ve been in.
But in taking a “more like” vs. “less like” comparison: Augustine and my Baptist brothers both believe that the bread stays bread, which the Roman Catholic Church is strictly against, Augustine and my Baptist brothers believe that the bread does not take on a human quality, which the Roman Catholic Church is strictly against, Augustine and my Baptist Brothers and the Roman Catholic Church all agree that it is symbolic of the crucifixion, and Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church agree that Christ really touches the believer who eats the bread in a real way, which my Baptist brothers are strictly against. So, all agree on one point, Augustine and the Baptists are together on two against the Roman Catholic Church, and Augustine and Roman Catholic Church are together against the Baptists on one, making the “more like” the Baptist position.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Although Augustine’s view of the Eucharist is not 100% in line with the modern Churches understanding of the Eucharist. He would not be condemned because he existed before the formal declaration of the doctrine. Therefore, he is not accountable for the Churches ruling, this did not come until after his death.
He, on the other hand, did hold that the Church should be obeyed when it has made a difinitive pronouncement regarding a doctrinal matter. For he says, “It is clear, faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves, it is true.” (s. 117.6) Augustine would have accepted the ruling of the Church in obedience.
On this he is quite different from you Baptist friends.
Peace
S
SirShaun
Guest
As would I, were it the only issue, or were it embrased by the whole Church. If I’ve said it before on this forum, then I don’t mean to repeat myself, but I have a hard time denying anything on which the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are agreed. Even quite a few issues I would not agree with left to my own devices, my own interpretation of history and Scripture, my own observance of the world at large, I accept, simply because the weight of those leading the Church agree on the issue.
I also hesitate to put would be words into the mouth of someone at that point in history: he believed in the Church because it was undivided, would he then even have joined a Christian Church were he alive in a day when the Church were divided? And if so, which one? His claims for the Primacy of the Roman See may have been mute in a world where he saw errors comming from such a place, and he may have joined with the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutheren, or the Anglican churches, for all we know. Maybe he would have been a King James Only advocate. We can never know what someone would say, were things as different as they are. Much of what he said and believed squares much more into their statements. Maybe Infallibility would have been the straw that broke that cammel’s back? Or even something I don’t disagree with: purgatory? Or maybe it would be a fact of history rather than doctrine that would have discouraged him, for example, perhaps he would hold that the Roman See, though still the first see, did not have the authority to excommunicate the entire Eastern Church? Or perhaps he would disagree with the grounds on which they were excommunicated? But then we’re way off into guessing games, and we can’t exactly ask Augustine what he would have thought in our world, our time, our place.
(Consider the following statements from On the Catechising of the Uninstructed, Chapter 7 “At this point, moreover, we ought to equip and animate the weakness of man in withstanding temptations and offenses, whether these emerge without or rise within the church itself” and Chapter 25 “What ought above all things to be guarded against is, that no individual may suffer himself to be tempted and deceived by men who are within the Catholic Church itself, and who are borne by it like the chaff that is sustained against the time of its winnowing.” What would these statements have ment in a world where the Church was divided? How would he have expanded on them in our world? We can never know.)
My problem is not in submitting on a single issue, where the whole Church has universally taught a single thing at all times. For these, I submit without hesitation. When the Eastern Orthodox or Protestants came up with something that was undefined before the breaking of the Church which the Roman See doesn’t see today, I often put them to the same tests. (They fail as miserably, often more so, though I’ll admit I put a little more fire under them.) Believer’s Baptism, Sola Scriptura, and the speaking in tongues as practiced in some Charasmatic Churches have kept me from putting my membership in there, simply because the Church isn’t currently united on those issues, but when it was, it was against the interpretation we see today. I don’t intend pick on Roman Catholics by any means.
E
Exporter
Guest
Michael P, stated,
“That is the good thing about not being Catholic. I don’t have to start with assumptions and read back into history and Scripture. I don’t have to identify with any traditions. I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others.”
Read the last three lines." I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others"
Therefore indicates reasoning, there was no reasoning in that sentance. He says since he can “identify”(whatever that is) with an unseen noumena then his group of friends cause him not to be biased. As Casey Stengle would say," Can I sell this guy a bridge in Brookelynn"?
He says, let me and my friends stand on the beach, in the invisable wind. That will make us unbiased…Whooooeeee!
“That is the good thing about not being Catholic. I don’t have to start with assumptions and read back into history and Scripture. I don’t have to identify with any traditions. I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others.”
Read the last three lines." I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others"
Therefore indicates reasoning, there was no reasoning in that sentance. He says since he can “identify”(whatever that is) with an unseen noumena then his group of friends cause him not to be biased. As Casey Stengle would say," Can I sell this guy a bridge in Brookelynn"?
He says, let me and my friends stand on the beach, in the invisable wind. That will make us unbiased…Whooooeeee!
D
dennisknapp
Guest
How exactly do you see the historic Church (Eastern and Western) disagreeing on this issue? While the Eastern Church does not use the word transubstantation it still believes the same thing regarding the Eurcharist. If they did not they would not be able to receive the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church.
And a lack of unity does not make void proper Authority. For Authority has its foundation in God not men. Men can disagree and go their seperate ways but their disobedience does not nullify the Authority they have rejected.
Peace
M
meganfae
Guest
You know, if you are so worried about us Protestants (by the way, I’m currently becoming Catholic), why don’t you reach out instead of bully? Yes, I’m young and naive to the ways of the mean world you adults live in and the place you get your cynicism from, but Protestants are here on this forum. Why? INTEREST! CURIOUSITY! All I see are cruel and harsh cynics; doesnt look like the work of the Lord to me. Luckily for me I have the support of gentle and kind friends to aid me in my process of becoming Catholic, so I’m not completely turned off by your kind of talk.
Kindly pray before you post.
May God bless you all.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
I hope you are not refering to all on this board. There are some that show less than desirable tact, but not all are this way.
Peace
And welcome Home!
J
joehar
Guest
When Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper we do it in remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made for us. The bread represents the body of Christ, and the wine represents the blood sacrificed to cover our sins. This verse and the verses in John do not teach that the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus, and the wine is the literal blood of Christ.
The key to understanding scripture is to read it in context. We know from context when to interpret scripture literally, and when the context demands a figurative or symbolic interpretation. The Bible is replete with verses that use metaphors, symbols, and descriptive images to make a point or explain a teaching. Some examples of metaphors that would not be taken literally are listed below.
Psalm 34:8 “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.”
John 4:14 “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
This verse does not mean that believers will literally have a fountain of water springing up inside them. It is a metaphorical way of telling us that those who accept the salvation Christ offers will have eternal life.
John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
The Jews thought that Jesus was referring to the Jewish temple, but as you read further it becomes obvious he was referring to His body.
Jesus makes several I Am statements in the book of John alone that are good examples of the symbolic nature of some scripture.
- I am the bread of life (John 6:35)
- I am the light of the world (John 8:12)
- I am the door (John 10:9)
- I am the good shepherd (John 10:11)
- I am the resurrection and the life (John 11:25)
- I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)
- I am the vine.
J
joehar
Guest
You dont need to be baptized to be saved
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
And most of all Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Being batized is an affirmation -thats all
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
And most of all Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Being batized is an affirmation -thats all
D
dennisknapp
Guest
I would agree with you except for the fact that NO ONE before the 16th century held this view. And if you read my original post I am looking for historical evidence for Protestant belief prior to the 16th century that does not agree with the historical Church, ie. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
Just quoting Scripture at me is not going to sway me because Sola Scriptura is an innovation of the 16th century and therefore a “tradition of men” and should be avoided as our Lord said.
So, if you want to show me evidence and not just your interpretation of Scripture then I welcome it.
Peace
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Please refer to post #229
Peace
S
SirShaun
Guest
On this point, I must politely say that you are just plain wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Churches teach the real presence, this is true, but I don’t deny real presence, and despite the quotes I’ve given you which are so far to the extreem against it, don’t think it was ever completely denied by the teaching authority of the entire church. I think my quotes come from extreemists, but I also note that God uses extreemists (at both ends, usually) when full doctrine is not yet defined. Consider the doctrine of the Trinity: before being properly understood, you had some on the one extreem claiming to believe in two or three separate gods, others believing in what we now identify as modalizm, but very few found the straight and narrow path to Trinitarian thought, especially as it is understood today. That doesn’t make the Trinity wrong: in my opinion, it’s all the greater arguement for it, that the Church was only ever united under that teaching.
But regarding the Eucharist, the Eastern Orthodox do deny that the Bread and Wine stop being bread and wine. If you have evedence to the contrary, please tell me, but everything I have ever read on them has stated that they believe it is still bread and wine. Beyond that, I apperently don’t speak enough Greek or Russian to get what they’re trying to say, because everything I read that comes from them on the subject in English sounds very confused and muddled, like a bad translation.
Now, I do have a request for help, and almost a reverse challenge: I think I mentioned that my protests were at one point part of a challenge, and the challenge had to be ammended after I was married. Part of that ammendment is that I’d have to be able to convince my wife as well: we either come as a family, or don’t come as a family… I’m not attending Church without my Wife, and not forcing her to change because my own fallible mind changed.
My wife’s biggest objection (along with me) is Infallibility of the Pope. Her only other hard objection is prayers to saints, which isn’t a problem for me. But I decided to apply your challenge to her objection as well (mostly I like being right, and figured this would be an easy one) and found the following:
In defence of prayer to God alone:
Augustine’s Confessions Book V, Chapter 9: “I cannot conceive, therefore, how she could have been healed if such a death of mine had transfixed the bowels of her love. Where then would have been her so earnest, frequent, and unintermitted prayers to Thee alone.”
Augustine City of God Book XXII, Chapter 8: “the lady we speak of had been advised to by a skillful physician, who was intimate with her family; and she betook herself to God alone by prayer.”
Conferences of John Cassian IX, Chapter XXXV: “We pray in secret when from the heart and fervent mind we disclose our petitions to God alone”
Origin Against Celsus Book VIII, Chapter XXXVII: “In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus”
In defence of her statement that prayer is worship:
Augustine City of God Book II, Chapter 26: “we saw this virgin worshipped with prayer”
I obviously haven’t showed these to my wife yet… but… she knows how much respect I have for the Fathers, and reads as much as I do… she’s bound to run across them eventually… I’m sure you all have had to worry about this more often than I, any good quotes to counter these? I found a few references in City of God referencing praying to God in the name of Saints, but that’s not the same.
Megan, as a Protestant who has been a pretty stickery thorn in Dennis’s side, I have to say he’s been uncommonly patient. I have tried his patience a few times, but he’s never actually lost his temper, and been pretty quick to stomp on those who try to drag us off topic or be cruel.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
We all pray to God alone, but we also seek the prayer of others, do we not? If you or your family are going through a rough time I hope you would ask me to pray for you. In the same way, the Saints in heaven who are in God presence and full of His love pray for us. We are all one Body in Christ no matter our matter or physical location.
Here are some references regarding the intercession of the Saints.
Hermas
“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (*The Shepherd *3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).
Clement of Alexandria
“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (*Miscellanies *7:12 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (*Prayer *11 [A.D. 233]).
Methodius
“Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness” (*Oration on Simeon and Anna *14 [A.D. 305]).
Augustine
“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (*Sermons *159:1 [A.D. 411]).
“At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps” (*Homilies on John *84 [A.D. 416]).
“Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ” (*The City of God *20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).
Peace
Also, what exactly is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist? We say the bread and wine still appear to be bread and wine. It is the essence that changes into the body and blood of the risen Christ.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Also, Deacon Ed had a great comment on this subject on another thread,
“Again, the term is not used because it depends on a philosophy that is foreign to the East (both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic). However, the underlying belief, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus is common to both. The problem is that the term “transubstantiation” is a description of what happens – and neither the Orthodox nor the Eastern Catholics attempt to do that. We simply accept the basics. At the same time, we do not hold to consubstantiation because the Church Fathers made it clear that it was no longer bread and wine but really the Body and Blood of Jesus.”
C
cyprian
Guest
I’m kind of jumping in here. I go to Church (Mass) with my kids and my non-Cath wife does not. Is it better for me to stay home?
What if my wife decides after our good example to start coming?
Would she have had the chance otherwise?
The Pope is infallible in teaching matters of doctrine and morals. As for praying to saints, why not try and believe it, honestly we can go round forever. What do you have to lose? All prayer is answered by God. Why did he bother to create the Angels or us for that reason? All is an expression of God’s love for us and he allows for us to love each other whether here or in heaven. If you don’t understand how God created the heavens and earth, how will you understand Eucharist or transub.,? You can’t, it’s that simple. Believing and understanding are very different, but Divine Mystery is only that which we take on faith, and our whole faith is bound up in this Mystery. There are plenty of mysteries that you believe in, but not others, for what reason I do not know. It’s time for some to wean off the milk and start taking solid food. Your
body may not take to it kindly at first, but the Holy Spirit will guide you. PEOPLE, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE, OTHER THAN YOUR PRIDE.??
All praise be to God who is all in all, and I am nothing.
Peace and Love and keep up the patient good works Dennis!!
S
SirShaun
Guest
My understanding has always been that the Eastern Church doesn’t formally define what happens, so within their number you will find people who have beliefs ranging from full transubstantiation to full consubstantiation, but that they have formally defined that Christ is really present, so you don’t find anyone who formally teaches that it is purely a symbol. Most, as I understand it, take it as being both really the Body and Blood of Christ and really Bread, not so much in the same sence as consubstantiation (where it has qualities of both, but not all of the qualities of either) but in a way that, as I said before, has always come across to me as something muddled, or as a result of a bad translation of something else. (Like it has all of the qualities of both or something.) If you know of a formal definition of what the Eastern Church teaches as to if it stays bread or not, let me know, I’d be interested to read it. But I’ve read a few websites, books, and articles on or from Eastern Orthodox which have all seemed to go to great lengths and much verbal acrobatics to avoid making such claims.
L
Lorarose
Guest
I understand the intent of the thread Dennis!!
It’s like this.
Jesus declared He would leave behind a church.
We see the beginnings of that church in the Book of Acts.
What happened after that? I mean…does history tell us about those earliest christians? And the next generation? And the next?
And do these early generations share common beliefs?liturgy?practices?authoritative structures?
If protestants are correct in asserting that their beliefs are “bible based” or that they are reformed to become “new testament” churches - then their beliefs and practices ought to be reflected in the history left behind by those first generations of christians who PRODUCED the bible! and actually LIVED in New Testament times!
If I could be shown that these earliest generations of christians who were given the gospel from the Apostles were actually practicing what we now know as “protestant” beliefs (symbolic communion, no papal authority…etc) then I’ll reconsider my catholic position!
It’s like this.
Jesus declared He would leave behind a church.
We see the beginnings of that church in the Book of Acts.
What happened after that? I mean…does history tell us about those earliest christians? And the next generation? And the next?
And do these early generations share common beliefs?liturgy?practices?authoritative structures?
If protestants are correct in asserting that their beliefs are “bible based” or that they are reformed to become “new testament” churches - then their beliefs and practices ought to be reflected in the history left behind by those first generations of christians who PRODUCED the bible! and actually LIVED in New Testament times!
If I could be shown that these earliest generations of christians who were given the gospel from the Apostles were actually practicing what we now know as “protestant” beliefs (symbolic communion, no papal authority…etc) then I’ll reconsider my catholic position!
E
Exporter
Guest
I skipped around reading down to post# 200 and I want to tell you people thaat this is the most useless thread I have read in 4 months. What was it that attracted such a group of ding-a-lings to this thread?
D
dennisknapp
Guest
It was a good thread until it got diverted, but your words are harsh. Why would you say something like this? It not charitable or relevant.
Peace
- Status