Can a person get to heaven without "swimming the Tiber"?

[Grace_Seeker]

There must be a competent authority to interpret scripture to prevent the doctrinal “anarchy” that protestants experience.

I disagree.

One could avoid anarchy simply by having any single agreed upon authority, whether that authority was competent or not is not a necessary requirement for preventing anarchy. Likewise, one could have several competent authorities who, with a passage that requires no single way of being understood, provide competent but differing interpretations. And anarchy could result if others were to latch on to those ideas and compete to promote one as superior to all others, even if those competent authorities had no intention of their interpretations being used that way.

So, as you can see, neither the presence nor the absence of a “competent authority” is conclusive in either the existence nor the prevention of “anarchy” in the faith.

 

[Dauphin]

I disagree.

One could avoid anarchy simply by having any single agreed upon authority, whether that authority was competent or not is not a necessary requirement for preventing anarchy. Likewise, one could have several competent authorities who, with a passage that requires no single way of being understood, provide competent but differing interpretations. And anarchy could result if others were to latch on to those ideas and compete to promote one as superior to all others, even if those competent authorities had no intention of their interpretations being used that way.

So, as you can see, neither the presence nor the absence of a “competent authority” is conclusive in either the existence nor the prevention of “anarchy” in the faith.

This is a ridiculuous point, if I might say so.

The Church isn’t some political organization that we we have license to design. Christ founded one Church with Peter at its head, and we have no authority to alter that decision. Your formula smacks of a democratic Church where truth is something relative determined by people instead of something absolute communicated through divine revelation. It’s a formula for anarchy.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This is a ridiculuous point, if I might say so.

The Church isn’t some political organization that we we have license to design. Christ founded one Church with Peter at its head, and we have no authority to alter that decision. Your formula smacks of a democratic Church where truth is something relative determined by people instead of something absolute communicated through divine revelation. It’s a formula for anarchy.

You may, of course give your opinion. However, the point is only ridiculous in your mind. And that you see it this was is because you refuse to see that the Catholic church is led by fallible human beings just as much as any other organization is. The Holy Spirit will preserve His Church, but that does not mean that mean within it will not err, even in those teachings that the Catholic Church has taught you are infallible, in that statement itself it errs.

But beyond that, you accuse protestants of anarchy while failing to notice its presence in the Catholic Church be conveniently labelling all Catholic anarchists as not being truly Catholic but protestant. This is like saying, “Everything I say is right and eveyrthing you say is wrong. And that right because I said it, and you can’t say any different because if you did you would be wrong.” Eventually you become what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 13:1, a resounding gong and a clanging cymbal. The Catholic Church deserves better apologists than you offer on her behalf.

 

[Dauphin]

No, the point is only ridiculous in your mind, because you refuse to see that the Catholic church is led by fallible human beings just as much as any other organization is.

In a similar sense to how the Bible was written by fallible human beings? The difference is that the Holy Spirit preserves them from error at times, just as He preserved the Biblical authors.

Clearly, the members of the magisterium are not impeccable - not sinless. The Pope, though, occupies a sacred office which prevents him from formally teaching error. The Bishops, when acting together, are also guided in their judgments. Without this structure, it is impossible to know the truth with certainty. If these things aren’t true, the Bible is the only rule of faith and personal interpretation is the only filter of truth. We know the kind of division that leads to; such disunity cannot be according to the Divine will.

But beyond that, you accuse protestants of anarchy while failing to notice its presence in the Catholic Church be conveniently labelling all Catholic anarchists as not being truly Catholic but protestant. This is like saying, “Everything I say is right and eveyrthing you say is wrong. And that right because I said it, and you can’t say any different because if you did you would be wrong.” Eventually you become what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 13:1, a resounding gong and a clanging cymbal. The Catholic Church deserves better apologists than you offer on her behalf.

The ingredient you miss is the office of Peter and its central place in the unity of the Church. If the office of St. Peter doesn’t exist as a visible sign of the unity of the Church, your argument that I’m preaching a tautology is correct. Gladly, we have a way of knowing who holds the genuine apostolic catholic faith; we look at who is in communion with and submission to the Holy See. Christ himself established the office of the Papacy to give us this clear visible sign so that we may be certain in our faith.

I assure you, there are better apologists that me… I’m not really an apologist at all, in fact… just a lay Catholic who likes to argue.

 

[Harpazo]

From our Book of Discipline, which is the only official voice for United Methodist beliefs, the section on “Doctrinal Standards”:

We who are United Methodists do believe very much in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But that does not mean that we believe that the bread and wine (we usually use juice) must somehow be transformed for Christ to be Really Present. We do not think that his Real Presence is limited to the elements of Bread and Wine alone, but that he is Really Present in the assembly itself, the body of Christ that is present in the corpus of individual believers and the reality of the Holy Spirit’s presence so that where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there is he in the midst of them.

Writing in This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, a book commissioned by our 2000 General Conference, Gayle Carlton Felton comments on the United Methodist understanding: (The parenthetical comments in the above quote are not my addition, but a part of the text.)

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, in my opinion. You first said that Christ was being figurative in St. John 6, and now you’re saying that you believe in the Real Presence. I’m confused.

Upon reading that second entry, I see that Methodists differ much in what Catholics and Orthodox believe on the Eucharist, separating themselves from the deposit of Faith, given to us by the Apostles and Holy Fathers of the Church. We have maintained that Christ is physically present. In St. John 6, Christ says “this is my body, this is my blood” why does the United Methodist community say that Christ isn’t physically present if He says so himself?

I don’t understand why Protestants beat down Transubstantiation, as was done in that first document you presented. It’s a word to say that the bread and wine aren’t bread and wine anymore, but the Body and Blood of Christ. We simply use a word to describe that whole phrase. Nothing more, nothing less.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Dauphin]

We have maintained that Christ is physically present. In St. John 6, Christ says “this is my body, this is my blood” why does the United Methodist community say that Christ isn’t physically present if He says so himself?

Just to clarify, Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist in the strictest sense. He is sacramentally, really, and substantially present. This presence is a Sacred Mystery.

I’m sure you knew this, but I wanted to make sure your choice of words didn’t confuse anyone. To say that Christ is physically present implies cannibalism (which I’m sure you didn’t mean).

 

[Harpazo]

Just to clarify, Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist in the strictest sense. He is sacramentally, really, and substantially present. This presence is a Sacred Mystery.

I’m sure you knew this, but I wanted to make sure your choice of words didn’t confuse anyone. To say that Christ is physically present implies cannibalism (which I’m sure you didn’t mean).

The Catholic Church teaches, as she always taught that the Eucharist is Christ under the veils of Bread and Wine.

Many opponents to the Catholic Church in the beginning accused the Church of cannibalism. In fact, many were martyred for it.

Why do you think those that walked away from Christ in St. John 6:66 did so? They knew he was talking about eating His literal flesh and blood. Of course this is a Mystery, hence it being called one of the 7 Mysteries (Sacramentum in Latin).

I won’t lie, it is a hard concept to grasp and it’s one I wrestled with before entering the Holy Catholic Church.

Check this link for more clarification

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Dauphin]

The Catholic Church teaches, as she always taught that the Eucharist is Christ under the veils of Bread and Wine.

Many opponents to the Catholic Church in the beginning accused the Church of cannibalism. In fact, many were martyred for it.

Why do you think those that walked away from Christ in St. John 6:66 did so? They knew he was talking about eating His literal flesh and blood. Of course this is a Mystery, hence it being called one of the 7 Mysteries (Sacramentum in Latin).

I won’t lie, it is a hard concept to grasp and it’s one I wrestled with before entering the Holy Catholic Church.

Check this link for more clarification

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

It is a literal presence of Christ but not a physical one.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It is a literal presence of Christ but not a physical one.

Now, that I can acede to. What Harpzo is trying to say I must infer from John 6 I cannot.

But it now appears that according to a previous post that one of the two of you must be a protestant, because we have a difference of opinions and such things cannot happen when there is but one truth as taught by the Catholic Church. (Or so I was told that when I suggested it that I was being ridiculous.)

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, in my opinion. You first said that Christ was being figurative in St. John 6, and now you’re saying that you believe in the Real Presence. I’m confused.

I can understand why it might seem that way to you, but I assure you I am not. What I am doing is thinking outside of the box you are accustomed to thinking in. Quite simply I do not equate the Real Presence with a requirement for a physical presence. Hence, there is no need for a transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into anything different than bread and wine. Real Presence can be achieved because Christ is always present, really present by being spiritually present, sacramentally present, but not necessarily physically present when we receive the Lord’s Supper. Just as he is really present, spiritually present and yes even sacramentally present when we participate in baptism. And yet no substances are physically changed in that event.

I like this saying: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is the one true Church, apostolic and universal.” Christ is really present because the Church is present. And yet, Christ is not physically present except by how he is spiritually present in the believers who make up the Church. So, he is present, and there is indeed a spiritual transformation of those who are believers, but there is no physical change that transform the substance of their bodies into the body of Christ.

 

[reteeks21]

I know with absolute certainty that I am right. Even if the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist couldn’t be demonstrated conclusively from scripture (which I believe it can), it would still be true. It forms part of the Sacred Oral Tradition inherited from the apostles. If you can produce a single document written by a Christian previous to the tenth century, that explicitly denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I’ll convert to your faith.

I can say that because I know there is no such document. The purely “symbolic Eucharist” is a modern invention of protestants. It is completely alien to the Church of Christ.

Christ did indeed speak in allegory, but we can be certain that he is not speaking allegorically here because of the reaction of His followers, and his subsequent statements. We can also be certain of it by examining John 6 in the light of Sacred Oral Tradition and Magisterial teaching.

That comment wasn’t meant to offend. I simply meant that protestantism has no firm rule of faith, since the Bible is so obviously open to erroneous interpretation. There must be a competent authority to interpret scripture to prevent the doctrinal “anarchy” that protestants experience.

It is pretty obvious that you have a nice disdain for Protestants. Did you, though, ever consider the fact that your precious Church may have ever created an “erroneous interpretation”. By the way, we Lutherans do believe in the presence in the Eucharist. I just wanted to see of you have a discussion in a civil manner without being slightly rude. Thanks for provig my point.

Also, I am well aware of what the Church Fathers said, and I am in agreement with them on many of the issues. Why do you assume that Protestants don’t have a knowledge of them? That’s an assumption that maybe you should reconsider. And why do you suggest that Protestants can’t have a “competent authority” to translate the Bible? Again, thanks for the confidence.

 

[Harpazo]

Now, that I can acede to. What Harpzo is trying to say I must infer from John 6 I cannot.

But it now appears that according to a previous post that one of the two of you must be a protestant, because we have a difference of opinions and such things cannot happen when there is but one truth as taught by the Catholic Church. (Or so I was told that when I suggested it that I was being ridiculous.)

I can understand why it might seem that way to you, but I assure you I am not. What I am doing is thinking outside of the box you are accustomed to thinking in. Quite simply I do not equate the Real Presence with a requirement for a physical presence. Hence, there is no need for a transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into anything different than bread and wine. Real Presence can be achieved because Christ is always present, really present by being spiritually present, sacramentally present, but not necessarily physically present when we receive the Lord’s Supper. Just as he is really present, spiritually present and yes even sacramentally present when we participate in baptism. And yet no substances are physically changed in that event.

I like this saying: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is the one true Church, apostolic and universal.” Christ is really present because the Church is present. And yet, Christ is not physically present except by how he is spiritually present in the believers who make up the Church. So, he is present, and there is indeed a spiritual transformation of those who are believers, but there is no physical change that transform the substance of their bodies into the body of Christ.

So it really depends on what your definition of “is” is? St. John 6 Christ, Our Lord, says that it is His body. The Apostolic Fathers have given credence to this belief. Are you implying that what the UM community teaches on this subject matter is superior to that of the Apostles, and their successors? Honest question.

Christ, Our Lord, said it. Who are we to try to bend His words?

But let me get this straight, in Methodist communion, Christ is some how there, but it does not become His body and Blood? Is this what you all believe and teach? Again, it’s an honest question. No attempt to malign at all.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So it really depends on what your definition of “is” is? St. John 6 Christ, Our Lord, says that it is His body. The Apostolic Fathers have given credence to this belief. Are you implying that what the UM community teaches on this subject matter is superior to that of the Apostles, and their successors? Honest question.

Christ, Our Lord, said it. Who are we to try to bend His words?

But let me get this straight, in Methodist communion, Christ is some how there, but it does not become His body and Blood? Is this what you all believe and teach? Again, it’s an honest question. No attempt to malign at all.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Harpazo, though we disagree strongly, I didn’t read into this or any of your questions an attempt to malign. And while I would expect my answer to be true of other Methodist groups, I should not be understood to be trying to represent any Methodists other than United Methodists. (Remember us protestants are said to have 30,000 or 50,000 denominations, maybe 120,000 by now, and among them are 4 or 5 other Methodist groups.)

Yes, we believe that Christ is present. We do not believe that anything special happens to the elements of the Eucharist. They remain unchanged. There is not a transubstance altering of their physical or molecular nature nor are they spiritually imbued with something outside of themselves. They remain just plain old bread and wine.

However, I disagree with your conclusion that we are bending Christ’s words. Rather I think those who get out of his words an inference that there is a change that takes place in the bread and wine are the ones who are bending his words to something literal and past the figure that he was using, so that they are heard to say something different than Christ was actually saying. I know that the Catholic Church has been teaching this for a long time – I don’t think it is for quite as long as you think, becuase I don’t think this was the actual teaching of the apostles – to me, that history of sucha long time of providing a false teaching is proof of the fallibility of the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church.

I don’t say the above to be argumentative, but simply to answer your question honestly and sincerely. Of course, one of us is honestly and sincerely wrong. (Maybe, if our Lutheran friends got it right, both of us.) It isn’t something we are going to resolve in a thread like this. My hope is that we can discuss these things in a way that helps others to see where those differences in views come from and at least develop some respect for the other that they didn’t arrive at them in a vaccuum. It is that element of respect that seems to so often be sorely lacking in CAF, but happily that does not seem to be the case with you. And I appreciate that.

 

[Dauphin]

Now, that I can acede to. What Harpzo is trying to say I must infer from John 6 I cannot.

But it now appears that according to a previous post that one of the two of you must be a protestant, because we have a difference of opinions and such things cannot happen when there is but one truth as taught by the Catholic Church. (Or so I was told that when I suggested it that I was being ridiculous.)

I think that Harpazo and I are trying to express the same things, and would certainly assent to the same definitions. I feel that Harpazo misspoke. Here is the definition of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist according to the Church:

*For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ. *

CANON I.- If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

(From the 13th session of the Council of Trent)

There is no mention of a physical presence, simply a true, real, and substantive one. Christ is fully present under the accidents of bread and wine in a substantive, sacramental way.

 

[Dauphin]

It is pretty obvious that you have a nice disdain for Protestants. Did you, though, ever consider the fact that your precious Church may have ever created an “erroneous interpretation”.

No. Christ promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church - a Church founded on Peter.

By the way, we Lutherans do believe in the presence in the Eucharist.

You do not understand it in the way in which it is understood by the Sacred Oral Tradition inherited by the apostles. Consubstantiation is another invention of modern protestants who place their own authority above that of the Church.

Also, I am well aware of what the Church Fathers said, and I am in agreement with them on many of the issues. Why do you assume that Protestants don’t have a knowledge of them?

I think many protestants are aware of the faith of the Church and the teaching of the Church fathers, but reject it or otherwise obfuscate in order to make it seem like the Church fathers embrace a protestant faith, which they most certainly do not.

And why do you suggest that Protestants can’t have a “competent authority” to translate the Bible? Again, thanks for the confidence.

Could you identify this authority for me? Is it your own personal authority? Is it your own peculiar interpretation which you presume to have gained from the Holy Spirit?

 

[Dauphin]

Now, that I can acede to.

Then you’re on your way to becoming Catholic. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a true, full, sacramental presence - not some form of cannibalism.

I acknowledge that this is hard to express in words, but it becomes easier when we examine it with the eyes of faith.

 

[Harpazo]

I think that Harpazo and I are trying to express the same things, and would certainly assent to the same definitions. I feel that Harpazo misspoke. Here is the definition of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist according to the Church:

*For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ. *

CANON I.- If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

(From the 13th session of the Council of Trent)

There is no mention of a physical presence, simple a substantive one. Christ is fully present under the accidents of bread and wine in a substantive, sacramental way.

I’m not understanding completely what you’re saying. The Church has always maintained that when the priest or bishop consecrates the bread and wine, they cease being bread and wine and become the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? If it’s not Christ’s Body and Blood in the Monstrance at Adoration, then what are you adoring and worshipping?

St. Augustine of Hippo said:

“Christ held himself in His hands when He gave His body to His disciples”

St. Ignatius the God-bearer said:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

There are many, many more Saints that have written about this subject. They say, along with the Church that it is Christ’s physical Body and Blood. End of Discussion. If what you are saying and what you believe is in complete conformity with what the Fathers have passed down to us through their writings, Councils, etc. then we are in agreement.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

**More from the Holy Fathers on the Eucharist.
Catholic.com
Scripture Catholic

 

[Dauphin]

I’m not understanding completely what you’re saying. The Church has always maintained that when the priest or bishop consecrates the bread and wine, they cease being bread and wine and become the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? If it’s not Christ’s Body and Blood in the Monstrance at Adoration, then what are you adoring and worshipping?

The true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. Everything that IS Christ is present in the Eucharist - His entire substance. That is worthy of worship and adoration.

When we consume the Eucharist, we are not eating a piece of dead flesh, but are instead eating the true, glorified, sacramental Body of the Lord. The presence is well beyond our comprehension and outside of what words can perfectly express, but it is real nonetheless.

There are many, many more Saints that have written about this subject. They say, along with the Church that it is Christ’s physical Body and Blood. End of Discussion. If what you are saying and what you believe is in complete conformity with what the Fathers have passed down to us through their writings, Councils, etc. then we are in agreement.

It is in complete conformity. You will never find a council of the Church that uses the word “physical” to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is not a piece of dead flesh.

If a church father referred to the Eucharist as the physical body of Christ, he was using theological language that was later abandoned by the Church, but was expressing the same essential truth. That being said, none of the quotes you provide use that language. No Church father has ever argued that the Eucharist is a piece of dead flesh, to my knowledge. The presence of Christ is much more profound than that.

Expressed properly in thomistic terms, Christ is not physically, but instead is sacramentally present.

 

[Dauphin]

To clarify further, I am saying that the Eucharist does not take on the physical properties of a piece of flesh. Instead, the physical properties of the bread and wine remain, despite a change in their whole substance. This is what the Church expresses in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

 

[Harpazo]

Harpazo, though we disagree strongly, I didn’t read into this or any of your questions an attempt to malign. And while I would expect my answer to be true of other Methodist groups, I should not be understood to be trying to represent any Methodists other than United Methodists. (Remember us protestants are said to have 30,000 or 50,000 denominations, maybe 120,000 by now, and among them are 4 or 5 other Methodist groups.)

I thought there were at least 100 Methodist groups, but believing the along the same lines. Isn’t there a World Methodist Council of some sort?

Yes, we believe that Christ is present. We do not believe that anything special happens to the elements of the Eucharist. They remain unchanged. There is not a transubstance altering of their physical or molecular nature nor are they spiritually imbued with something outside of themselves. They remain just plain old bread and wine.

So they continue to be bread and wine, but Christ is amongst it? Is that what you’re saying? So you don’t believe you’re consuming Christ’s body and blood, just bread an wine where He’s there? Just making sure I’m reading what you’re saying properly.

However, I disagree with your conclusion that we are bending Christ’s words. Rather I think those who get out of his words an inference that there is a change that takes place in the bread and wine are the ones who are bending his words to something literal and past the figure that he was using, so that they are heard to say something different than Christ was actually saying. I know that the Catholic Church has been teaching this for a long time – I don’t think it is for quite as long as you think, becuase I don’t think this was the actual teaching of the apostles – to me, that history of sucha long time of providing a false teaching is proof of the fallibility of the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church.

The Church has been teaching this for nearly 2,000 years. The Syro-Malabar Church, I believe, who was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle on His way to India is a perfect example of this. Something happened to where they got disconnected with the Catholic Church. I think it was Muslim conquest, or something along those lines. Anyways, in the 1600s or so, St. Francis Xavier of Portugal sailed there to evangelize and found the Syro-Malabar Catholics there with the same exact Faith as the Catholic Church, just different culture, liturgy, etc. Something about that Apostolic Church, eh?

I don’t say the above to be argumentative, but simply to answer your question honestly and sincerely. Of course, one of us is honestly and sincerely wrong. (Maybe, if our Lutheran friends got it right, both of us.) It isn’t something we are going to resolve in a thread like this. My hope is that we can discuss these things in a way that helps others to see where those differences in views come from and at least develop some respect for the other that they didn’t arrive at them in a vaccuum. It is that element of respect that seems to so often be sorely lacking in CAF, but happily that does not seem to be the case with you. And I appreciate that.

I agree. I didn’t take it was you being argumentative and also appreciate the charity on your part, as well.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I thought there were at least 100 Methodist groups, but believing the along the same lines. Isn’t there a World Methodist Council of some sort?

Sort of off of the subject here. But there were exactly 5 Methodist bodies that joined together to celebrate the 200th Anniversary of Methodism in the United States: the United Methodist Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. In addition, though they don’t have the word “Methodist” in their name, the Weselyan Church is a direct descendant of the original Methodist Episcopal Church in the USA.

When you look at the World Methodist Council, what you see are churches that are connected by tradition and beliefs, and often dependent on one another as well, but each is autonomous. For instance, let me speak of the Methodist Church of Chile, which I know fairly well. It is a member of the World Methodist Council. It has its origins in missionaries from the USA who went to Chile to establish schools. As they did that, Methodist communities grew up alongside those schools and with them Methodist churches were planted. However, these churches were indigenous churches, not the result of mission work (or at least not direct missionary activity). So, rather than be tied in to the parent denomination, they were established as autonomous churches in their own right. We cooperate with them in still sending missionaries as they request, but they make their own rules for how to run their church quite indepedent of the United Methodist Church which gave them birth. Indeed, one of the projects in Chile that I have quite close to gets as much support from Methodists in Germany and the Great Britian, as it does from the USA. And both of those groups are independent as well. Yet we are all as related as different Catholic archdioceses, less having a central bishop (the Pope) over the bishops of the respective diocese. So, you may count them as seperate denominations and be absolutely correct. Yet, I, who am a United Methodist, would not see the Methodist Church of Chile nor British Methodist Church as being of a different denomination than me, but simply other brother Methodists.

So they continue to be bread and wine, but Christ is amongst it? Is that what you’re saying? So you don’t believe you’re consuming Christ’s body and blood, just bread an wine where He’s there? Just making sure I’m reading what you’re saying properly.

He there for three reasons:
First, he is always present – Psalm 139 tells us that there is no where we can go where Christ is not present.
Second, he is present where two or three are gathered together in his name. And certainly when we gather to receive Holy Communion we are gathering in his name.
Third, he is sacramentally present. But I do think you and I differ on our understanding of what that means. I am much closer to what Dauphin has said that what I have head you say. Christ is present in the act of not just remembering his sacrifice, but because in proclaiming his sacrifice on the cross we are actually, when we bring forth the elements and consecrate them we are re-presenting them as Christ offering of his life, body and blood, for us. Yet, we don’t hold that there is any actually change in the substance of the bread and wine themselves. The change that takes place is in the spiritual realm (which is just as real as the physical realm), not the physical.

A question for you: You read what Dauphin wrote is the official wording of the Catholic Church in this regard:

For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance…

Do you hold all of this [the entire post] to be literally and physically true? If not, what would you exclude as not meant to be taken literally?

Consubstantiation is another invention of modern protestants who place their own authority above that of the Church.

Oh, btw, Lutherans don’t believe in consubstantiation either. It is a mistaken idea that has been falsely attributed to the Lutheran understanding, but it is not something they actually teach. Lutherans just recognize that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ even as they remain bread and wine to our senses. They don’t actually try to explain how it is, they just assert that it is and accept it on simple faith. (That little bit of knowledge comes from the four years I spent working in the Lutheran Church.)