Catholics lack common sense.

[kristanl]

So I was just reading the Westminister Confession of Faith, to see how I can talk to my friend who is Presbyterian better…
WELL… I came across this:

CHAPTER 29
Of the Lord’s Supper

. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

1. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.
2. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshiping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
3. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
4. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of** gross idolatries.**

Hopefully the stuff bolded that I wanted to. I see how some people have trouble seeing a different standpoint- because this practically says Catholics lack common sense, we are idolatrious, and are not doing what the Lord commanded of us. Yet at the beginning they say it is his Body and Blood… hmmm.

 

[kristanl]

opc.org/wcf.html

Heres the site of the WCF if anyone would like to read more. While I do find some doctrines of the Presbyterian church sound, I find that this is direct attack at the Church. And I just dont understand how it seems so twisted ,that he said its his Body and Blood- and how we lack common sense?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can you post the entire thing, because I think there is a part in that confession that is blatantly ignorant and false. I read it and objected to one premise, I think it is either 17 or 19 in that area.

I can’t believe you are so opposed to this one. Why? All christians believed this prior to the reformation. If you have a love for novelty, go for it.

 

[kristanl]

Can you post the entire thing, because I think there is a part in that confession that is blatantly ignorant and false. I read it and objected to one premise, I think it is either 17 or 19 in that area.

I can’t believe you are so opposed to this one. Why? All christians believed this prior to the reformation. If you have a love for novelty, go for it.

I posted the site in my second comment.

I am opposed to it because they deny the Real Presense- before the reformation everyone believed in the real presense. I am opposed to them saying we “lack common sense” because we think and know the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I posted the site in my second comment.

I am opposed to it because they deny the Real Presense- before the reformation everyone believed in the real presense. I am opposed to them saying we “lack common sense” because we think and know the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord.

Oh, I see. I thought you were arguing against the Real Presence. Sorry!

It seems like an uphill battle for those who want to deny it. There is not an ounce of evidence that christians held that belief from the start.

Sorry I got mixed up there.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Please remember the Westminster Confession of Faith was written at a crucial time in history similar to the Council of Trent condemning Protestantism. The Protestant Reformation were addressing some very real issues which aren’t necessarily resolved in the 21st Century.

From a Protesant perspective, it’s not easy to receive a Catholic view since the elements of the bread and wine do not physically change before our eyes.

 

[kristanl]

Please remember the Westminster Confession of Faith was written at a crucial time in history similar to the Council of Trent condemning Protestantism. The Protestant Reformation were addressing some very real issues which aren’t necessarily resolved in the 21st Century.

From a Protesant perspective, it’s not easy to receive a Catholic view since the elements of the bread and wine do not physically change before our eyes.

I know- but you dont see things like that in our Catechism! Like is this some sort of Catechism for Presbyterians? My friend told me what she believes is in there…

 

[kristanl]

Oh, I see. I thought you were arguing against the Real Presence. Sorry!

It seems like an uphill battle for those who want to deny it. There is not an ounce of evidence that christians held that belief from the start.

Sorry I got mixed up there.

I see you are agnostic- how do you feel about the Real Presense? Any spiritual conversions going on now that you’ve been on this site at all?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I know- but you dont see things like that in our Catechism! Like is this some sort of Catechism for Presbyterians? My friend told me what she believes is in there…

The Westminster Confession of Faith was published in 1646. The Catholic Catechism is what about 15 years old or so? Are you familiar with the Council of Trent and all the anathemas against Protestants?

 

[chaunceygardner]

So I was just reading the Westminister Confession of Faith, to see how I can talk to my friend who is Presbyterian better…
WELL… I came across this:

CHAPTER 29
Of the Lord’s Supper

“Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.”

---

Hopefully the stuff bolded that I wanted to. I see how some people have trouble seeing a different standpoint- because this practically says Catholics lack common sense, we are idolatrious, and are not doing what the Lord commanded of us. Yet at the beginning they say it is his Body and Blood… hmmm.

This does say “body and blood” but if you look at the rest of it, they are saying it was the “Body and Blood” of Jesus just that once, on the night of the Last Supper. After that it became just a “remembrance” for them, as is stated in the second part. It was a Sacrament that only occurred once in history, and does not re-occur over and over again as in the Catholic Eucharist.

It certainly is a totally different point of view; just this difference alone would make it extremely difficult for the Catholic Church and the main Protestant denominations to ever come together again.

 

[kristanl]

The Westminster Confession of Faith was published in 1646. The Catholic Catechism is what about 15 years old or so? Are you familiar with the Council of Trent and all the anathemas against Protestants?

Oh ok- I didnt know how new/old the WCF- thanks for filling me in! Well this one is a revised Catechism, and there was a Baltimore Catechism before this- but I’m not sure how old… And yes I know somewhat about it, never read enough of it though.

But like you were saying- you have to look at the times… So I mean of course on both ends there will be bashing in some sense, if thats the correct word to use.

Why hasnt the WCF been updated?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Oh ok- I didnt know how new/old the WCF- thanks for filling me in! Well this one is a revised Catechism, and there was a Baltimore Catechism before this- but I’m not sure how old… And yes I know somewhat about it, never read enough of it though.

But like you were saying- you have to look at the times… So I mean of course on both ends there will be bashing in some sense, if thats the correct word to use.

Why hasnt the WCF been updated?

It has been reprinted many times. I have the 1997 version.

 

[wanner47]

So Iraneus, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, et al lacked common sense?

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Eh, I don’t buy it.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think the Catholic view of the Eucharist is more about a position of faith rather than common sense. Does that make sense?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Can anyone tell me why Jesus did not feed Himself to the apostles at the last supper, but used bread and wine? I thought He always set the example. I think He was speaking in the spiritual sense just because He always set the example and the example was remember and celebrate what I am getting ready to bear on your behalf. 2 cents worth.

 

[wanner47]

Can anyone tell me why Jesus did not feed Himself to the apostles at the last supper, but used bread and wine? I thought He always set the example. I think He was speaking in the spiritual sense just because He always set the example and the example was remember and celebrate what I am getting ready to bear on your behalf. 2 cents worth.

How do you know that He didn’t?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can anyone tell me why Jesus did not feed Himself to the apostles at the last supper, but used bread and wine? I thought He always set the example. I think He was speaking in the spiritual sense just because He always set the example and the example was remember and celebrate what I am getting ready to bear on your behalf. 2 cents worth.

Okay, tell me what Jesus actually said at the last supper. Let’s look at what he actually said, line by line.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I see you are agnostic- how do you feel about the Real Presense? Any spiritual conversions going on now that you’ve been on this site at all?

I go to Mass often. Several times a week, and adoration once a week.

If I were to have belief, I would not be able to believe Jesus was being Symbolic in this matter. I would be able to accept it if I had belief, and my belief would be centered around it, because it would only be that and his mother that I would have to be as close to him as he allowed us to be if we believe in him.

Believing to me means one must

believe he was serious and not symbolic at the last supper

And, that Mary his mother, he shared with us.

However, I object to the pending 5th dogma, and that is a problem.

 

[glenconnor]

I refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 6:51-71 (from the Vatican Website)

51

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

59

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60

20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

61

Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

62

What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

63

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

64

But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

65

And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

66

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

67

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

68

Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

69

We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

70

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”

71

He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

I really don’t see any evidence in this whole section that indicates Christ was talking symbolically. He continues to assert that it is His Body and Blood even though it shocks His listeners, even though it is hard for them to accept. He doesn’t call back the ones that leave. I think His words and His meaning are perfectly clear.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, when you read it line by line, it is a stunning statement he makes there.

You can’t help but think of the manna in the old testament, bread from heaven.