Communion is just a symbol!

[SyroMalankara]

benh

not sure how we can say what luther, etc, experienced. i doubt they experienced the Real Presence. if they had, the only reason they would have rejected it is because they considered themselves unworthy of being in communion with the Real Presence and that would make their experience non-efficacious.

if a person is unworthy of communion with the Real Presence, they cannot experience the benefits of the Real Presence. instead, the Real Presence brings condemnation upon them.

i am not a scholar on Luther, but i thought he also believed that the souls in heaven remain sinners but almighty God ignores their sins because they are cloaked from His view by the perfection of Jesus.

this line of reasoning might have led Luther to stop believing in the Real Presence.

also, my post was not about people who rejected the Real Presence after experiencing the Real Presence. it was about people who have never experienced it dismissing the faith, knowledge and understanding of those who have experienced it worthily.

AFAIK, Luther never stopped believing in the Real Presence; Calvin and Zwingli taught a spiritual presence, but still a sort of Real Presence. The differences among them and with the Catholic Church are regarding the degree of Reality. For Catholics, Orthodox, and Assyrians, there is no question that Real means physically, spiritually and symbolically. For Anglicans and Lutherans there is surety about spiritually and symbolically, and few doubts about physically. For Reformed, there is surety about spiritually and symbolically, and denial about physically.

The problem seems to be for the latter, “Real” means not physical. It seems to be the same reason that many of the same sects deny intercession of saints and prayer for the dead, that “real” for them means no longer physical.

Apostolic Christianity has always taught that the Spiritual is actually more “real” than the physical, and that the physical is just a veiled shadow of the full reality.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

HI La,
As to the 30,000, as I told Abu, while God does not author confusion, He also does not author presumption of infallibility, and exclusivity, the other error end of the spectrum. Sectarianism is sectarianism, whether claiming exclusivity of rightness against three or 30,000.

We are in glass houses and the good, bad, and ugly is not hid from. So if we be at odds, for sure, " only God is true while men are liars (fallible)".

Blessings

Hi benhur

So does doctrine matter?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi D,

Yes, they were properly catechized, and even ordained by the CC (some reformers), yet somehow saw Catholic History differently. They did not presume apostolicity to all doctrine, even practices. They did not presume that things that were added, evolved and or deduced by necessity from our foundation, are exactly what the apostles would have ruled if they had been still alive.
Well certainly not the Orthodox, nor Protestants, nor any distant offshoots…? They are of the nature of Korah, for when has the Shepherd of covenants ever allowed any of His Truth carriers to reject His prophets ?And which teachings are we to believe ? Was Barnabus off the mark when he penned, “It is well, that those who has learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them” ?

No false dichotomy. There is grace and salvation in “other” (Lutheran/P) churches. They are both part of the church and follow Christ. We must not be like the apostles when they mistrusted the Lord’s ability to have followers that did not hang out with the twelve 24/7.

It is a given that Christ and His followers are one. Give me a cup of water and you give it to Christ.

I understand the CC claiming “umbrellaship” of all other sects, but in doing so, she becomes one herself.

And now we become like the Corinthians and say , “I am of Peter”, or, " I am of Paul", or, " of Apollos". We are now both sectarian, and with some necessity but some carnality also.

May we be scriptural and say in such differences may we be imputed as fallible sheep but never God who can only be true. We have to get beyond the paradigm that if we are in error it accuses the Shepherd.

Blessings

Hi Benhur,

But what if Jesus left you a vicarious shepherd in John 21 to feed His sheep and to clear up confusion?

Then that would mean there are 30,000 P denominations to include the Orthodox who are running away from their shepherd, unnecessarily.

And we know what happens to sheep w/o a shepherd, they get destroyed by predators, unfortunately.

I know protestants tend to have a more invisible, abstract view on the Church, but even so, I’m sure you have had countless occurrences where the Lord has spoken to you through a visible mean. And i think that’s why God chose to provide us a mother Church if you will, a nurturer, instead of merely dropping a book out of the sky and letting us all try to figure things out on our own…

Pax

 

[JonNC]

benh

not sure how we can say what luther, etc, experienced. i doubt they experienced the Real Presence. if they had, the only reason they would have rejected it is because they considered themselves unworthy of being in communion with the Real Presence and that would make their experience non-efficacious.

if a person is unworthy of communion with the Real Presence, they cannot experience the benefits of the Real Presence. instead, the Real Presence brings condemnation upon them.

i am not a scholar on Luther, but i thought he also believed that the souls in heaven remain sinners but almighty God ignores their sins because they are cloaked from His view by the perfection of Jesus.

this line of reasoning might have led Luther to stop believing in the Real Presence.

also, my post was not about people who rejected the Real Presence after experiencing the Real Presence. it was about people who have never experienced it dismissing the faith, knowledge and understanding of those who have experienced it worthily.

Not sure where you get the idea that Luther believed sin enters heaven. Do you have a source? Luther never stopped believing in the real presence.

Jon

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Not sure where you get the idea that Luther believed sin enters heaven. Do you have a source? Luther never stopped believing in the real presence.

Jon

He didn’t subscribe to dung covered in snow theory?

 

[JonNC]

He didn’t subscribe to dung covered in snow theory?

In Heaven? No.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

. 61. Catholic doctrine on 1) the soul, 2) its immortality, and 3) the beatific vision prior to the general resurrection is more elaborated than what is found in the Lutheran Confessions on these subjects. Since these teachings were not disputed in the Lutheran Reformation and not denied in the Confessions, this dialogue finds that, in the light of the convergence shown above, official teaching on these three subjects is not church-dividing.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

 

[Lenten_ashes]

In Heaven? No.

Jon

so how does one enter heaven when attached to sin, with sin stain?

 

[JonNC]

so how does one enter heaven when attached to sin, with sin stain?

Cleansing, purgation if you will, at the moment of death. The document linked is remarkable in its presentation of what we share on the topic.

Jon

 

[eddie_too]

it is not my understanding that Roman Catholics ever see the consecrated bread and wine as symbolic, unless that is, the definition being used of the word symbolic could equally be applied to the Risen Lord as experienced by His apostles during the days before His Ascension to the Father.

to me symbolic means representative of something else. symbolic in this sense cannot be correctly and simultaneously applied to the something else in and of itself.

Roman Catholics do not believe the consecrated bread and wine symbolizes Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics believe the consecrated bread and wine IS Jesus Christ in His fullness and wholeness.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

it is not my understanding that Roman Catholics ever see the consecrated bread and wine as symbolic, unless that is, the definition being used of the word symbolic could equally be applied to the Risen Lord as experienced by His apostles during the days before His Ascension to the Father.

to me symbolic means representative of something else. symbolic in this sense cannot be correctly and simultaneously applied to the something else in and of itself.

Roman Catholics do not believe the consecrated bread and wine symbolizes Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics believe the consecrated bread and wine IS Jesus Christ in His fullness and wholeness.

Is it fair to say it is symbolic to the human eye, since it still remains under the appearance of bread and wine?

 

[benhur]

I never even hinted that human error “accuses the Shepherd” of anything :whacky:

Hi Della,

No, you did not nor did I, at least as a "person’’. The “we” was in reference to a church. Never the less, it is inferred to often as the back door of church infallibility. That is, if she be in error, God somehow did error on His promise to guide, and therefore, the church can not ever be in "error’’. That is the paradigm that helps legitimize some sectarianism.

Now due to some differences we must be brothers and sisters of a less full sort, instead of brethren with different conviction on “thanksgiving”.

Everything you’ve stated is nothing more than fancy rationalizations that allow you to be your own Magisterium

Yes, perhaps, but it is not my own magisterium and is shared by many, many brethren.

but the Church is who and what she claims to be and has the authority to confect the Eucharist because Christ gave it to her and not to anyone else.

Correct. Eucharisting is for Christians, not Buddhists or Muslims etc…

If you don’t want the benefits only found in a valid Eucharist

I understand your view, and am sorry we are so sectarian on the matter. As far as the effectual benefits, tough to differentiate between brethren and their communion practice.

The Church freely offers all her faithful this matchless gift. If you want it all you have to do is stop rationalizing and accept the Church’s authority given to her by Christ.

Thank you, but the offer is somewhat compromised by the disqualifying of “others” Eucharisting .

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benh

not sure how we can say what luther, etc, experienced. i doubt they experienced the Real Presence. if they had, the only reason they would have rejected it is because they considered themselves unworthy of being in communion with the Real Presence and that would make their experience non-efficacious.

if a person is unworthy of communion with the Real Presence, they cannot experience the benefits of the Real Presence. instead, the Real Presence brings condemnation upon them.

i am not a scholar on Luther, but i thought he also believed that the souls in heaven remain sinners but almighty God ignores their sins because they are cloaked from His view by the perfection of Jesus.

this line of reasoning might have led Luther to stop believing in the Real Presence.

also, my post was not about people who rejected the Real Presence after experiencing the Real Presence. it was about people who have never experienced it dismissing the faith, knowledge and understanding of those who have experienced it worthily.

Hi eddie,

I think Jon has addressed this.

I thought Luther believed in a Real Presence.

Imputed righteousness (Christ’s) vs our own is another matter. I thought even CC participants also say, 'Lord I am not worthy…"

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur

So does doctrine matter?

Hi La,

Yes, and somewhere I posted the necessity/allowance of some sectarianism.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Benhur,

But what if Jesus left you a vicarious shepherd in John 21 to feed His sheep and to clear up confusion?

Has it cleared up any confusion ?

Then that would mean there are 30,000 P denominations to include the Orthodox who are running away from their shepherd, unnecessarily.

And they would say perhaps things would be less confusing if the CC did not run away from the patriarchal shepherding along with some of the presbyterial elements.

And we know what happens to sheep w/o a shepherd, they get destroyed by predators, unfortunately.

yes, we should not from His Shepherding

I know protestants tend to have a more invisible, abstract view on the Church, but even so, I’m sure you have had countless occurrences where the Lord has spoken to you through a visible mean. And i think that’s why God chose to provide us a mother Church if you will, a nurturer,

Yes, the church is quite visible and her guidance is both visible and invisible in the Holy Ghost.

instead of merely dropping a book out of the sky and letting us all try to figure things out on our own…

Agree that things in our walk don’t merely happen.

Blessings

 

[clem456]

Originally Posted by Lenten_ashes View Post
Hi Benhur,

But what if Jesus left you a vicarious shepherd in John 21 to feed His sheep and to clear up confusion?

Has it cleared up any confusion ?

This point assumes the opposite of confusion is the literal certitude which is only available in the book.
(By the way, we have had the book almost as long as the Church, and confusion still has it’s day… )

So since human beings are somewhat mysterious and are not 'possess-able", or apprehend-able, in the same way as a book, in a fundamental way, should the integral and necessary personal aspect of Christ’s body be rejected??
(My wife confuses me a lot…still…)

In shorthand, because the world is not perfect, should we throw the baby out with the bathwater??

I have another proposition: the opposite of confusion is not the certitude of the book, it is true faith, which can flourish and edify the flock even in the middle of confusion, because it’s faith is not in an inanimate book, but in the community and it’s head.

The personal life of the Church is messy, starting with the crucifixion.
Again (I know this may get tiresome), if God had meant to eliminate confusion from the world, he would have thrown the book at us.

He didn’t. He gave us a son, who established his community of persons, out of which came the Gospel.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Good day, Ben.

Has it cleared up any confusion ?

No confusion on our side

And they would say perhaps things would be less confusing if the CC did not run away from the patriarchal shepherding along with some of the presbyterial elements.

If you have the Colonel’s and Lieutenants disobeying the General, you cant win the war.

Pax

 

[benhur]

Good day, Ben.

No confusion on our side

Hi La.

As Jon has often pointed out, none on our side either.

The only confusion may be for those outside the church looking in. But not to worry. No way to get in the church without miraculous guidance and I am sure sorting out sectarianism is covered.

If you have the Colonel’s and Lieutenants disobeying the General, you cant win the war.

Shame on those officers not obeying the General Holy Ghost’s promptings.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This point assumes the opposite of confusion is the literal certitude which is only available in the book.
(By the way, we have had the book almost as long as the Church, and confusion still has it’s day… )

Hi clem,

The assumption is not on my part.

I prefer to hold every thought captive, and let only God be true. So when one holds up an office, or a Magisterium, or councils, or even a Book., as the ultimate Shepherding to end "confusion’’ and personal discernment I shake my head. Why the very breath and Words out of God’s own mouth do not end it, yet. So for sure the Pope, and councils, and the Book do not end the need for personal illumination on a matter.

In shorthand, because the world is not perfect, should we throw the baby out with the bathwater??

Right, just as Jesus did not throw out all the things that are subservient to the Father’s illumination when Peter spoke , “thou art the Christ”. He did not throw out the Sanhedrin, or the high priest, or rabbis, or Scribes and Pharisees, or teachers, and parents, Moses seat and Writ etc… Yet God drew the truth out of each to turn on the light in Peter’s understanding, graciously and miraculously.

I have another proposition: the opposite of confusion is not the certitude of the book, it is true faith, which can flourish and edify the flock even in the middle of confusion, because it’s faith is not in an inanimate book, but in the community and it’s head. The personal life of the Church is messy, starting with the crucifixion.

Well close , but you still have an either or. For sure it is faith, a gift from God, quickening the personal understanding in a man. The faith is in Christ. Yes beginning at Calvary, as a perfectly clear atonement. Not messy but heart breaking unto new life .The only good travail is the death of self, if that is what you mean by messy.

He didn’t. He gave us a son, who established his community of persons, out of which came the Gospel

Amen. Now just wish we did not differ on what and how that community looks like and operates beyond the truthful simplicity of your statement.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La.

As Jon has often pointed out, none on our side either.

The only confusion may be for those outside the church looking in. But not to worry. No way to get in the church without miraculous guidance and I am sure sorting out sectarianism is covered.

Shame on those officers not obeying the General Holy Ghost’s promptings.

Blessings

Holy Ghost has a leader on the ground, appointed by Jesus. But some troops have formed their own army