Do Evangelicals Believe in Any Sacraments?

[benhur]

True, but the Vatican is hundreds of years old and has not been ‘updated’ or replaced to make it ‘unchurchy’ or a place to see a performance with secular bands. The Vatican has no stadium seating with cupholders.

My parish church is not-so pretty. Nor are most parish churches. Even the cathedral for this diocese is pretty much mundane looking. The Catholic church is not out to ‘save’ souls only and then abandons them. The CC looks after people body and soul. We spend untold millions a year tending to both body and soul. Our missioners tend to people’s souls but also gives them medical attention AND food and shelter if needed.

Can your denomination say this with honesty?

Thus the answer is NO.

Really ? Catholics are the only ones with ministries to the poor or sick ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi Steve, then why do folks have so many "commands’’ on sacramental graces ?

Doing something because we have been graced is different than doing something to be graced. One presupposes a “gift” or "grace’’ more than the other. We primarily give thanks/eucharist because we have been gifted and graced, and any further gracing is a by product (He inhabits our praises).

So while you see ordinance as lacking grace , others see sacrament “so that we may have eternal life” as being contrary to pre sacramental grace, and grace itself.

Actually Catholics believe that all movements toward God are because of his grace in our lives.

So just because one receives “more grace” in the sacraments (just as you might receive grace from reading the Bible) does not mean there was no grace prior to that.

 

[benhur]

The difference would be that we don’t believe that He is physically in someone’s heart. Meaning His literal physical body is not inside one’s heart. Is He really present? Yes. This is one reason why I can accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but I don’t see through the lens of Aristotelian Transubstantiation. In the case of Lutherans they don’t believe in “consubstantiation” but in effect it would be the same question to them; if Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, then if the Eucharist is dropped on the floor, His body would be touching the earth once more. Hence the (at least seeming) contradiction with the Second Coming.

Actually any “washings” of utensils or clothing soiled with the consecrated elements were drained or put into the earth below the church.

 

[spedteacherita]

Actually any “washings” of utensils or clothing soiled with the consecrated elements were drained or put into the earth below the church.

Insofar as Lutherans and the elements there are some who see the elements once consecrated as objects that cannot be dropped or spilled - in fact there is a time when Luther spilled the wine and actually got down on his hands and knees to lick it up.

On the other hand, while we still honor the elements once they’re consecrated there are those who feel that what Luther did was excessive. A theology book that I own from college days does speak to this - we do not become frantic if the elements were to spill for any reason. I don’t have my book with me now but if anyone wants the quote I can get it tomorrow morning.

I hope I did not misunderstand your post, Kliska.

God bless!

Rita

 

[benhur]

Insofar as Lutherans and the elements there are some who see the elements once consecrated as objects that cannot be dropped or spilled - in fact there is a time when Luther spilled the wine and actually got down on his hands and knees to lick it up.

On the other hand, while we still honor the elements once they’re consecrated there are those who feel that what Luther did was excessive. A theology book that I own from college days does speak to this - we do not become frantic if the elements were to spill for any reason. I don’t have my book with me now but if anyone wants the quote I can get it tomorrow morning.

I hope I did not misunderstand your post, Kliska.

God bless!

Rita

Hi Speedster,

Yes, He was excessive, in my opinion.

It is interesting the Catholic site that gave instructions on the cleaning of stained eucharistic cloths referrred to the stains as “wine” stains.

 

[spedteacherita]

Hi **Speedster,**It is interesting the Catholic site that gave instructions on the cleaning of stained eucharistic cloths referrred to the stains as “wine” stains.

Love the name!! Gave me a giggle.

 

[benhur]

Love the name!! Gave me a giggle.

:tiphat:

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve, then why do folks have so many "commands’’ on sacramental graces ?

Doing something because we have been graced is different than doing something to be graced. One presupposes a “gift” or "grace’’ more than the other. We primarily give thanks/eucharist because we have been gifted and graced, and any further gracing is a by product (He inhabits our praises).

So while you see ordinance as lacking grace , others see sacrament “so that we may have eternal life” as being contrary to pre sacramental grace, and grace itself.

It was Christ who said that we would have eternal life if we eat his flesh and drink his blood. This is the gift of himself which fills us with grace.

 

[aidanbradypop]

It was Christ who said that we would have eternal life if we eat his flesh and drink his blood. This is the gift of himself which fills us with grace.

May I play devil’s advocate for a second and help the conversation along?

When Jesus instituted the Meal he had not yet been crucified. Do Catholics eat the sacrificed Body of Christ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

May I play devil’s advocate for a second and help the conversation along?

When Jesus instituted the Meal he had not yet been crucified. Do Catholics eat the sacrificed Body of Christ?

No we eat the glorified resurrected body of Christ. We also believe in miraculous and that God is not bound by time past present or future.

If we believe in an almighty God that can create the universe with a word, and raise from the dead, part the Red Sea, etc…Then such “objections” like Christ didn’t die yet, seem quite strange, and our simply put alongside the skepticism generally displayed by atheists.

 

[aidanbradypop]

No we eat the glorified resurrected body of Christ. We also believe in miraculous and that God is not bound by time past present or future.

If we believe in an almighty God that can create the universe with a word, and raise from the dead, part the Red Sea, etc…Then such “objections” like Christ didn’t die yet, seem quite strange, and our simply put alongside the skepticism generally displayed by atheists.

I disagree with the atheist part.

 

[SteveVH]

May I play devil’s advocate for a second and help the conversation along?

When Jesus instituted the Meal he had not yet been crucified. Do Catholics eat the sacrificed Body of Christ?

We eat the glorified, risen body of Christ. Because his sacrifice is eternal and not subject to time and space, the Apostles ate his glorified body as well at the Last Supper, even before it was glorified, in time.

 

[aidanbradypop]

We eat the glorified, risen body of Christ. Because his sacrifice is eternal and not subject to time and space, the Apostles ate his glorified body as well at the Last Supper, even before it was glorified, in time.

I will IM you a link you should read.

 

[SteveVH]

I will IM you a link you should read.

 

[benhur]

It was Christ who said that we would have eternal life if we eat his flesh and drink his blood. This is the gift of himself which fills us with grace.

He did say the flesh availteth little. To eat His flesh and miss His spirit is vain but I would say not vice versa,That eating His spirit avails you even if without eating His flesh. Augustine said leave your teeth and belly behind and we eat by faith, as Peter did in that discourse. No one says Peter was not saved then but only after the Last Supper when he first ate “elements”.

 

[SteveVH]

He did say the flesh availteth little.

Now, Ben, you have been around here long enough to know that this verse cannot be speaking of Christ’s flesh. He didn’t say his flesh was of no avail. Indeed, it is his flesh that was to be given for the life of the world. His flesh is the cause of salvation. He was speaking of human nature when he said the flesh availeth little.

No one says Peter was not saved then but only after the Last Supper when he first ate “elements”.

When does anyone say that Peter was saved, ever? Peter didn’t eat elements and neither do we. We eat Christ’s glorified body and drink his glorified blood.