- Status
S
SIA
Guest
New invention??? Give me a break. The Real Presence is Jesus present in the elements. The Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ as Anglicans believe. Transubstantiation is an attempt at explaining (attempting to convice) the meta physical change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Well first of all the bible your reading was canonnized by the Catholic church as being inspired by God. So we dont have to look for words such as “universal church” or Catholic.
In all the last supper accounts, when Jesus speaks “this bread is my body” this cup is my blood" and then gives these to his disciples to consume them. Do you think Jesus was lying or kidding when the Word of God made flesh spoke creation into existance, spoke to the bread and wine to become his body and blood that the species did not obey the Word of God? When the storms, illness, sins, demons, even death obeyed his command.
Do we need to go to 1Corinthians 10: when Paul confesses that the bread IS the body of Jesus Christ, and the cup of blessing IS the blood of Jesus Christ.
16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I am more interested in learning the difference between the true presence and transubstantiation? You have not explained the difference reasonably, without bias interpretations. Can you do it, or should I wait for the Lutheran? Because to do so intelligently one must have the correct interpretation of both true presence and transubstantiation.
A
Ag_not
Guest
I have a really bad headache, so excuse me if Im being dumb. Are you saying you believe in the Real Presence, ie the bread and wine do, in actuality, become the Real body and blood of Christ, and you partake of the Eucharist in exactly the same way as Catholics do, BUT you do not agree with the word Transsubstanciation as a means to try and explain what is going on??
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi Ag_not, many protestants believe in the true presence, once they get over this proffesion of faith, then comes the validity of the Eucharist, and the validity of the succession to the apostles in order to confect the (Eucharist) bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
The founders of Anglicans and Lutherans believed as Catholics, I dont understand why their followers dont follow their founders?
S
SIA
Guest
You don’t want to understand.Hi Ag_not, many protestants believe in the true presence, once they get over this proffesion of faith, then comes the validity of the Eucharist, and the validity of the succession to the apostles in order to confect the (Eucharist) bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
The founders of Anglicans and Lutherans believed as Catholics, I dont understand why their followers dont follow their founders?
S
SIA
Guest
The Reformers in England understood Jesus’ Real Presence but also knew that transubstantiation was something that was not of Scripture and was of no value in the understanding of how Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.I do
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Could it be I dont want to change what Jesus revealed to his Church, for a man’s opinion? I am sorry if I appear to be stuck on a “Rock” Which Jesus built. What I hope to understand is why you and others believe different from what Jesus and his apostles taught from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church?
B
bella5
Guest
The founders of Anglicans and Lutherans were Catholic!!!Hi Ag_not, many protestants believe in the true presence, once they get over this proffesion of faith, then comes the validity of the Eucharist, and the validity of the succession to the apostles in order to confect the (Eucharist) bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
The founders of Anglicans and Lutherans believed as Catholics, I dont understand why their followers dont follow their founders?
S
SIA
Guest
key word “were”.The founders of Anglicans and Lutherans were Catholic!!!
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Yes King Henry the 8th, was an Ordained Catholic King of England who wanted a divorce, but protested, thus Anglican church.The founders of Anglicans and Lutherans were Catholic!!!
Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and thelogian, who protested the Catholic church with his new invention of Sola Scriptura and Sola fe theories, I mean theologies.
Any other question?
S
steve_b
Guest
Then why not reconcile and come home?
(emphasis mine)
*if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, *24 leave your offering there before the altar and go;first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. [Mt 5:23-24]
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
To be historically correct, Henry the VIII wanted an ANNULMENT, not a divorce. It had less to do about hormones and more to do with having a male heir to the throne. These type of annulments had previously been granted by the See.
The “new invention” was the dogma of transubstantiation, which wasn’t a coined word or concept until the 11th century and formally mentioned at the Council of Trent. Before that, the bread and body simply became the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation need. No Aristotelian or Thomistic philosophy of substance and accidents. The closest before these years was Justin Martyr’s “transmutation” and the word “signifcation” (I think that was Ambrose).
The Eastern Church still steers away from transubstantiation, preferring terms like metabole and metastoicheiosis (literally, “transelementation”). Shying away from philosophy and logic, they are content to let the mystery stay a mystery. It is the Body of Blood of Christ. Period.
I think that to go into Aristotelian logic and Thomistic philosophy, which is the only way transubstantiation can be properly understood, is heresy - that is demystifying the miracle of the Eucharist.
O+
C
CWBetts
Guest
The fact that previous annulments had been granted was irrelevant. Henry VIII’s break from rome had NOTHING to do with theology, and EVERYTHING to do with greed and lust. To deny this is to deny the facts. When it comes down to it there was a grand total of one Tudor whose principles were not for sale: “Bloody” Mary I.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace Emerald,
If you want to share in the Eucharist, return to Holy Mother Church.
Sharing in the Eucharist is a symbol of unity, since we are not united, you can’t share in the Eucharist, and I can’t share in yours.
If you want to share in the Eucharist, return to Holy Mother Church.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace O.S.
There is no problem in using philosophy to elucidate theology.
Church councils went at length to define that Jesus is one in substance with the Father, that Jesus is one divine person, that He has a human nature and a divine nature, a human will and a divine will, etc, etc.
These definitions go beyond what Scripture explicitly says, and require invented words to explain what the Church believes. A later definition only means that the doctrine was elucidated, it doesn’t mean it was invented.
Prior to these definitions Christian and heretic could not be distinguished and the Truth was threatened.
The word “Transubstantiation” is like the word “Trinity,” explaining something the Church always believed.
As for the Orthodox position, they haven’t had an ecumenical council in over a thousand years, their theology is largely stagnant. Prior to this the Greeks were heavily pursuing theological inquiry. Furthermore, the Greeks hold the Latin understanding of things to be inferior, and even worthy of contempt. Even though they have equivalent terms for “Transubstantiation,” “Substance,” and “Accidents,” and used them to fight Protestant influences, they prefer to distance themselves from it now!
Those who reject the Transubstantiation are no different than heretics who rejected Trinity.
This is a ridiculous argument that can be used against doctrines even you believe. Consider the word “Trinity” or “Homoousious,” philosophical terms that were coined centuries after Jesus.
Not bad, considering the first use of “Homoousious” was in 325 AD.
There is no problem in using philosophy to elucidate theology.
Church councils went at length to define that Jesus is one in substance with the Father, that Jesus is one divine person, that He has a human nature and a divine nature, a human will and a divine will, etc, etc.
These definitions go beyond what Scripture explicitly says, and require invented words to explain what the Church believes. A later definition only means that the doctrine was elucidated, it doesn’t mean it was invented.
Prior to these definitions Christian and heretic could not be distinguished and the Truth was threatened.
The word “Transubstantiation” is like the word “Trinity,” explaining something the Church always believed.
Again friend, we were not content leaving the Personhood of Christ alone, we were compelled to make declarations beyond Scripture to defend the Truth.
As for the Orthodox position, they haven’t had an ecumenical council in over a thousand years, their theology is largely stagnant. Prior to this the Greeks were heavily pursuing theological inquiry. Furthermore, the Greeks hold the Latin understanding of things to be inferior, and even worthy of contempt. Even though they have equivalent terms for “Transubstantiation,” “Substance,” and “Accidents,” and used them to fight Protestant influences, they prefer to distance themselves from it now!
Does defining Christ to have a human nature and divine nature, a human will and divine will, all in one divine person, a demystifying of mystery? Can we really declare, without scripture explicitly revealing that Jesus has two wills and not one? Yes, we can, because we have the Magisterium.
Those who reject the Transubstantiation are no different than heretics who rejected Trinity.
- Status