Do you find it odd that all religious people don't believe in the "real presence"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evangelical
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would be a bit careful making such a broad statement; for example,that may or may not have been true of Arianism. and given the range of heretical beliefs in the church during those 1,600 years…
 
I find that a bit debatable. Catholic schools have closed due to fewer and fewer children per family; closed due to higher and higher tuition costs; schools have closed due to flight from cities to suburbs; closed due to higher and higher costs of maintaining old buildings - particularly due to safety issues. Blaming Vatican 2 for a multitude of issues which have absolutely nothing to do with any of the 16 documents is easy to say, but next impossible to validate.
 
It is sad to hear you all speak of the Catholics who don’t even believe in the real presence. In my research of Churches so far I have come across real presence belief in the Lutheran Church, Episcopal/Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox, and possibly a small amount of Presbyterians, though most do not. I find it interesting as well that the early reformers who desired to reform transubstantiation into consubstantiation were apparently professing what the Orthodox Church states they’ve believed from the beginning. I wonder if Luther for example knew about the theology of the Orthodox Church and if so to what extent. I find it surprising that so many other Christians (myself included) really have never heard of this belief. I’d like to believe many of them would believe it after its presented thoroughly, at least consubstantiation.
 
That’s my answer, & I’m sticking to it.
 
Last edited:
Luther believed in the real presence. Let’s not be too critical of our temperamental German friend.
 
Last edited:
The Real Presence is such a wonderful gift, and it is in Scripture, so yes, it seems odd to me that fellow Christians would somehow not believe in that teaching.

I can better understand doubt or unbelief about things that are not directly supported in Scripture, or teachings that seem harsh on some people, than I can understand doubt or unbelief about the Real Presence. The Real Presence teaching is in Scripture and it is not harsh, quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:
You mean all 16 posts? Don’t remember.

Joan HAMLIN
 
Last edited:
No. sorry, I was a bit succinct. I mean all 16 documents of Vatican 2.
 
The reason it was defined is because of an issue had by Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century. I believe it was something like he was being given holy orders or something like that and there was a statement of very literal sounding, almost physically, of Jesus in the Eucharist and so he questioned it, which led to the explanation of the substance changing but the accidents staying the same.

He accepted the teaching and was joined with the Church btw.
 
I really learn so much about Catholicism from your explanations. At the same time, I cannot help but to offer my two cents, especially to your final remarks about the Law. I understand what your point is; but, for Judaism, we are not ‘under the Law.’ Rather, we are “graced and sanctified by the Law.” And my other cent is that the Jeremiah prophecy, according to Jewish circles, is not one of a New Covenant but a Renewed Covenant. Big difference in that “renewed” means that the Old Covenant will be intensified during the Messianic era. Apologetics over and out…
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
I really learn so much about Catholicism from your explanations.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you meltzerboy2-that means a great deal coming from you because I’ve always appreciated the knowledge behind and also the open-minded of your posts. Somehow I missed the rest of your post here though. 😁 JK
 
Last edited:
No. I’ve not read any Vatican II documents.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I’m not even Catholic and I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
Why would I want to read Vatican II documents? I’m not confused about TRUE Catholic Teachings. If I read VII documents, I might become confused. Publications about WHAT occurred, the confusing wording, the inadequate
knowledge of Latin by participants, & the deceptive, and confusing instructions on how to VOTE for or against sections are ALL good reasons NOT to read them. Confusion abounded. There are two things that I’ve learned in my life regarding confusion & chaos:
they can be signs that satan may be at work. I don’t want any part of that thing.
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time understanding what you are saying. For starters, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would always be with the Church, protecting it from error. I learned that in the 1950’s from the Baltimore Catechism.

If we take one of the documents - the Constitution on the Liturgy - the final vote on it was 2,147 bishops in favor of it, and 4 opposed.

So I find it a bit hard to think that the vast majority of the bishops of the world were grossly mislead and deceptive, or they did not know how to vote (the matter had been voted on in part multiple times), or that there is confusing wording ( I have read it more than once and don’t find it confusing), or that, with the vast majority of bishops voting to adopt it as the official document of the Church, that it was not a TRUE Catholic Teaching. And it has been set forth as TRUE Catholic Teaching by 4 popes; Paul 6th, John Paul 2, Benedict 16 and Francis (I am leaving out John Paul 1 as he was not around long enough to express anything on the matter).

The alternative is to say that the vast majority of bishops, and 4 Popes, and the vast majority of Catholics have abandoned the TRUE Catholic teachings and are all in heresy, and that there is an extremely small remnant of Catholics who know the TRUTH. That sounds a little bit too much like Gnosticism.
 
The words of Jer 31: 33-34 are so incredibly beautiful!

What for the Jewish people is a renewed covenant intensified during the Messianic era, is for Catholics, what Jesus called fulfilled.
 
Last edited:
All I can say to that is what I’ve studied about the Bishops who actually participated in it, & those Bishops who were willing to speak about it. The “Rhine” group had fairly conspired prior to the Council. The “experts” (parieti sp?) gave some bad counsel. The Bishops had no intention of changing from the Latin to the vernacular. This should be my last post because I’m no expert on anything regarding this matter. Everything that I commented was taken from written or video interviews of those who were there. No comment regarding the Council was my own thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Understood.

Given that there appear to have been areas in which the Roman rite had the vernacular up to the time of Trent, and that we have gone back to the vernacular, it may be something that some do not like, but there are still exceedingly few bishops who would return to all Latin. At the Council, there was a range of how much vernacular was desired; some wanted all, some wanted some, and the likelihood is some did not want any. Given how the vernacular was accepted by the laity (and I don’t mean to reduce that to English speaking laity), it is clear that as the one of two liturgical prayers of the Church, putting the Liturgy into the vernacular was and still is extremely well accepted.

And we have wandered far off topic, so I will quit too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top