S
susanlo
Guest
How do you personally define “Real Presence?”
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok , so tell me how the Lord made light the first day, but the sun and celestial lights on the fourth day?
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
No. Presumption is being made that if you are going to apply a certain logic principle that the principle can be applied universally. If you are going to discount the reality of one theological principle because different language has been applied, then this logic approach should be applicable to all the theological principles, including the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.
However, that being said, yes, I would expect that, because you agree about the Trinity, you should agree with Ignatius. But I say this because it is what the Apostles believed and taught, and all who call themselves Christians should embrace their teachings.
And afterward. The Church defines and clarifies doctrine because of heresy, and those who cling to the heresies sometimes persist. This is what Paul meant when he said:
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." I Cor. 11
Factions = σχίσματα So how are the genuine in a schism to be recognized? Paul goes on to explain the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
It is true that Catholics use a specific perceptual filter when reading the Fathers. Catholics read them as we do the scriptures. through the lens of Sacred Tradition. We understand what has been written by what was handed down to us from the Apostles. Everyone reads through a certain lens/filter. Children of the Reformation read the Scripture and Patristic writings (if they ever do so) through the lens of he doctrines created at that time and delivered from that theology.
I am not sure how you can say it is “not quite as settled as Christology is”. It is quite settled for those who have received the Apostolic faith, and I think it is fair to say that it is also quite as settled for those who have received Reformed faith. It is just settled in a schismatic fashion.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is fortunate that your “feelings” are not an accurate description of the facts, though they do reveal much more about you than they do about Catholic faith.
The error here is that the consecrated elements are Christ, not a temple. He is present in the consecrated elements, body, blood, soul and divinity. I am not sure what you mean by “administered”, but NT priests are not “heirus”. They are caught up in and united to the priesthood of Christ, which is a Melchizedech priesthood. He is our great high priest, who ever lives to make intercession for us. He is the priest and the Sacrifice. He was sacrificed once for all for the sins of the world.
There is no longer any role for heirus, since there is no longer any need for continued sacrifice for sin.
Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself.
11 And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,” Heb. 10
The heirus priesthood is fulfilled in Christ.
I think what you are saying is that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is “limited and timed” because it occurs and is consumed at Mass?
I am not sure why you would object to this. Would you expect the lamb that was to be fully consumed at the Passover to still be available somehow?
As far as “worshipping the object”, I think, from your point of view, there is no other conclusion. If a person does not believe that Jesus is truly present, then the host is just an “object” and worshipping it amounts to idolatry.
But we do not believe in “attached presence”, we believe in Real Presence!
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, of course! He is not limited to any one place or thing, and He needs no intermediary for graces. And we are His temple, where the HS dwells. That being said, there are certain places and ways in which we can experience an outpouring of grace, and He is present in special powerful ways that He ordained He will be present.
In a perfect state of grace, no, but most of us are not in such a state. The sacramental life functions to improve that intimacy. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is one example:
“Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.” James 5:14
Can God heal any and all of us without calling for the elders of the Church? Sure. Can He heal us without anyone praying over us? Sure. Can we be healed without being anointed with oil?Sure. Can our sins be forgiven without the Elders prayer of faith? Sure. God is not bound by the Sacrament. But we can be confident that, when we participate in them, that His grace will flow just as he has promised, so we are not left wondering.
If Jesus’ promise to be present in the Eucharist “availeth little” for you, then it makes sense that you would reject it for yourself. For those of us who have received this teaching, His presence is what brings about the animation of our bodies to his service.
I like the Anima Christi. It is a prayer from around the 14th century. It is still widely used after receiving the body and blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.
Soul of Christ, sanctify me
Body of Christ, save me
Blood of Christ, inebriate me
Water from Christ’s side, wash me
Passion of Christ, strengthen me
O good Jesus, hear me
Within Thy wounds hide me
Suffer me not to be separated from Thee
From the malicious enemy defend me
In the hour of my death call me
And bid me come unto Thee
That I may praise Thee with Thy saints
and with Thy angels
Forever and ever
Amen
S
steve-b
Guest
Your argument in a sense, has already been waged to Jesus personally by His own “disciples”… not the 12 but His “other disciples”. And what did they say to Jesus and ultimately DO after that? They said this is too hard to even listen to so they left Him. And notice, Jesus didn’t go after them. He let them go.rcwitness:
But i feel you have made the consecrated bread a temple, administered by heirus priests, with limited and timed access, even to be worshipped in the object, the host, almost as glorious as the ark, with His attached presence, the new holy of holies.
Who told you that? It’s NOT from scripture.
All the Protestant advertising aside on this bible link
So why did Jesus make this conditional statement beginning with unless, and ends with, abides in me, and I in him. .
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
That sounds like a sophisticated application of once right always right…infallablity by any other name
A
Agathon
Guest
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”guanophore:
The terms: changed, transformed, literal, presence, elements and consecrated are not in Ignatius’ letter either.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” - Ignatius - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7
This statement does not tell us whether Ignatius thought that Christ was present symbolically, spiritually, or literally. It only shows us that the heretics refused to participate in communion because they did not believe that Christ had flesh and blood.
How much more explicit can Ignatius be? Let me paraphrase it so you can understand. “They don’t partake of the Eucharist or pray because they deny that the Eucharist is our Savior’s flesh which suffered for our sins…”
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
And you hold this in regards to Jesus, am I correct?
B
Benadam
Guest
Thank you for making my point.
The author didn’t know the words I would understand to put to the concepts that he was communicating. The people he wrote to shared a language and could easily understand.
J
jcrichton
Guest
There was not redefinition: eat and drink my Flesh and my Blood for my Flesh is Food indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed.
Jesus did offer a “covenant” of symbolism and bloodlessness; as a matter of fact Jesus actually made it quite clear: they persecuted Me, they will persecute you; they killed Me, they will kill you.
Blood is the one thing that He actually emphasized: this is the Blood of the New Covenant… this is where the spiritual and the physical meets: Eucharist: Both a Celebration of His Passion and Death and Our Salvation through His Passover Meal: Breaking of the Bread.
It is the reason why St. Paul, being the learned Pharisee was able to express that the Breaking of the Bread must be an activity which “Discerns” the actual Body and Blood of our Lord.
No semblance of symbolism and “spiritualization” of the actual event nor the subsequent Celebrations.
Maran atha!
Angel
Jesus did offer a “covenant” of symbolism and bloodlessness; as a matter of fact Jesus actually made it quite clear: they persecuted Me, they will persecute you; they killed Me, they will kill you.
Blood is the one thing that He actually emphasized: this is the Blood of the New Covenant… this is where the spiritual and the physical meets: Eucharist: Both a Celebration of His Passion and Death and Our Salvation through His Passover Meal: Breaking of the Bread.
It is the reason why St. Paul, being the learned Pharisee was able to express that the Breaking of the Bread must be an activity which “Discerns” the actual Body and Blood of our Lord.
No semblance of symbolism and “spiritualization” of the actual event nor the subsequent Celebrations.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Again, the problem is as I attempted to explain. Jesus did not leave a written manual; rather, He stated that there were things that the Apostles could not comprehend at that moment and that it would be the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete, that He would send to the Church that would bring the Church to the Fullness of Truth (Unfold Revelation).
Part of that Unfolding comes in the form of Doctrinal Teachings–what the Church terms Apostolic Teaching… and we can see this develop right from Sacred Writings.
The issue that arises (at least from what I understood from your supposition) is that “untruth” somehow filtered in and the Truth became contaminated… here’s the issue: when, what, and who determines that contamination of the Truth with the “untruth?”
From my perspective you seem to be suggesting from the Catholic Church, not the myriads of non-Catholic interpretation of Scriptures and practices or lack thereof.
Maran atha!
Angel
Part of that Unfolding comes in the form of Doctrinal Teachings–what the Church terms Apostolic Teaching… and we can see this develop right from Sacred Writings.
The issue that arises (at least from what I understood from your supposition) is that “untruth” somehow filtered in and the Truth became contaminated… here’s the issue: when, what, and who determines that contamination of the Truth with the “untruth?”
From my perspective you seem to be suggesting from the Catholic Church, not the myriads of non-Catholic interpretation of Scriptures and practices or lack thereof.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Exactly!
This is the prevailing thought amongst non-Catholics; they insist that 30,000 plus schisms are not schisms at all but the call of the Holy Spirit to ‘do it your own way’ yet still be the fullness of Faith Christ Founded.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Since this is a catch 22 (damned if I do, ditto if not).
I read through it and chose to not reply so that you can have your peace.
Maran atha!
Angel
I read through it and chose to not reply so that you can have your peace.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
It would but Scriptures themselves attest to Oral Tradition. Have you noticed how many times St. Paul makes reference to ‘how we Teach in the Church or all the churches?’ Yet, as with the Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, Holy Orders…) there’s nothing Written down as the format/form of what they actually Taught… of course we could use a simplistic understanding and believe that all that took place was just a re-reading of the Epistles and the Gospels… but even this is quite deficient as it makes the Teaching of the Apostles a mute format as they would have to wait decades till the New Covenant’s Writings are put to ink, doesn’t it?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
No so much defensive but corrective; just look at how many divisions there are today even though the Church fought heresy right from the pages of Sacred Scriptures… could you imagine how many different takes on Sacred Scriptures we would have if Luther his followers had been able to challenge the compilation of Sacred Writings when the Church was forming the canon?
…and interestingly enough these “reforms” are claimed to be headed by the Holy Spirit and found in Scriptures, as the Jehovah Witnesses’ and Mormon’s claim.
Maran atha!
Angel
…and interestingly enough these “reforms” are claimed to be headed by the Holy Spirit and found in Scriptures, as the Jehovah Witnesses’ and Mormon’s claim.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
…did you missed the part about the Eleven? or the part about Cephas? or the part about the 200? or the part about the Apostles imparting the Holy Spirit upon those that would serve as Presbyters and Deacons? or the part about God placing an order in the Church?
I know you missed the whole 1500 years of Church history and that you are guided by some samples of Luther or Calvin or whoever further departed from Luther’s and Calvin’s take on their vision of the church and doctrines.
Maran atha!
Angel
I know you missed the whole 1500 years of Church history and that you are guided by some samples of Luther or Calvin or whoever further departed from Luther’s and Calvin’s take on their vision of the church and doctrines.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
You don’t have to believe us. Believe Sacred Scriptures as it is they that Reveal God’s Functions.
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…and that’s the reason why you cannot understand what Scriptures are Revealing… its like going to a 3D movie with sunglasses… yeah you might catch some inference… but no, you cannot get the full exposure!
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status