S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Absolutely not.
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
Does Scripture always use Christians to mean followers of Christ?rcwitness:
Thats a good answer! However, when a Christian says, “Jesus is here!” Or “in our hearts” they actually dont mean Jesus, but His Holy Spirit?
The Church is made up of all who believe in Christ. How can someone fit the definition of Christian (follower of Christ) but be excluded from the Christian Church? Well, I guess Catholicism has a different definition of church. That is a whole other topic.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
??? the consecration words were “thanksgiving” ? don’t see that word “thanksgiving”…but don’t have bible in front of me
really ? Perfect time to be rationally preoccupied with literalness when a Man holds a piece of bread then offers same bread saying it is His body.
The litmus test then is not do you understand it my way , but do you trust in the Lord and His Words, as you say. We both do that, and are beyond being present 2000 years ago at the John 6 discourse.
S
susanlo
Guest
Augustine left a LOT of writings behind. His view is very well documented.
Augustine - Sermon 272
“What you see on God’s altar, you’ve already observed during the night that has now ended. But you’ve heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize.”
“What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit.”
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
Augustine - Christian Doctrine
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”
Earlier in this writing in Chapter 9.13:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Augustine quite clearly did not teach a concept that could be called transubstantiation. He did teach a concept that could be included in the definition of a real spiritual presence (similar to what we would consider a Calvinist view).
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
guanophore:
You asked if the term "Eucharist"is in the Bible.
It is…
1 Corinthians 11
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
yes, true for apostles as to original faith foundation. true for us in other ways , but a big difference from hindsight of an original onlooker and say 500 , or 1000 years later (thinking 1215 or even Radbertus)
yes , but in john 6, to those who left received such an explanation ?
an explanation of how to eat ?
for instance Augustrine offers this which is not in the discourse,
"Augustine at all events lays chief stress on the spiritual participation. “Why preparest thou the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” He claims for the sacrament religious reverence, but not a superstitious dread, as if it were a miracle with a magical effect. He also expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, which had already come into use in support of the materializing view, "…Philip Schaff’s Reading of Augustine on the Eucharist – The Calvinist International
we get accused of being like the gnostics and like those that turned away here, yet you believe more in the literal , which is what the walkers away did also. And if you try to differentiate between your literal from theirs (as in spiritual literal), you make my point that Jesus made no such distinction here , zero correction for His hearers.
Parsing out verses, try almost a whole chapter here in John…but yes you rely more on what was passed down to you, Tradition as you say, capitalize.
Agree that Writ must be also accompanied by some tradition, church foundation, just am not allowed to capitalize it , for an OT capital T, not in truth and spirit, put the Messiah on a cross, for parsing Writ left and right, in spirit and truth
another catch all . The inadequacy of Writ, the Word of God…and “by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved” preach what?
“To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts , keep them , as many as are written.”…Barnabus
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
does Paul use the word "mystery " in such positive fashion, or as something hidden only to pagans, but now revealed to us ?
M
mcq72
Guest
Cool…just looked it up also in Greek parallel and there it is…thank you rcw…lol but now i gotta chew on this for awhile, and adjust to this new (name removed by moderator)ut, insight…peace
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Maybe P’s should start saying that line to each other’s denominations and whip some of those offshoots back in line.
M
mcq72
Guest
“and let us not suppose that because God can , that He does” (transubstantiate).
Yet CC says to the senses it is still a duck…they got it covered…
"Why preparest thou the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” Augustine…it is a spiritual eating apparently, so the symbol should not be an obstacle to true eating. yet the context is that we eat Him, not fleshly, but metaphorically, by believing as Peter did, “you are the Messiah”, the million dollar transubstantiation, a new creature, rebirth, spiritually though one still have the old flesh/body, to the senses.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
If I may, and to show susanio is in good company on this :
“The body with which Christ rose,” says he, “he took to heaven, which must be in a place . . . . . We must guard against such a conception of his divinity as destroys the reality of his flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth.”
…Augustine…Philip Schaff’s Reading of Augustine on the Eucharist – The Calvinist International
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
with no substance changes, no mysticism, but symbols telling the HIStory of their (our) journey.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
If I may, the better argument I have heard from CC is that then they are both symbolic and literal at same time…indeed the elements are at least symbols to some, or the understanding begins there.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course not, it is a spiritual communion! My point is that the Gnostics who did not want to accept the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements continued in their beliefs and practices heedless. Creating dogmas only helps the faithful from departing from the Truth. It does not compel those who have already rejected it to change.
There seems to be a disconnect here, but for the record, I agree that my siblings in Christ who experience reverence for Jesus in their observation of the Lord’s Supper are neither Gnostics or like those who stopped following because they only wanted a full belly.
But they are like those who could not accept what Jesus was saying about “gnawing” His flesh. “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” This happens in the Eucharist, and even the Apostles did not know what He meant, but they did not know where else to turn, as they knew He had the words of eternal life.
It is just impossible for those of us who have been raised on the Apostolic faith to wrap our minds around some of the practices that began at the Reformation.
After listening to a number of Marcus Grodi progams
I realize that it is equally difficult for the children of the Reformation to grasp ideas that are so contrary to the faith they have received from their fathers in the faith.
What seems to be the main factor that enables Protestants to return home is to be deep in history. As John Neuman said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. This was certainly the case for me. I left the Church into which I was baptized as a teen for a variety of reasons. I spent 10 years researching where I “belonged”, a journey that landed me in Seminary
During my three years of study, I took a course in Historical Theology. It included reading the post Apostolic writings, pre- and post Nicean Fathers. The more I delved into history, the more I realized that the early church believed what the Catholic Church teaches today. I was able to finally return to the faith into which I was baptized, but this time knowing that I had a sense of belonging I lacked before.
G
guanophore
Guest
Certainly God is not limited by time and space, as we are. He demonstrated through His resurrected Body that he could appear and disappear from view. I must confess that I abhor the word “accidents” in reference to the Bread and Wine, but I have had to accept that this is a description that the Church found necessary to most easily define what the Apostles meant by “this IS my body”.
I am sure this seemed necessary to Augustine, but with what we know now about physics, it is clear that there is reality that exists outside of time and space. Heaven is more properly defined as a “state” rather than a “place”. But certainly Augustine was ringing clear on the ancient doctrines that Jesus became flesh, and took that flesh with HIm into Heaven. But we know that this “flesh” was not like the flesh He had before He was crucified, like our flesh.
With this we will all be in agreement as we do not consider the Eucharist to be his earthly flesh, but His glorified flesh. Eating of His earthly body would make the accusations of the early Jess valid, that we are “cannibals”.
But these quote reinforce my leanings toward the Eastern conceptions. It seems so much easier to leave all these things in the form of “mystery”, rather than trying to define, explain, and dogmatize them. There is a point at which it seems that our frail human minds/reasoning cannot possibly grasp such things!
W
Wannano
Guest
So did the folks who could not accept the teaching and left Him,mcq72:
Certainly God is not limited by time and space, as we are. He demonstrated through His resurrected Body that he could appear and disappear from view. I must confess that I abhor the word “accidents” in reference to the Bread and Wine, but I have had to accept that this is a description that the Church found necessary to most easily define what the Apostles meant by “this IS my body”.
I am sure this seemed necessary to Augustine, but with what we know now about physics, it is clear that there is reality that exists outside of time and space. Heaven is more properly defined as a “state” rather than a “place”. But certainly Augustine was ringing clear on the ancient doctrines that Jesus became flesh, and took that flesh with HIm into Heaven. But we know that this “flesh” was not like the flesh He had before He was crucified, like our flesh.
With this we will all be in agreement as we do not consider the Eucharist to be his earthly flesh, but His glorified flesh. Eating of His earthly body would make the accusations of the early Jess valid, that we are “cannibals”.
But these quote reinforce my leanings toward the Eastern conceptions. It seems so much easier to leave all these things in the form of “mystery”, rather than trying to define, explain, and dogmatize them. There is a point at which it seems that our frail human minds/reasoning cannot possibly grasp such things!
go away understanding that He was not talking of eating his earthly body? (John 6).
Also at the Last Supper when He said " this is my body", was He talking of His glorified body?
I get the feeling you really do not believe in Transubstantiation or am I misreading what you are saying about it from time to time?
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
I would, of course, have some suspicions, as this appears to be the nature of humanity. We are possessive creature.
But if God appeared on earth and told certain persons that this waterfall was the most pure, then it seems such a report would bear investigation.
Knowing God as we do, we can fully acclaim that He is not restricted to any one waterfall, or ANY waterfall at all! This is why the CC teaches that the graces and work of the HS are to be appreciated in the communities of our separated brethren.
Jesus Himself is the Gate. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Throughout history He has revealed Himself through certain persons and particularly the nation of Israel. Jesus said “salvation is of the Jews” to reinforce to all those who were not fully united with Jews that the Jews held the fullness of His revelation. He then revealed Himself to the Church, which is His fullness. He promised to lead that Church into “all Truth.”
Ok, how about picking out one example of what Paul taught that the CC later abandoned that might be related to this thread?
I am not sure it is. The Apostles’ taught that a valid Eucharist was one that was in unity with the Bishop. This is what we see in the writings of the post-Apostolic Fathers. What we have been debating on this thread is whether a Eucharist is valid under a different/schismatic definition of “church” that was coined during the Reformation.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
This might seem really silly and superfluous after 1300 replies already. But why was the topic title never lined up with the topic questions?
Being in communion with and the Eucharist are not the same thing. Just saying.
Being in communion with and the Eucharist are not the same thing. Just saying.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
Ok, how about picking out one example of what Paul taught that the CC later abandoned that might be related to this thread?
Sorry, it does not relate to the theme of this thread but is related to a statement that rc made that stated that because the CC knows Christ, it therefore knows His teaching and would never go against the teaching of Christ.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it does. And schismatics, heretics, and apostates. Either the concept was taught by the Apostles, or it was not. If not, then the concepts presented by all these other cults and sects have equal or more value.
Well, what made the Bereans “more noble” was that they accepted the Apostolic Teaching with joy and eagerness. After accepting it, they went to the scriptures. Often today this is used backwards, so that one derives ones’ doctrines from the text, rather than receiving the Apostolic faith with joy from those to whom it was committed by Christ.
- Status