For Non-Believers of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Why are you not shock by this statement by an ECF?

[Mannyfit75]

Consider the following quote made by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

**“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” **

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Many of you know that St. Ignatius of Antioch is a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. He was taught by him and like any Apostle, he desires that all his followers know the truth. John the Apostle taught that Jesus is truly present in Bread and Wine. It is no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Jesus Christ himself. The same Jesus who died on the cross for you and rise from the dead on the third day.

Why do you non-believers who call yourself Christians (those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist) deny this divine truth which John learn from Jesus Christ, and John taught his follower St. Ignatius the same doctrine or teaching.

Do you suppose John taught error since some of you, Protestants think the Communion Host and the Wine as merely symbolic? Who is telling the truth doctrine here? You say another thing but Jesus in Gospel of John Chapter 6:52-67 taught us that “he who eats (Jesus’ flesh and blood) My Flesh and drink My blood has eternal life…” and that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood has no life in him."

Why do you contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ? You call yourself a Bible Christian? You better take a second look at the Jesus Bread Discourse and St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by John.

If you claim, John taught Ignatius wrong doctrine? What proof do you have? Are you willing to lose your soul for denying this as part of Divine Revelation? If John taught Ignatius erroneous doctrine then perhaps John’s Gospel is erroneous?

You non-believers have a lot to answer for.

 

[Trishie]

Many sincerely and honestly disbelieve, Manny.

We are lucky to have this gift of faith. Not all have received the gift of faith in the Real Presence. And so in peace and love and kindliness and respect, we must pray for them. May God bless you for your reverence and love of our Lord in the Eucharist and th Sacramental Presence.

“You must keep to what you have been taught and know to be true. All Scripture is inspired by God and can profitably be used for teaching, for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be holy. This is how one who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.” [2Timothy 3:14, 16-17]

“A servant of the Lord is not to engage in quarrels, but has to be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He has to be gentle when he corrects people who dispute what he says, never forgetting that God may give them a change of mind so that they recognise the truth.” [2Timothy 2:24-26]

 

[Numinous]

Faith includes belief, but it is more than belief. Here are some of the differences:

• Belief is an act of the mind; faith is also an act of the will.
• Faith is an act by which one person says to another: “I choose to trust you and believe you.”
• The object of belief is an idea; the object of faith is a person.
• Belief alone is not something to die for, but faith is. Faith is also something to live every moment.

Belief alone is not enough to save us from sin and bring us to heaven. “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19). But faith does not save us. We are “justified by faith” (Rom 5:1) if it is a faith that is alive and thus produces good works (James 2:17).

Non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, do not believe that the Catholic faith is true can still be saved by the faith in their hearts that leads them to love and seek God; for Christ promised that “he who seeks finds” (Mt 7:8). So while correct belief without faith cannot save anyone, faith without belief can.

 

[John1]

Many sincerely and honestly disbelieve, Manny.

We are lucky to have this gift of faith. Not all have received the gift of faith in the Real Presence. And so in peace and love and kindliness and respect, we must pray for them. May God bless you for your reverence and love of our Lord in the Eucharist and th Sacramental Presence.

“You must keep to what you have been taught and know to be true. All Scripture is inspired by God and can profitably be used for teaching, for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be holy. This is how one who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.” [2Timothy 3:14, 16-17]

“A servant of the Lord is not to engage in quarrels, but has to be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He has to be gentle when he corrects people who dispute what he says, never forgetting that God may give them a change of mind so that they recognise the truth.” [2Timothy 2:24-26]

Hi Trishie,

That was very well written, as we must not lose sight of how we are to behave as Christians. We’re supposed to love each other, for that is how others will recognize us as Christians, children of God, and not children of darkness.

I’m a member of the RCC and I believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine. I believe that it is a real spiritual presence. I think that St. Paul makes it clear in his letters to the church and he makes a clear difference in the earthly flesh and the spiritual flesh. St. Paul also says that we have been given one spiritual drink to drink. I may be wrong, but I think that many people dismiss the idea that spiritual flesh is real. I came from a Protestant background, but I think I have always believed in the real spiritual presence. I know that there are a lot of people that believe it is only symbolic, but maybe they just need more time. I think that if they read John 6:35-63, especially 6:63 where Jesus says, “63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”, then were to read through some of the key passages in St. Paul’s letters, then maybe they would appreciate what St. Ignatius was explaining.

 

[Trishie]

A very gracious response, John.

I thank and praise God for the faith you have been given. Your declaration of faith in the Real Presence, in transubstanciation, in the Eucharist and Communion is a wonderful act of faith. Hopefully it will inspire others to be open to these truths, and to examine the scriptures and quotations that you and Manny have offered. Numinous, an interesting definition of faith and belief.

God bless you all!

Trishie

 

[Bill_Pick]

Consider the following quote made by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

**“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” **

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Many of you know that St. Ignatius of Antioch is a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. He was taught by him and like any Apostle, he desires that all his followers know the truth. John the Apostle taught that Jesus is truly present in Bread and Wine. It is no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Jesus Christ himself. The same Jesus who died on the cross for you and rise from the dead on the third day.

Why do you non-believers who call yourself Christians (those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist) deny this divine truth which John learn from Jesus Christ, and John taught his follower St. Ignatius the same doctrine or teaching.

Do you suppose John taught error since some of you, Protestants think the Communion Host and the Wine as merely symbolic? Who is telling the truth doctrine here? You say another thing but Jesus in Gospel of John Chapter 6:52-67 taught us that “he who eats (Jesus’ flesh and blood) My Flesh and drink My blood has eternal life…” and that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood has no life in him."

Why do you contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ? You call yourself a Bible Christian? You better take a second look at the Jesus Bread Discourse and St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by John.

If you claim, John taught Ignatius wrong doctrine? What proof do you have? Are you willing to lose your soul for denying this as part of Divine Revelation? If John taught Ignatius erroneous doctrine then perhaps John’s Gospel is erroneous?

You non-believers have a lot to answer for.

and we can also read mark 14;22-24 luke 22; 19-20 and matt 14;22-24 most non-beliver are just blind to the truth

 

[Steadfast]

Trishie’s response was excellent.

Calling them “blind” is uncharitable.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Trishie’s response was excellent.

Calling them “blind” is uncharitable.

No it isn’t.

 

[JonNC]

No it isn’t.

Yes, it is, and devisive, too. It will do nothing to help convince them.

Jon

 

[With_Questions]

A couple of comments by one who is apparantly “blind”

Consider the following quote made by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

**“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” **

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

The problem with this quote is the same problem we find in Scripture when Jesus says “This is my body…This is my blood”.

It is the meaning of the word is when the subject obviously does not have the same physical and chemical structure as the object.

In such cases we normally interpret the verb “is” as represents.

For example, if I were to pull out my wallet, take out a dollar bill, point to it, and say “This is George Washington”…you would not interpret that to mean that my dollar bill has somehow become George Washington.

So the question remains in my mind…when I encounter sentences that relate to communion such “The Eucharist is the flesh” or “This is my body” or “This is my blood”; why shouldn’t I interpret them in the same way as I would interpret “This is George Washington”

Many of you know that St. Ignatius of Antioch is a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. He was taught by him and like any Apostle, he desires that all his followers know the truth.

Got it.

John the Apostle taught that Jesus is truly present in Bread and Wine. It is no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Jesus Christ himself. The same Jesus who died on the cross for you and rise from the dead on the third day.

Where does John teach that?

Why do you non-believers who call yourself Christians

So I am a non-believer. Fine example of Christian love here eh.
Fortunatelyh Mannyfit is not whom I am accountable to.

(those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist) deny this divine truth which John learn from Jesus Christ, and John taught his follower St. Ignatius the same doctrine or teaching.

Actually I don’t deny the Real Presence. I have no intention to do unto you as you have done unto me. For all I know you might be correct in this. I am open to be persuaded by a reasonable and convincing case. However, this does not cut it.

It is just that I am not yet totally persuaded. But what I have become persuaded of though is that when I take communion I should take it *as though *I am receiving the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. And that I should then leave the chemistry, physics, and theology of whatever happens or does not happen up to God.

Do you suppose John taught error since some of you, Protestants think the Communion Host and the Wine as merely symbolic? Who is telling the truth doctrine here? You say another thing but Jesus in Gospel of John Chapter 6:52-67 taught us that “he who eats (Jesus’ flesh and blood) My Flesh and drink My blood has eternal life…” and that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood has no life in him."

Why do you contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ? You call yourself a Bible Christian? You better take a second look at the Jesus Bread Discourse and St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by John.

And who are you to be condescending. Do you think that by adopting a condescending tone you strengthen you case.

I think not.

If you claim, John taught Ignatius wrong doctrine? What proof do you have? Are you willing to lose your soul for denying this as part of Divine Revelation? If John taught Ignatius erroneous doctrine then perhaps John’s Gospel is erroneous?

You non-believers have a lot to answer for.

Oh…so now I am going to lose my soul. So I am going to hell??

I haven’t found the verse in the Bible yet that says "Believe in the Real Presence or Thou shalt be damned. Maybe it is in Mark 17.

Who are you to know the eternal status of my soul?

I have called Protestants on the carpet here for pretending they knew the eternal destination of Catholics, which of course to them was hell. Why should I let you off the hook for doing the same thing.

 

[LilyM]

A couple of comments by one who is apparantly “blind”

The problem with this quote is the same problem we find in Scripture when Jesus says “This is my body…This is my blood”.

It is the meaning of the word is when the subject obviously does not have the same physical and chemical structure as the object.

In such cases we normally interpret the verb “is” as represents.

For example, if I were to pull out my wallet, take out a dollar bill, point to it, and say “This is George Washington”…you would not interpret that to mean that my dollar bill has somehow become George Washington.

So the question remains in my mind…when I encounter sentences that relate to communion such “The Eucharist is the flesh” or “This is my body” or “This is my blood”; why shouldn’t I interpret them in the same way as I would interpret “This is George Washington”

The difference being the note has on it a picture of a man - self-evidently being a symbol of a person. The statement ‘this is George Washington’ relies on a mutual assumption that the one to whom you show the note at least recognises the picture on it as a symbol of a person. It relies on a pre-existing shared understanding, in other words.

With some people, children from a different country for example, you might actually have to be more explicit - you might have to point to the actual picture and say ‘that picture is of a man named George Washington …’

There’s nothing to indicate that Jesus and the Apostles at the last supper had the sort of pre-existing understanding that makes the ‘this is George Washington’ comment comprehensible as being symbolic.

On the contrary, they were every bit as much in the dark, when faced with Jesus’ earlier comments on the Eucharist in John 6, as those who walked away. And there’s no indication that Jesus had done anything further to enlighten them after these baffling words.

Neither does John himself, realising surely that his followers (some of whom he taught personally, such as Ignatius) would and did take the words of the Last Supper literally, do anything to further enlighten his readers.

There is little doubt that John intended those words to be understood literally, this being because he himself understood them literally.

Then of course there’s St Paul - ‘whoever eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’, or words to that effect. How on earth can one be guilty of a mere symbol? Paul explains that one must DISCERN - in other word understand that it is NOT a mere symbol - to be worthy of it.

 

[SemperReformada]

Consider the following quote made by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

**“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” **

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Many of you know that St. Ignatius of Antioch is a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. He was taught by him and like any Apostle, he desires that all his followers know the truth. John the Apostle taught that Jesus is truly present in Bread and Wine. It is no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Jesus Christ himself. The same Jesus who died on the cross for you and rise from the dead on the third day.

Why do you non-believers who call yourself Christians (those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist) deny this divine truth which John learn from Jesus Christ, and John taught his follower St. Ignatius the same doctrine or teaching.

Do you suppose John taught error since some of you, Protestants think the Communion Host and the Wine as merely symbolic? Who is telling the truth doctrine here? You say another thing but Jesus in Gospel of John Chapter 6:52-67 taught us that “he who eats (Jesus’ flesh and blood) My Flesh and drink My blood has eternal life…” and that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood has no life in him."

Why do you contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ? You call yourself a Bible Christian? You better take a second look at the Jesus Bread Discourse and St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by John.

If you claim, John taught Ignatius wrong doctrine? What proof do you have? Are you willing to lose your soul for denying this as part of Divine Revelation? If John taught Ignatius erroneous doctrine then perhaps John’s Gospel is erroneous?

You non-believers have a lot to answer for.

Your post is rather insulting but you are probably blind to that, aren’t you?

You haven’t done anything to show that Ignatius believed the same thing you do about transubstantiationn and isn’t that the key issue for you?

 

[NDfan]

Consider the following quote made by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

**“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” **

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Many of you know that St. Ignatius of Antioch is a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. He was taught by him and like any Apostle, he desires that all his followers know the truth. John the Apostle taught that Jesus is truly present in Bread and Wine. It is no longer ordinary bread and wine, but Jesus Christ himself. The same Jesus who died on the cross for you and rise from the dead on the third day.

Why do you non-believers who call yourself Christians (those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist) deny this divine truth which John learn from Jesus Christ, and John taught his follower St. Ignatius the same doctrine or teaching.

Do you suppose John taught error since some of you, Protestants think the Communion Host and the Wine as merely symbolic? Who is telling the truth doctrine here? You say another thing but Jesus in Gospel of John Chapter 6:52-67 taught us that “he who eats (Jesus’ flesh and blood) My Flesh and drink My blood has eternal life…” and that those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood has no life in him."

Why do you contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ? You call yourself a Bible Christian? You better take a second look at the Jesus Bread Discourse and St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by John.

If you claim, John taught Ignatius wrong doctrine? What proof do you have? Are you willing to lose your soul for denying this as part of Divine Revelation? If John taught Ignatius erroneous doctrine then perhaps John’s Gospel is erroneous?

You non-believers have a lot to answer for.

Manny this just shows your ignorance of church history. Do you know why Ignatius even wrote this letter?? During this time the Christian churches were facing the heretical teachings of the Gnostics. They refused to partake in communion because they believed all material matter in this life was evil and that in no way could bread and wine represent Christ. This further reinforces Ignatius and the church were teaching a symbolic communion. Had Ignatius taught Transubstantiation letting the Gnostics know that the bread and wine ceased to exist becoming Christ’s literal body and blood they would have agreed. This would fit entirely into their theology which stated that Christ was not GOD incarnate and that what we saw on the cross was not real.

The Gnostics refrained from taking communion because they would not admit that the bread and wine symbolized Jesus body and blood. Not because they wouldn’t admit to transubstantiation. Many scholars believe the doctrine of transubstantiation originated within the Gnostic community.

Irenaeus called communion an oblation which is a religious offering of thanks to a deity.

Please show me 1 ECF that used John 6 to refer to communion.

 

[Steadfast]

There are a couple issues here and we Catholics have the habit of confusing them.

First of all: Transubstantiation does not equal Real Presence.

Secondly: It is intellectually dishonest to maintain that when the ECF’s talk about the latter, they are necessarily talking about the former as well.

Transubstantiation is the model that the church settled on, but it did not do so for several centuries after the ECF’s lived and died.

Having said that, they are unanimous that in the Eucharist Christians receive the true Body and Blood of Jesus broken and shed for them and not just a symbol or merely as a sort of “spiritual presence” although it is rather interesting that the complete view includes and subsumes these.

Anyhow, It is the very soul of uncharitability to castigate those who think differently than you do when doing so is clearly ineffectual in either changing their minds or contributing to dialogue.

Manny, when you call them blind who do not accept what we believe and who do so out of a firm and clear conscientious commitment to another view you are being uncharitable. You are furthering your own agenda and, frankly, you are doing the Church a disservice as well as looking like a bigot yourself.

It costs nothing to be decent to people. Having a computer doesn’t give you the right to be a jerk.

 

[ncgolf]

Anyhow, It is the very soul of uncharitability to castigate those who think differently than you do when doing so is clearly ineffectual in either changing their minds or contributing to dialogue.

I wrote this in another post but I am going to repeat it here since I think we all can place ourselves in this position … so I will repeat it … since I agree with your overall point.

"I go back to the upper room … when Thomas was not there … and the disciples were all huddled there. The Lord came to them … and they were full of joy and excited … I am sure they couldn’t wait to share this news with Thomas.

But when Thomas joined them he would not believe … he had to see with his own eyes and hands for him to believe what the others saw.

I believe that is where we all are today … Catholics and non-Catholics … in the upper room waiting for Christ. Some have seen with the eyes of faith but some have not and want more evidence … but we are all there, together, … doubters and believers. I believe an important part of that story is … they were still together … the others did not toss out Thomas for not agreeing … it is only when Christ chose to reveal himself that Thomas did believe. This still happens today.

In the end Thomas indeed did see … and his first words … My Lord and My God … so I will wait until the end of the story."