How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[FantomScholar]

Interesting.

I did not see in that article any denial of the CC’s teaching on transubstantiation.

I did look up more info on this OCA and it seems they are autocephalous. Thus, do all other Orthodox Churches teach that “the Roman dogma of transubstantiation is false”?

I could find nothing that supports that–only articles on catholic.com that state we are in dogmatic agreement with the Orthodox on transubstantiation, although they don’t use the term (Latin root and all that, it seems).

This is from the article I linked to:

“Then again, Orthodox Eucharistic theology does not explain the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a result of “transubstantiation,” the teaching that the “accidents” (visible properties) of the elements remain unaltered, while their “substance” or inner essence becomes the actual Body and Blood. Orthodox tradition speaks of “change” or “transformation,” (metamorphôsis; in the Eucharistic Divine Liturgy metabalôn, “making the change”) but always with a concern to preserve the mystery from the probings of human reason. It also speaks of the Body and Blood of the glorified Christ, making the point that our communion is in the personal being of the Resurrected and Exalted Lord, and not in the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, torn and shed on the Cross. The incarnate Jesus and the risen Christ are certainly one and the same Person (“Jesus Christ is Lord,” the apostle Paul declares in Philippians 2:11). But our communion is in the radically transformed reality of the risen Christ, who ascended into heaven and makes Himself accessible to us through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within the Church.”

It seems they basically reason that what happens in the Eucharist is beyond human comprehension. Rome, on the other hand, says that transubstantiation is a dogma that must be believed de fide in order to be in union with Rome. Certainly Rome has the right to define who can and cannot receive communion or be members of the church. However, it only demonstrates that Rome’s claim that transubstantiation has always been the teaching of the church is far from concrete in any way.

 

[Nicea325]

That maybe what Luther said: But here’s what Christ said: Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man you will have no life you.

So who do we belive, Luther or Jesus Christ?

The Eucharist as the Catholics are practicing it, is a pagan rite. [/quoe]
So you are saying that Christ commanded us to practice a pagan ritual?

 

[rev_kevin]

**He, [Christ] is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.[seems to me to be different denominations] **

Jesus founded thousands of different denominations? It is nice to wish and dream,but that is not what Christ founded:thousands of different denominations. Christ is not the author of confusion.No way! Not even close.I am sorry,but you are out to make scripture say something it does not say. Not even close. Jesus did not found different denominations and to believe otherwise is a complete error.

How many Catholic church’s have pastors, evangelists?
I quess you agree with the rest of my post.

 

[benedictus2]

He, [Christ] is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.[seems to me to be different denominations]

Well no. The different denominations came only 1500 years later. Back then, there was only one Church. Different episcopates yes. But all under one Church.

How can you even think that your church was founded by Christ when it probably only sprouted up in the 20th cent ury. So many of the different denominations started only in the last 100 years.

Their responsibilty is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.

Yes that is true.

[who or what is the church, the body of Christ, not a single man named church or denomination, its Christ himself.]

Here again you are wrong. When Paul speaks of the Body of Christ as in Church, he does not mean Christ Himself but the members of the Church.
A few phrase up, you said that Christ gave the apostles the responsibility of building the Church, the body of Christ.

Now you are saying that the Church is Christ HImself. Well just thnk about what you’ve just basically said: that Christ gave the apostles the responsibility of building up Christ? Can the apostles actually build up Christ himself? What sort of theology have you resorted to now?.

Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.

Now you are on the right track again.

not a single man named church or denomination, the church is Christ]

Now you are on the wrong track again. Back to the error you committed above.

Under his direction, the whole body is fitted together perfectly, As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love. We are all one body, we have the same Spirit, and we have all been called to the same glorious future.

Yes, that is correct. Right track again.

The church Christ founded is himself.

Completely wrong here. I don’t know perhaps you weren’t thinking when you wrote this or else you’re just trying to grasp at straws and are not thinking coherently.
Re-read that statement and you will see how completely devoid of reason that is.

 

[FantomScholar]

This argument does not hold water. There are currently cafeteria Catholics who spout all sorts of un-Christian doctrines who remain in the Church. And the reason for their remaining is so that they can get the church to change her doctrine. So they are working towards her ruin much like termites.

However, that is nothing new. Up and down the centuries, heresies have arisen and most of them if not all, were started by priests and bishops. But the Church has always condemned these heresies.

The matter at issue now is nothing new. As I have posted earlier, Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century made the same claim you are doing now. And even then it was condemned…

And the reason Berengarius never gained ground was because he was in the Church and the Church could sanction and condemn his heresy. Unlike now in the protestant realm where everyone believes what ever they want to believe and someone’s belief does not gel with the current church, they just start their own.

My point is not that they should remain in the Catholic Church. That is the exact opposite of what I said. My point was that if they did remain in the Church, it would cause confusion. As it is clearly doing with the influence of liberalizing Catholics. The divisions are necessary in order to recognize erroneous teachings.

But who decides which is false and which is true?

The individual Christian is responsible before God for what he or she professes. No one can force anyone to accept dogma. Everyone must use their own God given faculties to determine truth from error. Anyone who has converted to or remains in the Catholic Church has made the decision, based on reason, Scripture, historical evidences, etc. to come to the conclusion that what Rome teaches is in accord with apostolic doctrine. The idea that Protestants use their own fallible judgment to decide what they believe, motivated by pride, individualism etc vs. the Catholic who is magically whisked by Roman infallibility into accepting the doctrines of the Church is patently ludicrous. Your decision to accept Roman Catholicism is no more or less fallible than anyone’s decision to reject it.

The alleged problem of epistemological knowledge on the part of Protestants is merely a red herring. Infallibility does not solve the epistemological issue. The choice is still based on the individual’s fallible decision to accept one infallible interpreter over another.

And that is true. The Holy Spirit will still be at work in them but matters of doctrine is another thing.

And I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit has guided individuals into incorrect doctrine. The role of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is to impart the gift of faith in Christ to those who hear Christ preached from the Scriptures.

And we have seen this in a lot of conversion stories where the Holy Spirit worked and continues to work towards their return to the Church.

Unless the doctrine is wrong. In which case, by your own standards, He is not.

That conclusion cannot be avoided if you maintain that differing denominations with differing beliefs all hold the truth.

They hold the truth inasmuch as they hold to Christ, who is the truth. That doesn’t mean everything they hold about the nature of doctrine is the truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rev Kevin,

You replied 'How many Catholic churches have pastors??? Our parish priest is as a pastor, a shepherd, and he is subordinate to our bishop, the successor of the apostles. The local bishop represents the faith we believers hold in communion with him,…and our particularities of our local diocese. And the bishop is subordinate to the Holy Father in Rome.

We look to the seat of Rome has having the final word…but not a sign of egocentric bossy-ness, but as the sign of unity…in union with all the bishops of the world…this is the spirit of the Church…we are all part of a whole…and we also are united to a certain degree with the Orthodox, and our separated brethren present in all Christian churches and ecclesial communities…

 

[rev_kevin]

Well no. The different denominations came only 1500 years later. Back then, there was only one Church. Different episcopates yes. But all under one Church.

How can you even think that your church was founded by Christ when it probably only sprouted up in the 20th cent ury. So many of the different denominations started only in the last 100 years.
Yes that is true.
Here again you are wrong. When Paul speaks of the Body of Christ as in Church, he does not mean Christ Himself but the members of the Church.
A few phrase up, you said that Christ gave the apostles the responsibility of building the Church, the body of Christ.

Now you are saying that the Church is Christ HImself. Well just thnk about what you’ve just basically said: that Christ gave the apostles the responsibility of building up Christ? Can the apostles actually build up Christ himself? What sort of theology have you resorted to now?.

Now you are on the right track again.
Now you are on the wrong track again. Back to the error you committed above.

Yes, that is correct. Right track again.
Completely wrong here. I don’t know perhaps you weren’t thinking when you wrote this or else you’re just trying to grasp at straws and are not thinking coherently.
Re-read that statement and you will see how completely devoid of reason that is.

Then what does it mean?

God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him authority for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body, it is filled with Christ, who fills everything everywhere with his presence.
Christ is the head of the Church, which is his body.
So who or what is the church, Christ is. I stick by what I said.

I also said pastors and evangelists also.

They are to build up what he has been teaching all along. Building the church, building on what he has been teaching.

The church is Christ, he is the only church, he did not say the CC is the church or the Baptist church is the church, he said he is the church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Our pastor was sharing with us the witness of the universality of our faith that was present just in our little parish to a Protestant visitor. He remarked on all the different economic levels, singles and married, different races, different cultures and the fact that we all have different opinions. He said that in Protestant churches, members tend to draw on more what they share in common.

In our churches, what we hold in common is our Credo and the Sacraments, and our hierarchical structure. You have within the Orthodox all the different rites and branches there, and their own specific liturgical rites. If there is no Latin rite, we may through their pastor’s permission, attend their liturgies and receive the Eucharist.

So we have basic specifics in every parish/church that we believe in that transcends the different kinds of people in our congregations. So from this universal perspective, in my regard, perhaps you can see why I am not so inclined to simply quote different passages from Scripture…the Oral Tradition passed down and incarnated into all the various cultures and regions must always work at the maintaining the integrity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Cinette]

Hello everybody! I have been away from the computer for approximately 36 hours and gosh I see that the thread has grown and I am about to leave in 20 minutes to go and do some work. I don’t know if I am going to have time to catch up so I ask you please someone, summarise what happened. Has the debate progressed? Or are we all talking to ourselves???

I see there are more people on board and I hope that the debate has progressed.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hello everybody! I have been away from the computer for approximately 36 hours and gosh I see that the thread has grown and I am about to leave in 20 minutes to go and do some work. I don’t know if I am going to have time to catch up so I ask you please someone, summarise what happened. Has the debate progressed? Or are we all talking to ourselves???

I see there are more people on board and I hope that the debate has progressed.

God bless all
Cinette

I think they are talking to themselves.

My professional Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut. “They’re ALL wrong.”

 

[benedictus2]

Then what does it mean?

I think you know exactly what it means. You said as much when you wrote: “He, [Christ] is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers” except that you missed the laity.

You also got what it means when you wrote: Christ, who is the head of his body, the church but then you completely lost it again by defining the body as Christ himself, when it is clear from St Paul’s writing that he means the human members of the Church.

You again got it when you wrote “As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love”. That statement does not gel with your statement that Christ is Himself the Church.

This is why I said you were not thinking correctly when you wrote this. I have a feeling that as you begin to see the rationality of our point of view you are trying to shore up your protestant defences with whatever you can muster and that is why you are coming up with this quite illogical posts.

God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him authority for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body, it is filled with Christ, who fills everything everywhere with his presence.

See, here is that senseless thing again. God gave Christ authority over Christ himself??! Is that what you want to say here because that is what you are saying with this statement.

Christ is the head of the Church, which is his body.
So who or what is the church, Christ is. I stick by what I said.

So Christ is the Church? If Christ is the church, then how do you reconcile that with Paul’s exhortation to “build up the church?”. Is Paul telling us to build up Christ? What about the term the church in Ephesus or the church in Galatia. Is he referring to the Christ in Ephesus and the Christ in Galatia?

I also said pastors and evangelists also.

They are to build up what he has been teaching all along. Building the church, building on what he has been teaching.

So pastors and evangelists are to build up Christ? I hate to say this but can’t you see how idiotic this sounds?

The church is Christ, he is the only church, he did not say the CC is the church or the Baptist church is the church, he said he is the church.

The Body of Christ that St Paul refers to is the baptized. St Paul here is referring to the mystical Body of Christ - the Church.
Here is an excerpt from this site :catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=629
We learned from a previous column (August 2008) what St. Paul teaches of Jesus. Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, is the head of the body of the church. In Ephesians, Paul tells us that it is the Father who “put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body…” (1:22-23).
We might ask at this point how, in fact, we become part of the Body of Christ the head. St. Paul in no way leaves us grasping for answers.
He says clearly, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Through baptism we are so united with Christ so as to become his very body. The Father and the Son send the Spirit in baptism to make us one in Christ. St. Augustine would one day say, “What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 797).
However, beyond baptism, the church becomes more and more united to Christ through Christ’s self-sacrifice made present for us in the Eucharist. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation [communion] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). We become one body with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit in baptism, but we continue to come into a more intimate communion with Christ the head through receiving his body, blood, soul, and divinity.
St. Paul will also help us understand the reality of the church as the Body of Christ in a couple different ways.
The first way is through an analogy with our physical bodies. “For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ…” (Romans 12:4).
The various parts of the body have different purposes, so too do we in the Body of Christ. We each have our own gifts. However, the gifts possessed by each member we do not have by random chance. “…We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us…” (Romans 12:6). God himself has given them to us. As a result St. Paul says, “…exercise them: if prophecy, in proportion to the faith; if ministry, in ministering; if one is a teacher, in teaching; if one exhorts, in exhortation; if one contributes, in generosity; if one is over others, in diligence; if one does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness” (Romans 12:6-8).

 

[benedictus2]

Hello everybody! I have been away from the computer for approximately 36 hours and gosh I see that the thread has grown and I am about to leave in 20 minutes to go and do some work. I don’t know if I am going to have time to catch up so I ask you please someone, summarise what happened. Has the debate progressed? Or are we all talking to ourselves???

I see there are more people on board and I hope that the debate has progressed.

God bless all
Cinette

Yes darling. We’re still all having a marvelous time with this conversation. Have no doubt about it. It is a marvelous conversation in spite of the merry go round every now and again.

 

[benedictus2]

My point is not that they should remain in the Catholic Church. That is the exact opposite of what I said. My point was that if they did remain in the Church, it would cause confusion. As it is clearly doing with the influence of liberalizing Catholics. The divisions are necessary in order to recognize erroneous teachings.

I would say yes and no to that. Yes, I think the liberals ought to show their true colours. No because that is breaking up the body of Christ all over again. While they may be dissenting, the message is clear from the magisterium. At the moment, these are like petulant children who stomp and wail. But one day they will grow up and see the wisdom of the parent.

The individual Christian is responsible before God for what he or she professes. No one can force anyone to accept dogma.

And that is very true. Only God knows whether the person who does not obey the teachings of the church obey it out of sincere ignorance and failure to apprehend truth or whether it is because of a selfish willfulness.

Everyone must use their own God given faculties to determine truth from error.

Well yes and no. Yes you must use your God given faculties to seek truth, and no because this assumes that the person is capable by himself to determine all truths.

That is why relativism is so alive and well in our society today. Everyone determines for himself what is true. Therefore the atheist is as much right about things as the theist, the Christian the same with Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. In fact we end up with variations of truth all resting on what the supreme diety I/Me/Myself has established.
Yes, once more that sin of Adam and Eve, self-deification rears its ugly head in a new clothes.

Anyone who has converted to or remains in the Catholic Church has made the decision, based on reason, Scripture, historical evidences, etc. to come to the conclusion that what Rome teaches is in accord with apostolic doctrine. The idea that Protestants use their own fallible judgment to decide what they believe, motivated by pride, individualism etc vs. the Catholic who is magically whisked by Roman infallibility into accepting the doctrines of the Church is patently ludicrous.

But what I said is not a blanket statement about all protestants. That is why I said some are sincerely just ignorant of the truth and fail to grasp it. Others however, do know that what we say make sense, but shore up their defences due to a willful determination to be the magisterium of their belief. Because, the simple truth is, we are not wrangling about Mary, the Eucharist, baptism, etc. etc. The central point of our division is authority.

Is the Church who she claims to be? If she is, then based on Christ’s promise, that means that all her doctrines are true whether we can apprehend it at this point or not.

And if so, then to be faithful to Christ is to bow to her authority. And that is a great thing to ask of someone who has been the supreme determiner of what is right or wrong with regards doctrine and morality for a large part of their life. That will mean a surrender of the primacy of the self in this instance.

Is the Eucharist true? I surrender the self and concur whether I can apprehend it or not. Is the Immaculate Conception and Assumption true? I surrender the self and believ whether I can apprehend it or not.

Somethign like this happened to me two years ago. A protestant told me that the Catholic Church believes in pre-destination. To my horror he was right. So do I accept this when it seems to fly against all reason that I was capable of at that time? I decided yes I do. Because the Church said so it must be true . and she holds it as de fide dogma. This is probably what I would call blind faith for I could not see even the tiniest light in it.

But the amazing thing happened, once I said yes, I actually came to understand what she teaches. And as days passed, I came to understand even more.

No doubt there will be many things that will elude my mental grasp. But it is not necessary for me to have it in a neat little pile all organized in my brain for me to acquiesce once I have confirmed that this one statement is true: That the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded here on earth.

And then the words of Tantum Ergo come to my aid:
What my senses fail to fathom, let me grasp through faith’s consent.

 

[benedictus2]

And I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit has guided individuals into incorrect doctrine. The role of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is to impart the gift of faith in Christ to those who hear Christ preached from the Scriptures.

Yes, very well put. Actually, excellently put.

Unless the doctrine is wrong. In which case, by your own standards, He is not.

Not quite. The Holy Spirit is in action always. First to illumine that Christ is God/Saviour/King (as you have said above to impart the gift of faith in Christ, but then to help them sift through the wrong doctrine. I have found that most protestants are sincere in their search. What I find truly objectionable are the likes of Jack Chick. But then again he perhaps truly believes all the lies he peddles about the Catholic Church. Then again, that he concocts lies himself means that he is under the grip fo the father of lies and not the Holy Spirit.

They hold the truth inasmuch as they hold to Christ, who is the truth.

Yes, yes and amen. I said as much in a thread asking whether we have stopped seeking truth and I said yes and no. Yes because I have found truth (Christ) and no because I only know a small facet of this truth.

That doesn’t mean everything they hold about the nature of doctrine is the truth.

Completely agree.

 

[PRmerger]

This is from the article I linked to:

"Then again, Orthodox Eucharistic theology does not explain the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a result of “transubstantiation,” the teaching that the “accidents” (visible properties) of the elements remain unaltered, while their “substance” or inner essence becomes the actual Body and Blood. Orthodox tradition speaks of “change” or “transformation,” (metamorphôsis; in the Eucharistic Divine Liturgy metabalôn, “making the change”)

Right. They wouldn’t use the Latin term “transubstantiation”, but the Greek “metamorphosis”. But it’s the same dogmatic understanding.

but always with a concern to preserve the mystery from the probings of human reason. It also speaks of the Body and Blood of the glorified Christ, making the point that our communion is in the personal being of the Resurrected and Exalted Lord, and not in the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, torn and shed on the Cross.

This OCA priest apparently does not understand the CC’s teaching on the Eucharist. We do not believe the Eucharist is the “flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, torn and shed on the Cross”, but also the “Resurrected and Exalted Lord”.

*The Eucharistic Sacrifice makes present not only the mystery of the Saviour’s passion and death, but also the mystery of the resurrection which crowned his sacrifice. ****It is as the living and risen One that Christ can become in the Eucharist the “bread of life” (Jn 6:35, 48), the “living bread” (Jn 6:51). *
-Pope JPII ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA (bold mine)

The incarnate Jesus and the risen Christ are certainly one and the same Person (“Jesus Christ is Lord,” the apostle Paul declares in Philippians 2:11). But our communion is in the radically transformed reality of the risen Christ, who ascended into heaven and makes Himself accessible to us through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within the Church."

That’s very Catholic of him to say that!

It seems they basically reason that what happens in the Eucharist is beyond human comprehension.

That’s the Catholic understanding as well!

“Before this mystery of love, human reason fully experiences its limitations.” (ibid)

 

[shawn38]

Yes. The Last Supper is where Jesus instituted the Eucharist. The Passover sacrifice is completed after Jesus drinks the “Fourth Cup” while on the Cross–thus, Jesus said, “It is finished”. What was finished? The final Passover sacrifice.

No it was not. That refers to the 3rd cup. What were Christ’s last words? “It is finished.” What was finished? The redemptive work. What does the 3rd cup represent? The Cup of Redemption. The 4th cup, was never drank. That will be drank at the wedding feast.

If I’m wrong, please show me where the third and fourth cup were drank.

 

[PRmerger]

No it was not. That refers to the 3rd cup. What were Christ’s last words? “It is finished.” What was finished? The redemptive work. What does the 3rd cup represent? The Cup of Redemption. The 4th cup, was never drank. That will be drank at the wedding feast.

Can you cite Scripture verses for the bolded sections, please?

 

[PRmerger]

Shawn? What Scripture verses say that the 4th cup will be drunk at the wedding feast? And that the 3rd cup represents the Cup of Redemption?

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[shawn38]

Can you cite Scripture verses for the bolded sections, please?

The four cups reference the four “I wills” from exodus 6:6-7.

Ex 6:6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and
I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.
I will free you from being slaves to them, and
I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.
7I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.

Jewish tradition for the Passover required the drinking of four cups of red wine. One cup represented each of the four “I will”, promises God made to the Israelites.

 

[PRmerger]

The four cups reference the four “I wills” from exodus 6:6-7.

Ex 6:6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and
I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.
I will free you from being slaves to them, and
I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.
7I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.

Jewish tradition for the Passover required the drinking of four cups of red wine. One cup represented each of the four “I will”, promises God made to the Israelites.

Shawn, you need to back up these statements you made with Scripture:

No it was not. That refers to the 3rd cup. What were Christ’s last words? “It is finished.” What was finished? The redemptive work. What does the 3rd cup represent? The Cup of Redemption. The 4th cup, was never drank. That will be drank at the wedding feast.

Firstly, where does Scripture say that the 4th cup will be drunk at the wedding feast?

Secondly, where does it say that the 3rd cup represents the Cup of Redemption?

I didn’t see anything in the above Scripture reference that mentions “wedding” “feast” “third” “cup” “fourth” “cup” “redemption”.