How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6560637:

Quite possibly so, but you give only your belief or preference and with all due respect this isn’t enough!

I beg your pardon? My BELIEF? No! It is the BELIEF of the early church. No offense,but the problem is that you simply have not taken the time to study the early church.

That’s a point of view, but it isn’t mine, neither is it born out by my reading habits!
We should enquire who the Holy Fathers were?
They were ,for the most part, the College of Bishops and theologians of the first four centuries of the Christian era, later on they were the College of Bishops met in the Church Councils, especially the Ecumenical ones!
The interesting thing is that these people, Bishops, Council fathers and so on, did not hold the Bishop of Rome as anything other than an important Bishop. One who held a See, erected by not one but two Apostles. Who had as his parishioner the Emperor and who had received important privileges from the Emperor, such as to use the armed forces of the state to enforce his religious views!

I’ll ask you again,if Peter had no primacy,then explain to me why would bishops from the East and West take their issues to Rome to be settled? I have the historical cases to back up my argument,where are yours clearly showing papal primacy was a usurpation of Christ?

First of all, I do not refuse Peter’s primacy! But I do claim apart from Peter’s prominence in early books of the NT, and his early endevours, Antioch ,Alexandria and so forth, there’s very little to back up your claims! There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to account for these Petrine privileges, or Primacy being passed on to the Bishop of Rome!I did refer to the fact of his, [Peter’s] rather quiet part in the Council of Jerusalem, where the lead was taken by James, the Great! Even more to the point, the Seven Ecumenical Councils,probably the most illustrious time in the whole of our Church history saw very little part being played by the various Bishops of Rome, indeed the papacy actually opposed some of them . These great Councils being called, activated and regulated by the emperors and apart from one instance, [Pope Leo,] the only part the papacy played was to affirm them! Which was no more than any other bishop did!
Regarding to appeals to Rome? The Councils, at the request of the Emperor called a Council at which British Bishops were present, the Council of Sardica! [Sophia.] The purpose was to clear from the Emperor of Rome the constant irritant of Catholic bishops appealing to the Monarch for arbitration in their religious quarrels. The Council gave the Bishop of Rome permission to adjudicate in certain cases, but chiefly he was to allocate the quarrels to other patriarchs and keep the problems away from the Emperors. It is to be noted that this facility was for limited cases and was from the Church, at the instigation by the Emperor. Also, various Apostolical Sees and patriarchies were given roles of communicating and distributing various attitudes and actions of Church matters to the more remote areas,i.e. western Europe. This gave various disreputable Bishops and Clergy, opportunities to play on the weakness’s, in Rome’s ,collective character and appeal against their own disciplinary process, i.e. Africa and Cyprian.
I should also point out that for the best part of a Century, the Eastern Church, or large parts of it were out of communion with Rome, S.Firmilion was canonised after spending his working life as a respected Bishop out of Communion with Rome and the West! Interesting isn’t it that the early christian Bishops appealed to The Emperor rather than the papacy?

 

[Fisher]

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said,** I am the bread which came down from heaven**. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:39-44

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
John 6:47-49 ** Physical**

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 6:50-51 Spiritual

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:53-54 I guess that mean your saved if you eat Him. The word hath means (possession)

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 **But there are some of you that believe not. **
John 6:60-64

Jesus was talking about spiritual not physcial things. Jesus said he was a door, a tree, living water, bread, a river.

the flesh profiteth nothing

 

[Nicea325]

Quite possibly so, but you give only your belief or preference and with all due respect this isn’t enough!

Quote:Nicea
I beg your pardon? My BELIEF? No! It is the BELIEF of the early church. No offense,but the problem is that you simply have not taken the time to study the early church.

That’s a point of view, but it isn’t mine, neither is it born out by my reading habits!
We should enquire who the Holy Fathers were?
They were ,for the most part, the College of Bishops and theologians of the first four centuries of the Christian era, later on they were the College of Bishops met in the Church Councils, especially the Ecumenical ones!

Hhmmm? Get a load of this ecumenical council and what it says:

Council of Ephesus (431)

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Show me the early church documents displaying the PROTESTS from the other bishops?

The interesting thing is that these people, Bishops, Council fathers and so on, did not hold the Bishop of Rome as anything other than an important Bishop. One who held a See, erected by not one but two Apostles. Who had as his parishioner the Emperor and who had received important privileges from the Emperor, such as to use the armed forces of the state to enforce his religious views!

Oh really? The above quote from Ephesus begs to differ with your view and argument.The Bishop of rome was viewed more than just an ‘important’ bishop. And why? Because the bishop of rome held the seat of Peter or the See. I will give you only one church father making it clear about Peter and his successors:

Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Quote:
I’ll ask you again,if Peter had no primacy,then explain to me why would bishops from the East and West take their issues to Rome to be settled? I have the historical cases to back up my argument,where are yours clearly showing papal primacy was a usurpation of Christ?

**First of all, I do not refuse Peter’s primacy! But I do claim apart from Peter’s prominence in early books of the NT, and his early endevours, Antioch ,Alexandria and so forth, there’s very little to back up your claims! **

Very little? I have given you numerous church fathers a lot more than what you have provided: ZILCH! Show me the overwhelming evidence by the early church teaching Peter and his successors had no primacy at all? Where are all the protests claiming the Bishop of rome had no primacy over other bishops?

**There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to account for these Petrine privileges, or Primacy being passed on to the Bishop of Rome!I did refer to the fact of his, [Peter’s] rather quiet part in the Council of Jerusalem, where the lead was taken by James, the Great! Even more to the point, the Seven Ecumenical Councils,probably the most illustrious time in the whole of our Church history saw very little part being played by the various Bishops of Rome, indeed the papacy actually opposed some of them . These great Councils being called, activated and regulated by the emperors and apart from one instance, [Pope Leo,] the only part the papacy played was to affirm them! Which was no more than any other bishop did!
Regarding to appeals to Rome? The Councils, at the request of the Emperor called a Council at which British Bishops were present, the Council of Sardica! [Sophia.] The purpose was to clear from the Emperor of Rome the constant irritant of Catholic bishops appealing to the Monarch for arbitration in their religious quarrels. The Council gave the Bishop of Rome permission to adjudicate in certain cases, but chiefly he was to allocate the quarrels to other patriarchs and keep the problems away from the Emperors. It is to be noted that this facility was for limited cases and was from the Church, at the instigation by the Emperor. Also, various Apostolical Sees and patriarchies were given roles of communicating and distributing various attitudes and actions of Church matters to the more remote areas,i.e. western Europe. This gave various disreputable Bishops and Clergy, opportunities to play on the weakness’s, in Rome’s ,collective character and appeal against their own disciplinary process, i.e. Africa and Cyprian.
I should also point out that for the best part of a Century, the Eastern Church, or large parts of it were out of communion with Rome, S.Firmilion was canonised after spending his working life as a respected Bishop out of Communion with Rome and the West! Interesting isn’t it that the early christian Bishops appealed to The Emperor rather than the papacy? **

EXCUSE ME? Nothing in scripture or Tradition? You really turn the blind eye-don’t you? What do you think I have been providing? Early church fathers TRADITIONS!

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie

A couple of points.

1. I have come to believe, over the years, that Christians should be free to interpret scripture as they see fit. I have enjoyed some Bible studies at which various members of the group came up with different interpretations of one verse or another. No one jumped on anyone else and shouted ‘heresy’. They were more like to say, “While I may not agree with you, that’s an interesting point of view. Tell me more.”
2. “Cafeteria Catholics” come in for bitter criticism. I admire them because they don’t simply turn over their minds to the church, the Pope or the catechism. They weigh things. My lady friend (I am a widowerer) attends mass faithfully, is devoted to the church, but she can’t bring herself to believe certain things, such as the infallibility of the Pope in faith and morals or the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was the only person born without origin sin, and that she lived a sinless life. She says they may be true, but that she has serious doubts about these as well as other Catholic doctrines. But she (and me, too) is sure that God will not punish her because she is an honest questioner.
3. Obviously, the Bible isn’t all that clear. Take the Sermon on the Mount. Quakers and the Amish and some others believe Jesus taught absolute pacifism - “love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, etc.” Quakers won’t take an oath (but affirm instead) because Jesus said “swear not by heaven or by earth.” Some Christians believe that our lives are mapped out in advance - “even the hairs on your head are numbered” - somewhere in scripture. Some Christians handle snakes as a sign of their faith, quoting final verses in Mark. How literally should we take Jesus? He said he was the gate, the door, the vine, the good shepherd. He spoke in similes and metaphors. And frankly, I have trouble with the time when he directed demons into pigs and sent them headlong over a cliff. Well, we could go on. My point is that scripture is filled with verses that can be interpreted in different ways, one reason for so many Christian groups. The commandment - one of the ten - against graven images convinces many Christians that statues in church are not appropriate. Then we have those verses that justify slavery, that women should cover their heads in church, that they should not speak in church - scores of other tough verses to explain.
4. Heresy? That doesn’t trouble me for a moment. When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said nothing about doctrine. He said love God and others, then told the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate his point. In his day, he was something of as heretic himself and we admire him for that. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” etc.

Let’s make our faith a bridge and not a barrier.

Hi Roy and thank you for your kinds words. But in all do respect I disagree with you. And so does the word of God. It tells us to not twist the words of God for our human thinking. We are to become all in one with Christ. How can we be united together if we take the word of God and turn it to what we want it to say instead of what Gods wants it to say?

I will pray for your lady friend that she can accept ALL of the word of God. I believe that it comes from alot of Grace.

As far as a graven image please go back and read Exo 20:3-5. If read in context it shows graven images to mean worship an image that was created to be a god. That is the problem as we discussed earlier when People accuse someone of doing something because they do not understand the word of God. Catholics have never said that a Statue of The Blessed Mother replaced the Blessed Mother. Catholics never will tell you a Statue of Jesus is really Jesus and replaced God. They are Statues made in the image of God because God himself revealed himself as man. We know quite well a Statue of Jesus is not Jesus.

We know Jesus in alive in the Eucharist not in a statue.

What about in Ex.26:1 pr 25:25 Did Jesus not command Moses to created images. Are they grave images, as you say or are they images connected directly with the presence of God commanded by him?

So Roy that is why I do not agree that Christians should be free to interpret scripture as they see fit because it hurts alot of inocent people to be accused of something they do not do. That interpretation twists the word of God. Unless you are saying Moses is also guilty of creating a:shrug: grave idol??

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6552935:

Yes, and again,Peter as the head.

But, where does it show the Bishop of Rome in all this business of the Petrine Claims?
Snappy answers are all very well but they do have to be pertinent to the subject.

Again,where does Scripture declare everything has to be explicitly stated in scripture? Where does scripture explicitly declare Matthew wrote Matthew? It does not,it is called Apostolic Tradition. When did I say I was not aware of the Bishop of Rome being mentioned at councils? I am very aware of it!

S.Vincent of Lerins tells us to look first in Scripture! He’s a Saint? You’r not! With all due respect!

WRONG! The councils did not give Rome the position due to the fact it was the captial or close to emperor. It was given to Rome due to Peter and that is called Apostolic Tradition. Look it up.

Are you saying that the Emperors didn’t give the papacy the free use of the Roman Polis? That various Emperors confirmed this and that St, Leo didn’t arrest S.Hilary and have him brought to Rome as a prisoner? [Den.paplism.]

Nice, the First general Council had this to say!
“Let the ancient customs prevail,” then it goes on to say that the Bishop of Alexandria should have equality with Rome in her authority with local sees. Which to me shows that they didn’t hold much to the idea of Rome’s primacy?
The Fourth General Council tells litigants to apply to the local Synod then
if still unhappy to the Provincial Synod and in the last resort to Constantinople! {Papal Primacy?]
**Further the Roman legates, or Deacons actully tried to sustain Rome’s authority by the use of forged Nice, Canons. **

In Canon xxviii, this Council says quite clearly," for the Fathers with good reason bestowed precedency on the Chair of Old Rome because it was the imperial city and the 150 God Beloved bishops, moved by the same view, conferred equal precedence on the most holy throne of New Rome; rightly judging that the city honoured with the empire and the Senate should enjoy the same precedence as Rome, the old seat of empire and should be magnified as it was in ecclesiastical matters also" ****

Yes the Apostolic College of bishops and the Bishop of Rome as the head. Again, read the early church fathers and early church history. I am sorry that is not true there was no discussion of Rome being the primary See. If the Bishop of Rome had no primacy,then explain to me why would bishops from other dioceses either write or visit the Bishop of Rome to settle issues? I can give you case after case after case. Even heretics would go to Rome to get the papal appeal.

In his pursuit of authority, which was otherwise dependent on the Emperors and the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome and his advisors took notice of various malcontents who were at odds with their local synods and patriarchs. [See St.Cyprian St.Augustine and the Council of Carthage.]

On the matter of sources Denny as referred to above.
Littledale 3Vols.

Puller , Early Church and the See of Rome! 3rd,Ed.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6557649:

seamusmohr;6552935:

But, where does it show the Bishop of Rome in all this business of the Petrine Claims?
Snappy answers are all very well but they do have to be pertinent to the subject.

S.Vincent of Lerins tells us to look first in Scripture! He’s a Saint? You’r not! With all due respect!

Are you saying that the Emperors didn’t give the papacy the free use of the Roman Polis? That various Emperors confirmed this and that St, Leo didn’t arrest S.Hilary and have him brought to Rome as a prisoner? [Den.paplism.]

Nice, the First general Council had this to say!
“Let the ancient customs prevail,” then it goes on to say that the Bishop of Alexandria should have equality with Rome in her authority with local sees. Which to me shows that they didn’t hold much to the idea of Rome’s primacy?
The Fourth General Council tells litigants to apply to the local Synod then
if still unhappy to the Provincial Synod and in the last resort to Constantinople! {Papal Primacy?]
**Further the Roman legates, or Deacons actully tried to sustain Rome’s authority by the use of forged Nice, Canons. **

In Canon xxviii, this Council says quite clearly," for the Fathers with good reason bestowed precedency on the Chair of Old Rome because it was the imperial city and the 150 God Beloved bishops, moved by the same view, conferred equal precedence on the most holy throne of New Rome; rightly judging that the city honoured with the empire and the Senate should enjoy the same precedence as Rome, the old seat of empire and should be magnified as it was in ecclesiastical matters also" ****

In his pursuit of authority, which was otherwise dependent on the Emperors and the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome and his advisors took notice of various malcontents who were at odds with their local synods and patriarchs. [See St.Cyprian St.Augustine and the Council of Carthage.]

On the matter of sources Denny as referred to above.
Littledale 3Vols.

Puller , Early Church and the See of Rome! 3rd,Ed.

All you are doing is DENYING history and making circular arguments. I am not going to waste anymore time going in circles with you. The following is only ONE source making it clear where Peter and his successors stood in the early church. You believe in a conciliar church,well the following does not go well for your argument.

Council of Ephesus (431)

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and **in fact **it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

I’ll ask you more one time,show me the early church documents displaying the PROTESTS from the other bishops?

 

[distracted]

***no time to read all posts…

but as to the OP question

i think most people deny the Real Presence … most catholics do

ifthat were not the case, why are so few ever spending time There with Him?

i guess other concerns are more importnat… ***

 

[brkn1]

There can be no physical “Real Presence” until the promised second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is now in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is presently acting as our High Priest (Mediator).

Jesus said that He must “go away” “to My Father” or “the Comforter will not come unto you;”. Jesus was speaking about His physical going away and not spiritual. As God, Jesus is spiritually present everywhere as He holds all things together.
Jesus is spiritually indwelling all those whom the Holy Spirit indwells. It is by the Spirit that Jesus spiritually resides in a believer.

If a physical real presence were true, then there is no good explanation why Jesus said that He must “go away” or the “Comforter will not come”.
I would be especially interested in someone explaining (John 17:11): “And now I am NO MORE in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.”
Jesus was speaking of the future where He would not be physically in the world until that promised day of His second coming.

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6571624:

Nicea325;6557649:

All you are doing is DENYING history and making circular arguments. I am not going to waste anymore time going in circles with you. The following is only ONE source making it clear where Peter and his successors stood in the early church.

You believe in a conciliar church,well the following does not go well for your argument.
Try to listen, or ponder, where Peter stood in the early Church is quite clear! It isn’t in doubt. What is in doubt is how Peter’s mantle descended on to the papacy alone! After all Gregory the Great in a letter said the Chair of Peter was in three places? In a letter to Eulogius of Alexandria, ,“Who does not know that the Holy Church is established upon the firmness of the prince of the Apostles… There were many apostles, but only one Prince of the Apostles… and therefore only one See of the Prince of the Apostles has grown strong in authority; but that See is in three places, though still the See of one .” Our Place in Christendom. Ep.40 lib.iiv]. It doesn’t look to good for your argument al all, does it? Tell me and anyone else interested , just how the authority of Peter telescoped in to the person of the Bishop of Rome! What is the justification! You mention, ceaselessly, Church Fathers and Holy Tradition, but you take any mention of Peter, no matter how remote, as justifying your claim? You have not brought any document or statement to substantiate your point. OPIC. pg 5. Ch.1 ‘Unity and Authority in the Primitive Church!’ Rev.AJ. Mason.]

Council of Ephesus (431)

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I]

said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
**The delegates to the Council applauded some document or advice given to that august body by the legates of the Pope! So what they were doing is what any other well mannered person would do, for anyone who had taken time and trouble to make some comment?
I must say, that it would be a funny world or system that promoted anyone who wrote in to give a point of view, to the head of the Church!!
**

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and **in fact **

it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

**Phillip said this and they politely accepted the point, there’s nothing to say they agreed!
**

I’ll ask you more one time,show me the early church documents displaying the PROTESTS from the other bishops?

Paul was never a bishop, but there is always his statement,"I resisted him to his face because he stood condemned’. This is of course scriptural and refers to Paul’ discussions with Peter!

**I’ve already mentioned this. Other Bishops and Councils, Cyprian, Augustine and the Council of Carthage objected strongly to the Bishop of Rome’s interference within African Church business! Not only did he interfere but offered false Canons of Nice as proof of his authority! These were rejected on receipt of the correct Canons and the Bishop of Rome was put in his place by the African bretheren!
Also the case of the Eastern Bishop, St, Firmilian who seems to have spent most of his life out of Communion with the papacy and still received Sainthood from the Catholic Church! {Puller. 3rd, Ed.}
**

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Phillip said this and they politely accepted the point, there’s nothing to say they agreed!

LOL! PLLEEAAAASSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!! So your proof is their silence because they agreed to it? No offense,but that is laughable.If they had an issue with it and your case you make it seem the papacy was never in any sort of primacy,other bishops would have made it loud and clear as in many other heretical and schims. Tell me what orthodox bishop kept his mouth shut during the heretical teachings of Arian?

Your argument is based soley on mere assumptions and pure DENIALS!

I’ve already mentioned this. Other Bishops and Councils, Cyprian, Augustine and the Council of Carthage objected strongly to the Bishop of Rome’s interference within African Church business! Not only did he interfere but offered false Canons of Nice as proof of his authority! These were rejected on receipt of the correct Canons and the Bishop of Rome was put in his place by the African bretheren!

U-huh…and tell me which bishop you mentioned above FLAT OUT rejected his primacy?

 

[distracted]

There can be no physical “Real Presence” until the promised second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is now in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is presently acting as our High Priest (Mediator).

Jesus said that He must “go away” “to My Father” or “the Comforter will not come unto you;”. Jesus was speaking about His physical going away and not spiritual. As God, Jesus is spiritually present everywhere as He holds all things together.
Jesus is spiritually indwelling all those whom the Holy Spirit indwells. It is by the Spirit that Jesus spiritually resides in a believer.

If a physical real presence were true, then there is no good explanation why Jesus said that He must “go away” or the “Comforter will not come”.
I would be especially interested in someone explaining (John 17:11): “And now I am NO MORE in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.”
Jesus was speaking of the future where He would not be physically in the world until that promised day of His second coming.

dont have time but have read the 1st sentence here or two…

Jesus is tangibly present in the Catholic Church…

if you have never spent time there… you dont know what you are talking about…

not being a snot just saying the truth…

i have to go now… .but God bless…

 

[mikeledes]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael

 

[shawn38]

John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52 **The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” **

53 **Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.

 

[seamusmohr]

Quote:

**I’ve already mentioned this. Other Bishops and Councils, Cyprian, Augustine and the Council of Carthage objected strongly to the Bishop of Rome’s interference within African Church business! Not only did he interfere but offered false Canons of Nice as proof of his authority! These were rejected on receipt of the correct Canons and the Bishop of Rome was put in his place by the African bretheren! **

U-huh…and tell me which bishop you mentioned above FLAT OUT rejected his primacy?

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.

Which simply means that His words are of divine origin (Spirit) and not of human origin (flesh). In the the Bible, Spirit vs flesh never means literal vs symblic. It is used to contrast that which is of God with that which is of human origin or sinful. For example:

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

**1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? **

John 3:6

**6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. **

Just as that which is born of Spirit is spirit, the words of Jesus orginate from the Spirit and hence are spirit. Words that have a purely human origin proceed from the flesh and are flesh and profit nothing. So Jesus is simply reafirming that His teaching regarding the Eucharist is backed by divine authority and not mere human authority, which highlights the gravity of rejecting what He said.

I address that in greater detail. and other objections, here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael

 

[distracted]

! Hobbs the philosopher remarked that the Bishop of Rome was the ghost of the Roman Empire sat atop of its own tomb! Who could put it better?

Certainly the Anglicans accepts Rome’s primacy in these two instances because this primacy stems from the Church through the Councils as do the Orthodox Church’s.*** I find it interesting and sad that the present pontiff has relinquished these two gifts of the Catholic Church .***
If you want further information regarding the Catholic Clergy’s opposition to Rome’s tendency to empire build look at Cyprian and the African Bishops. Look at the bishops of the East for some 1000 years or so and at the constant and implacable hostility to the political adventures of the pope. For one thing, you will be surprised at the lack of arrogance especially from Carthage, but even so they clearly opposed the imperial claim of Rome’s Bishop!
S.Cyprian of Carthage for instance and S. Firmilion and S.Augustine amongst all the early Fathers rejected Rome’s claims.
As I said yestreen, read the Councils of Carthage from Cyprian to Augustine!

could u please explain the hihglighted?? I’m kinda confused… i was rasied Catholic and am fairly catechized (studied things on my own and stil am) but i dont know what you mean here…

 

[Nicea325]

Whose primacy?

Okay,you clearly stated in another reply YOU do not DENY Peter’s primacy,but now you are asking who? You can stop playing dumb, you know exactly who I meant.

**S.Cyprian of Carthage for instance and S. Firmilion and S.Augustine amongst all the early Fathers rejected Rome’s claims.
As I said yestreen, read the Councils of Carthage from Cyprian to Augustine! **

WRONG! You lie! St. Augustine,Cyprian,etc NEVER REJECTED Rome’s claim as the primacy.

Peter’s PRIMACY

St.Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Augustine

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Council of Chalcedon

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most **reverend bishops **cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

AGAIN,SHOW ME THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE & PROTESTS FROM THE CHURCH FATHERS REJECTING PETER"S PRIMACY AND HIS SUCCESSORS?*

 

[shawn38]

Which simply means that His words are of divine origin (Spirit) and not of human origin (flesh). In the the Bible, Spirit vs flesh never means literal vs symblic. It is used to contrast that which is of God with that which is of human origin or sinful.

The best example further explaining this passage:

1 Corinthians 15:43 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Christ paints the picture quite well as to how the flesh profits a man nothing and that His concern is for the spirit.

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out…

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is the Spirit - The spiritual meaning of these words, by which God giveth life. The flesh - profiteth nothing. The words to be taken in a spiritual sense and, when they are so understood, they are life - That is, a means of spiritual life to the hearers.

 

[distracted]

Whose primacy?

Okay,you clearly stated in another reply YOU do not DENY Peter’s primacy,but now you are asking who? You can stop playing dumb, you know exactly who I meant.

**S.Cyprian of Carthage for instance and S. Firmilion and S.Augustine amongst all the early Fathers rejected Rome’s claims.
As I said yestreen, read the Councils of Carthage from Cyprian to Augustine! **

WRONG! You lie! St. Augustine,Cyprian,etc NEVER REJECTED Rome’s claim as the primacy.

Peter’s PRIMACY

St.Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

S?

you make a lot of good points but in my opinion you ruin it when you call this poster a liar… You said “you lie”

people dont listen when u r rude like that… Tru, i haven’t read all posts this person made but… do i have to?

i dont know… concerned cause it makes Catholics look bad… and dont they look bad enough as it is?? (thro myths about the Church etc)

 

[distracted]

There can be no physical “Real Presence” until the promised second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is now in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is presently acting as our High Priest (Mediator).

Jesus said that He must “go away” “to My Father” or “the Comforter will not come unto you;”. Jesus was speaking about His physical going away and not spiritual. As God, Jesus is spiritually present everywhere as He holds all things together.
Jesus is spiritually indwelling all those whom the Holy Spirit indwells. It is by the Spirit that Jesus spiritually resides in a believer.

If a physical real presence were true, then there is no good explanation why Jesus said that He must “go away” or the “Comforter will not come”.
I would be especially interested in someone explaining (John 17:11): “And now I am NO MORE in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.”
Jesus was speaking of the future where He would not be physically in the world until that promised day of His second coming.

God is one… Father, Son and Holy spirit… Jesus also said that He would never leave us or forsake us and that He would be wit us until the end (St Mt 28:20)

You are not CAtholic so you don’t have a clue abuot the Real Presence…

i was raised Catholic yet i didn’t either until about 15 yrs ago…

i was a totally difrnt person b4 the RP than i was after…

acting as tho you understand is like someone saying they know what its like to be on the moon when they have never been there, never even read about or seen the moon landing etc… only it is even a bigger difrnce than that