Irenaeus was Lutheran

[Mannyfit75]

They believe in the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation. Whether you believe its transubstantiation, co-substantiation, it the Church affirms fully that Jesus Christ is Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

and No Irenaeus was no Lutheran. He was Catholic. Unlike, Luther Irenaeus remain Catholic.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I have to assume that those passages are not for me since I agree with them entirely.

Are you saying that the host does not become the true Flesh, and the wine not the true blood of Christ? Or are you just arguing the term “transubtantiation” did not exist?

 

[Steadfast]

Are you saying that the host does not become the true Flesh, and the wine not the true blood of Christ? Or are you just arguing the term “transubtantiation” did not exist?

I am arguing that the idea that the bread and wine cease to exist when the priest says the magic words and that only the appearances of bread and wine remain cannot be found in the writings of the early church fathers.

I have argued a further secondary point that such a view does violence to the simplicity and mystery of the Sacrament by importing alien categories. But for the sake of this thread, the first point is what is important.

Plenty can be found to support the idea that the fathers believed that when they receive the Eucharist, they were receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, but I don’t dispute that.

 

[Steadfast]

and No Irenaeus was no Lutheran. He was Catholic. Unlike, Luther Irenaeus remain Catholic.

You’re mistaken.

Luther was and is catholic even as I am and hope to remain.

 

[Steadfast]

They believe in the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation. Whether you believe its transubstantiation, co-substantiation, it the Church affirms fully that Jesus Christ is Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The Real Presence is not synonymous with Transubstantiation.

Belief in the Real Presence means that you don’t believe that the meal merely symbolizes or signifies the Body and Blood of Christ but that in it you really receive the Body and Blood of Christ given for you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Steadfast:

The Real Presence is not synonymous with Transubstantiation.

It is. It acknowledge the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but they are the BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.

Belief in the Real Presence means that you don’t believe that the meal merely symbolizes or signifies the Body and Blood of Christ but that in it you really receive the Body and Blood of Christ given for you.

I don’t believe in symbolizing. I believe in Real Presence period.

 

[Steadfast]

Steadfast;2973547:

The Real Presence is not synonymous with Transubstantiation.

It is. It acknowledge the Bread and Wine are no longer bread and wine but are the BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.

No it’s not. The Real Presence is just the belief that in the Eucharist we receive the True Body and Blood of Christ and not just a symbol or a sign.

I don’t believe in symbolizing. I believe in Real Presence period.

Me too. Let’s rejoice in our concord!

 

[Mannyfit75]

No it’s not. The Real Presence is just the belief that in the Eucharist we receive the True Body and Blood of Christ and not just a symbol or a sign.

Where did you get the idea from me that it is symbol or a sign? I only said that it affirms that the consecrated host and wine are truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.

perhaps it’s because I use the word are instead of is. I put are because I use Body and Blood as oppose to Body.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I am arguing that the idea that the bread and wine cease to exist when the priest says the magic words and that only the appearances of bread and wine remain cannot be found in the writings of the early church fathers.

Would not the various Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano, prove that the bread and wine disappeared? The fact that the the monk doubted would show that the belief was there, although not pronounced dogmatically until a later Church Council.

 

[Steadfast]

Where did you get the idea from me that it is symbol or a sign? I only said that it affirms that the consecrated host and wine are truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.

perhaps it’s because I use the word are instead of is. I put are because I use Body and Blood as oppose to Body.

I am just distinguishing the Real presence as a broader category defined as a belief in the real true presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Sacrament, as opposed to a symbolic or significatory view which would not be a Real presence view.

Transubstantiation is a Real presence view, but so is consubstantiation (which I understand some Anglicans hold to) and so is the Lutheran view which is often called consubstantiation but really resists categorization since no distinction at all is made between “substances and accidents”

 

[Steadfast]

Would not the various Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano, prove that the bread and wine disappeared? The fact that the the monk doubted would show that the belief was there, although not pronounced dogmatically until a later Church Council.

I respect your belief in these miracles but I have to humbly submit that they are hearsay and are not really good bases for the establishment of doctrine.

This doesn’t mean they aren’t true but it does mean that they are, finally, anecdotal.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I respect your belief in these miracles but I have to humbly submit that they are hearsay and are not really good bases for the establishment of doctrine.

This doesn’t mean they aren’t true but it does mean that they are, finally, anecdotal.

It has been proven true by WHO

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle

A little known fact to the culture of today, a belief held by Catholics throughout the ages without scientific proof. It is a sad day for Christianity when faith is reduced to proofs.

God bless.

 

[AllSaints1631]

Transubstantiation merely explains Real Presence or the process during the Consecration. It isn’t fiction.

It would be fiction if Jesus would declare that his flesh is not really food, or that his blood is not really drink.

Transubstantiation has nothing to do whatsoever with what the elements really are when we partake in them. It is merely a belief of what happens when the priest consecrates the bread and wine. Many Catholics do not believe that transubstantiation is an actual action. I used to believe in it quite deeply but I have too become of the mindset that it is unnecessary and really not helpful in sustaining Jesus truly present body and blood in communion.