Ironic Thing about Intelligent Design Protestant Believers

[JPUSC]

Indeed it was, and there were many, and differing opinions of what “real presence” was, and there was nothing concerning transubstantiation, and there was no definitive or authoritative statement for 1,100 years—everyone had his own opinion—the quotes you offer are all of one opinion only—that held by the church since LC IV.

There was no difinitive teaching by the apostles, or by Christ; had there been, the teaching would have been consistent from their time until now, but it hasn’t been consistent.

It has been consistent. All the Apostolic Churches believe in the Real Presence. The doubt in this belief only became widespread fairly recently, during the Protestant Reformation five-hundred years ago.

 

[MHalsey]

Indeed it was, and there were many, and differing opinions of what “real presence” was, and there was nothing concerning transubstantiation, and there was no definitive or authoritative statement for 1,100 years—everyone had his own opinion—the quotes you offer are all of one opinion only—that held by the church since LC IV.

There was no difinitive teaching by the apostles, or by Christ; had there been, the teaching would have been consistent from their time until now, but it hasn’t been consistent.

Can you show us some of the early Church fathers who spoke against the Eucharist? I mean, if it was heavily debated for 1100 years, there must be many of these Church fathers who spoke against it. But please, do not bring arguments from heretics, since you claim the Church debated it.

 

[sandusky]

This sounds like a muslim argument to deny the divinity of Christ.

I’ve said nothing about the divinity of Christ. :whacky:

MHalsey:

Just because he didn’t teach it emphatically, makes it no less true.

It wasn’t taught by Christ or the apostles either way, as indicated by the differing interpretations and understandings of those in the early church.

 

[sandusky]

Can you show us some of the early Church fathers who spoke against the Eucharist? I mean, if it was heavily debated for 1100 years, there must be many of these Church fathers who spoke against it. But please, do not bring arguments from heretics, since you claim the Church debated it.

I’ve not said that any of the ECFs "spoke against the Eurcharist."

 

[sandusky]

So what you believe is that Jesus would let all those following him to leave him over the misunderstanding of a metaphor? I think not!

Peace!

That’s what you believe that I believe.

 

[sandusky]

It has been consistent. All the Apostolic Churches believe in the Real Presence. The doubt in this belief only became widespread fairly recently, during the Protestant Reformation five-hundred years ago.

Oh please.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Indeed it was, and there were many, and differing opinions of what “real presence” was, and there was nothing concerning transubstantiation, and there was no definitive or authoritative statement for 1,100 years—everyone had his own opinion—the quotes you offer are all of one opinion only—that held by the church since LC IV.

There was no difinitive teaching by the apostles, or by Christ; had there been, the teaching would have been consistent from their time until now, but it hasn’t been consistent.

There has been definitive teaching, you just don’t believe it for some reason. (which aparently I should not comment on)

Can you please show me any writings or other proofs that show there was any such disagreemant about the Eucharist within the church!

No? hmmm, interesting.

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

Opps, I see this question was already asked, and not answered.

 

[MHalsey]

I’ve said nothing about the divinity of Christ. :whacky:

It wasn’t taught by Christ or the apostles either way, as indicated by the differing interpretations and understandings of those in the early church.

Umm, I think you misunderstand. I was equating your argument about the Eucharist to the muslim argument about the divinity of Christ.

And like I said, show me the early Church Fathers whose interpretations about the Eucharist differ from what the church teaches today.

 

[MHalsey]

I’ve not said that any of the ECFs "spoke against the Eurcharist."

You said they had differing opinions. Can you show us any that refute the Church’s belief in the Real Presence?

 

[cpayne]

Intelligent Design is a nonsense philosophy.

Transubstantiation is a nonsense philosophy.

And these statements don’t even come with a IMHO!

I will comment on the “pride” issue: Whether or not people are trying to “read other people’s hearts,” I will say that in my case you are exactly right. I knew that if the Real Presence of Christ was in Communion, I would have to become a Catholic. Since that would involve admitting myself to be greatly wrong, for years I would not admit it. That was pride.

Someone said once something like, “Either the CC is what she says she is, or she is demonic.” I tried to “ride the fence”–no, the CC is not demonic, but no, she isn’t the sanctuary of the Real Presence either. I finally realized that I couldn’t have it both ways, and gave up my pride. I haven’t made it all the way in yet, but am on my way.

 

[With_Questions]

I do not believe any of the above denomoinations teach or agree with the Catholic truth of transubstantiation. Lutherans & Anglicans get points for there beliefs but the whole truth is certainly not theirs.

No they don’t. Neither do the Orthodox for that matter.

But you said

To admit the it is indeed the truth is to admit the Catholic Church has the entire truth within her.

That is a false and illogical statement since several denominations plus the Orthodox believe that the real presence is the truth and yet do not believe that your denomination has the entire truth within her.

I don’t understand why you are getting so upset about what I think. I’m allowed opinions, right!

Actually I am not upset.

Anyone can have opinions. However opinions that are not rooted in fact are worthless.

I can have the opinion the moon is made of green cheese if I so choose. However the facts do not support that opinion.

You have no facts to base your opinion on, since you do not know the hearts of people who believe differently.

hmmm, I wonder if you have never given an insight into what you believe about Catholics.

Peace!

You can wonder all you want about me.

 

[JPUSC]

Indeed it was, and there were many, and differing opinions of what “real presence” was, and there was nothing concerning transubstantiation, and there was no definitive or authoritative statement for 1,100 years—everyone had his own opinion—the quotes you offer are all of one opinion only—that held by the church since LC IV.

There was no difinitive teaching by the apostles, or by Christ; had there been, the teaching would have been consistent from their time until now, but it hasn’t been consistent.

The first two quotes are from the Bible, so they are not just mere opinion.

 

[With_Questions]

Intelligent Design is a nonsense philosophy.

Transubstantiation is a nonsense philosophy.

Off topic…

Oh really. Puhleeze.

I believe in intelligent design. Tell me why the concept of the universe having been designed by a creator as opposed to the result of random events “nonsense”.

And even though I do not necessarily believe in transubstantiation, I certainly would not dismiss it as nonsense.

 

[Lizziebel]

Just speaking from my own experience, I had virtually no knowledge of the Catholic faith until being engaged and now married to a Catholic. So actually until coming onto this site, I’d never even heard the term Real Presence, or the idea of it.

 

[cpayne]

And even though I do not necessarily believe in transubstantiation, I certainly would not dismiss it as nonsense.

Even though I do not agree with your other posts, thank you for taking this position.

 

[LutheranDK]

I did say most and not all NOn catholic Christians. I do not know of any Protestant religion that believes or teaches the truth of the Real presence. Can you give me some examples.

I can - the Lutheran Churches

 

[cfrancis]

Neither the apostles, nor Jesus anywhere teach transubstantiation, or real presence.

That’s why there were varying opinions and no authoritative statement concerning either for 1,100 years.

What is your “time limit” re: a teaching to be true? 100 yrs? 300 yrs? 500 yrs?
There were “varying opinions and no authoritative statement concerning” what was the canon of Scripture for some 250-300 years, and neither Christ nor the Apostles taught what was canon.

Based on the same argument, do you not believe or dispute the canon of Scripture?

 

[LutheranDK]

Intelligent Design is a nonsense philosophy.

THAT statement is nonsense.

 

[MHalsey]

I can - the Lutheran Churches

Hi LutheranDK,
When you say Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, is it the same as the Catholic belief. In other words, do you/they believe that the while retaining the properties of bread and wine, the Eucharist contains the entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ? Or is it different in some way?

Note, I’m just curious, because I have heard some people say they believe in the Real Presence, but not the way Catholics believe in the Real Presence.

Thanks