Is the "Real Presence" real?

[c659smith]

I refer you to “The English Reformation” by A G Dickens, or alternatively, “The Pelican History of the Church,” which manages to cover the origins and history of Anglicanism within its six volumes.

There isn’t quite enough spacew to type them all out here.

Ok, we have a start,

King Henry the 8th

Do you follow the church of England or is there more ?

 

[c659smith]

I refer you to “The English Reformation” by A G Dickens, or alternatively, “The Pelican History of the Church,” which manages to cover the origins and history of Anglicanism within its six volumes.

There isn’t quite enough spacew to type them all out here.

At the conclusion of C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, senior devil Screwtape is the guest of honor at a banquet celebrating the newest graduates from the Tempters Training College for Young Devils. Screwtape is disappointed with the banquet fare: The “human souls on whose anguish we have been feasting tonight were of pretty poor quality,” he laments. “Oh to get one’s teeth into a Henry VIII!” longs Screwtape. “There was a real crackling there, something to crunch; a rage, an egotism, a cruelty only just less robust than our own.”

It is remarkable that Lewis, an anti-Catholic Anglican, locates in darkest hell the man without whom there would have been no Anglican Church. What led this promising young monarch to tear England from Catholic Europe? His passion for Anne Boleyn that drove him to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon.

 

[bengal_fan]

Christ said specifically that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood for eternal life, and that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink.

let me start by saying i am a protestant who believes in the real presence (torn between trans and con, but lean more towards trans).

we need to remember though, that just two chapters earlier, Jesus was also talking about food. He said that His “food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.”

i understand the fact that Jesus says in Jn 6 His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink, but just before this, He tells His disciples that His food is to do the work of His Father and to accomplish it.

my point is that we have to take it as a whole and not just pick out one chapter in Jn to support the argument when some one can pick out another passage and “prove” the opposite.

 

[panoikei]

That’s intersting Showtime even knows that Church History…

King Henry the VIII was Catholic and wrote many things to defend it until he put his wife away and tried to marry Anne. There’s some twisted made up stuff, but overall the story is following hisorical events from what I’ve been reading. Fast Forward throught the trash parts with wife driving. Women aren’t as effected by that trash as men.

Protestant101…you need to read your bible, and whlie you’re at it pick up a copy of the early church fathers or just go to earlychristianwritings.com/

That got me started…I first read the didache…later I read some things about Ignatius of Antioch…I believe he is considered a Saint…because he was martyred and wrote many documents back then. The one the interests me the most is the one to the Smyrnaeans…he uses the work KATHOLIKOS…that’s our characters for καθολικός …guessing you already know what it means. I found this intriguing and it promped many other questions that led me deeper and deeper into understanding thed basic question that I came to myself…What did the early people of Christianity beleive and how did anyone know the truth based on realizing there were many heresies in the beginning? I developed a whole bunch of unanswered questions.

My wife, sweet woman, struggling in her conversion asked her mother when did our particular group start. Mom’s answer on the day of Pentacost. But what about Alexander Campbell she asked. Mom’s answer he restored the church…Wife said but the date that we have on him is in the middle 1800’s and the actual name of the church was used first in 1906. Wife asked a final question knowing that this is a touchy subject…but where were the real Christians from Pentacost to Alexander Campbell. Mom’s response was “on the banks of rivers …under trees”.

That’s hardly a visible church that Christ promised to protect. SDA is no better historically. All ecclesial communities have a beginning that does not go all the way back. We refer to them a splinter groups. Now the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church all go back to the beginning and can trace their roots apostolically. They both contain all 7 sacraments. Baptism, Confirmation/Cristmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Extreme Unction or Last Rites, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders.

Notice the words I’m carefully chosing here because not every inidividual accepts the teachings or practices it. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church TEACH in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist [mandatory to believe], apostolic succession, unity, THEOTOKOS …Mary is the God Bearer and the Mother of God theology, communion of saints, intercessory prayer, use of incense and candles, etc.

Historically, not even the historicans can or typically do deny this. Even the Methodist know their history. I heard someon once describe Methodists as “Baptists that know how to read”…I believe it was associated with reading the true historical record, not the Gopher Theory of the “undergroudn church” that only got brave enough to show itself at a more recent date.

The documents are all on line and there really isn’t much excuse not to research them. I cross referenced several sites because it destroyed my entire concept of history and made be realize that my former Catholic teaching was in fact true, not lies. I fell because people with good intentions, like you, kept telling me that this was not true and over emphasised, for good reasons, the sins of those leader in the Church’s history that did live deeply sinful and evil lives. But what really got me is that they still did not teach from authority, heresy. That still blows my mind.

My guess is that if Catholicism is to reunite one or both sides will have to conced in to having been wrong on some level. Either way, it is not up to me, a lay person, to decide the Church’s future. Only God knows. Satan is filling you heart with lies. Stand up to him and do the research on your own even. No one is pushing you. My most of us don’t even want to think you’re not saved, considering that you truly believe what you are doing and not resisting the truth. It’s in the bible and historical record. It’s really rather simple and a small thing to do.

 

[c659smith]

let me start by saying i am a protestant who believes in the real presence (torn between trans and con, but lean more towards trans).

we need to remember though, that just two chapters earlier, Jesus was also talking about food. He said that His “food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.”

i understand the fact that Jesus says in Jn 6 His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink, but just before this, He tells His disciples that His food is to do the work of His Father and to accomplish it.

my point is that we have to take it as a whole and not just pick out one chapter in Jn to support the argument when some one can pick out another passage and “prove” the opposite.

The point that was made here is that without a shadow oif a doubt Jesus said to the Apostles and the Jews that is we do not do so we shall have no life within us. Jesus did not stammer, retract, or go around the issue. Jesus was direct and explicit.

One of the reasons for my asking protestants their history is to understand the men responsible for their churches not being able to have the Real Presence, the Eucharistic.
Fot people to understand these tracherous men.
For 1500 years prior to the reformations there was Real Presenece.
The men responsible for where protestants find themselves today.

 

[c659smith]

I refer you to “The English Reformation” by A G Dickens, or alternatively, “The Pelican History of the Church,” which manages to cover the origins and history of Anglicanism within its six volumes.

There isn’t quite enough spacew to type them all out here.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article3090555.ece

 

[justinthemartyr]

That’s intersting Showtime even knows that Church History…

King Henry the VIII was Catholic and wrote many things to defend it until he put his wife away and tried to marry Anne. There’s some twisted made up stuff, but overall the story is following hisorical events from what I’ve been reading. Fast Forward throught the trash parts with wife driving. Women aren’t as effected by that trash as men.

Protestant101…you need to read your bible, and whlie you’re at it pick up a copy of the early church fathers or just go to earlychristianwritings.com/

That got me started…I first read the didache…later I read some things about Ignatius of Antioch…I believe he is considered a Saint…because he was martyred and wrote many documents back then. The one the interests me the most is the one to the Smyrnaeans…he uses the work KATHOLIKOS…that’s our characters for καθολικός …guessing you already know what it means. I found this intriguing and it promped many other questions that led me deeper and deeper into understanding thed basic question that I came to myself…What did the early people of Christianity beleive and how did anyone know the truth based on realizing there were many heresies in the beginning? I developed a whole bunch of unanswered questions.

My wife, sweet woman, struggling in her conversion asked her mother when did our particular group start. Mom’s answer on the day of Pentacost. But what about Alexander Campbell she asked. Mom’s answer he restored the church…Wife said but the date that we have on him is in the middle 1800’s and the actual name of the church was used first in 1906. Wife asked a final question knowing that this is a touchy subject…but where were the real Christians from Pentacost to Alexander Campbell. Mom’s response was “on the banks of rivers …under trees”.

That’s hardly a visible church that Christ promised to protect. SDA is no better historically. All ecclesial communities have a beginning that does not go all the way back. We refer to them a splinter groups. Now the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church all go back to the beginning and can trace their roots apostolically. They both contain all 7 sacraments. Baptism, Confirmation/Cristmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Extreme Unction or Last Rites, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders.

Notice the words I’m carefully chosing here because not every inidividual accepts the teachings or practices it. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church TEACH in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist [mandatory to believe], apostolic succession, unity, THEOTOKOS …Mary is the God Bearer and the Mother of God theology, communion of saints, intercessory prayer, use of incense and candles, etc.

Historically, not even the historicans can or typically do deny this. Even the Methodist know their history. I heard someon once describe Methodists as “Baptists that know how to read”…I believe it was associated with reading the true historical record, not the Gopher Theory of the “undergroudn church” that only got brave enough to show itself at a more recent date.

The documents are all on line and there really isn’t much excuse not to research them. I cross referenced several sites because it destroyed my entire concept of history and made be realize that my former Catholic teaching was in fact true, not lies. I fell because people with good intentions, like you, kept telling me that this was not true and over emphasised, for good reasons, the sins of those leader in the Church’s history that did live deeply sinful and evil lives. But what really got me is that they still did not teach from authority, heresy. That still blows my mind.

My guess is that if Catholicism is to reunite one or both sides will have to conced in to having been wrong on some level. Either way, it is not up to me, a lay person, to decide the Church’s future. Only God knows. Satan is filling you heart with lies. Stand up to him and do the research on your own even. No one is pushing you. My most of us don’t even want to think you’re not saved, considering that you truly believe what you are doing and not resisting the truth. It’s in the bible and historical record. It’s really rather simple and a small thing to do.

The clergy of the Catholic Church did admit fault, in that certain members of the clergy and even the pope at the time were selling indulgences. The selling of indulgences was the offense and needed mending.

Can you tell me anything else that needed mending? The teachings are infallible concerning faith and morals.

If the church were wrong in Her teachings on faith and morals, the world would have no place to go, no anchor whatsoever, it would be every man for himself and their private interpretation of scripture. it is evident what fruits come from that mindset.

 

[junietan]

You are so mis-informed. Protestants, the VAST majority of them, do not sit around worrying about Catholics. I have never had to sit through a Catholic bashing service, and if I was in one I would leave immediately. We do know all about abortion, but some ignore, like many moderate Catholics do. Some do have an agenda, both Protestants and Catholics, but we do know our Bible and we do not spend our time worrying about competing with you. We do study about living holy in an ungodly world, and we care about how we show Christ to those around us. Quit making blanket statements about all Protestants, especially when you have no idea what you are saying.

Just sharing the thoughts! please, let’s all be objective, not subjective, ( not personal ), we the TRUTH seekers, are all in the Presence of GOD Our TRUTH, ( John 14: 6 )
Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/150-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-revised.html
150 Reasons Why I am a Catholic (Revised) ( by an Intellectual Protestant )

1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of
   Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church
   divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to
   submit.
   3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., “faith alone” and its missing many other “Catholic” doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various doctrines of Catholic Tradition (e.g., the canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., “Scripture alone”; ignorance or inconsistent understanding of of development of doctrine), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic and (in effect, or logical reduction, if not always in actual belief) relativistic.
   Disclaimer: I don’t therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot - indeed, I think it is a pretty good thing overall), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the “theory” of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
3. Catholicism isn’t formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
4. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
5. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
6. Catholicism (institutionally) avoids (and/or has the remedy to) an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
7. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
8. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism - one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.
9. Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological “pick and choose” state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and “every man for himself” confusion within the Protestant system among laypeople.
10. Catholicism rejects the “State Church,” which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa, caesaropapism, or a nominal, merely “go through the motions” institutional religion.
11. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against equality of all men and the universal nature of historic Christianity (i.e., catholicism in its literal meaning).
12. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic, Christian vs. Christian religious wars which in turn led to the “Enlightenment,” in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.
13. Catholicism retains (to the fullest extent) the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.
14. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the “public square” largely barren of Christian influence.
    Note: this is ( only 10% ), only 15 out of the 150 reasons… **Thank you and GOD Bless…
    **

 

[Protestant101]

Luther was and is a heretic and there is nothing that will change that, The Pope has never said he was not a heretic on the contrary.
Luther had other pronb;ems with the dogma of the church and you know it.

Such as the end of the world in his life time.

Calling the Pope a Demon

Causing the death and destruction of people and countless relgious art and artifacts.

and the Catholic Church as powerful as it was did not lay one hand on him.

If you work in the work force go ahead and try to demand chamges the way he did. Let me know how far you get?

Luther was not a “heretic;” unless you ask a Catholic. He was a fine Christian gentleman whose only sin was to go against Catholic teachings. If you want to start on "Christians " “causing the death and destruction of people,” then you had better look out your own Church’s back door first.

There are too many questions about the Catholic Mass, and all this changing of bread to Jesus’ flesh. Perhaps, the “heretics” are really in your own back yard?

Rome says that when her priests break the communion bread, this is an actual reenactment of the very Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

**PART 2, SECTION 2 2, CHAPTER 1 1, ARTICLE 3, SUBSECTION 5, HEADING 4 **

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” 206

**1377 **The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. 207

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” 208

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

**1380 **It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us “to the end,” 209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, 210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease. 211

1381 “That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’”

Is this Catholic teaching on “transubstantiation” truth or a fable? How can we find out?

Only by the written Word. The book of Hebrews is clear on this. Paul wrote about “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Heb. 10:10. “But this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (vs. 12).

“For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (vs. 14). Thus the Bible is clear. There is only one Sacrifice, and it occurred on the cross.

Christians should put their total faith in what Jesus has already done two thousand years ago. Any teaching about another sacrifice is really a denial and a diluting of what Jesus Christ has already done “once for all” (Heb. 10:10) and represents a diversion away from the fulness of Christ’s love and truth.

 

[teadough]

Protestant101

Once again,what do SDA’s teach about Michael the Archangel ?

I find it odd that Protestant101 won’t answer this queston.

hmmm

 

[Protestant101]

I find it odd that Protestant101 won’t answer this queston.

hmmm

You won’t like my answer; but I will give it anyways. What Adventists teach about the subject of “Michael The Archangel” has nothing to do with this subject of “The Real Presence.” I would like to keep on topic here. How about you? Why are you trying to distract from the topic? Try starting another thread for that subject, and see what happens.:tiphat:

 

[Quarles47]

The Real Presence is the Body, Blood, Soul, and And Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Son of the Father, God Himself. And so is the Real Presence.

 

[Chuck_H]

Luther was and is a heretic and there is nothing that will change that, The Pope has never said he was not a heretic on the contrary.
Luther had other pronb;ems with the dogma of the church and you know it.

Such as the end of the world in his life time.

Calling the Pope a Demon

Causing the death and destruction of people and countless relgious art and artifacts.

and the Catholic Church as powerful as it was did not lay one hand on him.

If you work in the work force go ahead and try to demand chamges the way he did. Let me know how far you get?

As a lifelong Catholic I have to agree with the Lutheran about one thing. Luther didn’t write a final schism in his 95 theses. The theses were tacked onto the church door as debate points as was the custom of the academic center that he was part of.
Rome over reacted (just a bit). Had the Church engaged her excellent theologians and apologists, it is possible that Luther may have capitulated points and schism might have been avoided.

Further, Vatican deputies and forces were sent to arrest and imprison Luther and only the counter forces of the German Dukes and Princes stopped that action.

Just to correct physical history.

 

[teadough]

You won’t like my answer; but I will give it anyways. What Adventists teach about the subject of “Michael The Archangel” has nothing to do with this subject of “The Real Presence.” I would like to keep on topic here. How about you? Why are you trying to distract from the topic? Try starting another thread for that subject, and see what happens.:tiphat:

Sure. Let’s hear all about it.

Here you go forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3433421#post3433421 :tiphat:

 

[Chuck_H]

I am a Lutheran. Obviously, Luther (a man I am sure your despise and consider a heretic) was the man who sought to bring reform to the Church. He never intended to leave the Church, but instead he was kicked out. As I have spoken to Lutheran ministers, and RCC priests, Luther’s motivation was to bring the Church back to Christ. He did not re-wrtie the Bible, as I am sure you will assert, but he simply translated it. He was not perfect by any means, but his intentions were pure. He did not call himself a Protestant, and he despised the Europeans monarchs use of his ideas of reform as a way to split Christianity. I know you could care less about what I believe, because your sole motivation is to prove ME wrong. You will not be convinced by anybody, so I do not have a clue why you would even ask me to try. Why do you enjoy this sort of fighting? Does it make you feel good to seek out and attck the beliefs of others? Some of us come on here to have decent conversations, but people like you make so secret of your disdain for Protestants, and your actions clearly demonstrate where you think we will turn up in the end.

And by the way, the great John Paul II even admitted in a joint measure with Lutherans said Luther was not a heretic.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Pay close attention to Section 5, namely the last sentence.

Not all RCs consider Lutherans as evil. Any Church that can give rise to the likes of Dietrich Bonhoffer (my apologies if I have massacred his name) has saving graces. Many RC priests study and use the writings of this excellent theologian.

 

[sambos671]

So should we give up on what you call the meaningless prayer and ritual of the Last Sipper(Passover)

So should we give up on what you call the meaningless prayer and ritual of Baptism?

So should we give up on what you call the ritual prayer of the Our Father, the Glory Be,

Why not Christmas,Easter. Marriage, etc…

I think not and you do to.

What you want to give up on is the call to accountability

Boy you take things to the extreme. That’s not what I was saying! My point was about priorities. Things that become ritual can be taken for granted and their import and meaning are lost. Many Catholics say prayers almost robotically with out it affecting their lives or behavior. Much like the repetitious prayers of Islam or Budhism. Consider for a moment why Jesus said “And when you pray do not keep babbling like pegans for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Mt 6:7-8 I know you’re saying I’m against ritual. Your wrong. I’m just saying Protestants prioritize the relationship rather than the prayer and that can be lost with constant repetition.
Am I saying that Catholics don’t prioritize a relationship. No, but you obviously will imply that I have. I’m saying protestants, in an effort to prioritize their life changing relationship with God, will read the bible as though God were speaking directly to them to learn and to apply. For a Protestant, their understanding of constant repetative prayer is of less value than the real prayer, talking and listening to God. In the Protestant mind this type of ritual prayer could be detrimental. You will unfortunately automatically conclude that affirming what Protestants think I am affirming the negative towards Catholics. You again are wrong. Protestants don’t make as many distinctions of prayers as Catholics. They tend to be all inclusive. I’m making a point of how Protestants view a particular issue not affirming the negative.

You asked about joining bible groups while a teenager catholic. Unfortunately, where I lived in Africa there wasn’t one (I’m not african by the way). Many “good” african catholics were busy killing opposing tribe members if that’s any consolation to you. The first real discussion I had about the bible apart from going to Mass when soldiers weren’t blocking the way was with Protestant Missionaries. On the other hand, my return to the United States hasn’t improved my perseption either. It seems to me their are two type of Catholics. The ones who really live their faith (I wish I had met more of these as a child) and those who don’t. I would have to say Protestantism has the same issues.

You seem to think I’m antagonistic toward Catholism. Again your mistaken. I’ve already said in this post and others that the Early Church Fathers indicate a belief in the Eucharist as the Body a
nd Blood of Jesus Christ. This can’t be denied. I don’t know if they thought of it in the mechanics of Transubstantiation. But they believed it. Justin Marty being the most clear about it for his time: “This food we call Eucharist…For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them.” Justin having lived between 100 to 165 AD was too close to the apostles for me to believe the apostles did not teach this. Otherwise I’m sure that there would be an epistle against the “false” teaching.

So for a moment Mr. Smith let us discuss these matters reasonably without accusations.

 

[teadough]

Many Catholics say prayers almost robotically with out it affecting their lives or behavior. Much like the repetitious prayers of Islam or Budhism. Consider for a moment why Jesus said “And when you pray do not keep babbling like pegans for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Mt 6:7-8 I know you’re saying I’m against ritual. Your wrong. I’m just saying Protestants prioritize the relationship rather than the prayer and that can be lost with constant repetition.

that’s not true. Catholics hold the prayers with upmost respect due to the mere fact of the history behind them. Sure there are plenty who do not feel this way.

As far as repetition goes. you are pulling one line out of context. I guess most Catholics acknowledge upfront that we are sinners and we need forgiveness. I know I say the Our Father more times than I can count because I was born with a sin nature. Do you feel the need to ask Our Lord for forgiveness on a regular basis…oh,wait,I forgot…you might fall into repetition. I forgot

how about saying grace before a meal…oops,I did it again. You got me.

Oh,here is one. Have you ever prayed for someone who…ahh,shucks, I give up. Too much repetition in all these prayers I was thinking of.

 

[sambos671]

Ah as I predicted. The whole post wasn’t read. Maybe, read beyond just what you expect to hear.

 

[Protestant101]

that’s not true. Catholics hold the prayers with upmost respect due to the mere fact of the history behind them. Sure there are plenty who do not feel this way.

Respect and history do not make something biblical.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Respect and history do not make something biblical.

Neither does the improper interpretation of a passage.