Thank-you I understand .Still , I lump RP and Transubstantiation as pretty much the same(though they are not) ,though I prefer your simplicity.I like the Luther quote .Seems like those Swiss went a little to far for him.Luther ,the “earthy monk”. I guess you could put RP where I put transubstantiation in my thread you kindly responded to.
Was gonna originally bring this up ,but didn’t till i read a few threads above. What about the Crucifix ,a symbol by Catholic decree,I think.?
Not all Protestants says that it is only a symbol, one example is, believe it or not, Martin Luther. His teaching on the subject is however not the same as the one in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church teach transubstantiation while Luther was teaching consubstantiation.
David Ruiz, My view, please, it is not my view, it is Jesus Christ’s view regarding His Body and Blood, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Jesus Christ! Did not Jesus Say: …(John 6: 53- 58)
He IS; The Church IS: the One and Only Greatest Arts, World respected Liturgy and History. All Positive All Ideal. Largest Charity in the World also. We’re Not Just “scriptures” We Live the Scriptures and Christ.
Andromrdus, true not all protestants say this, however the Protestants that don’t say this but yet refuse to participate in the Mass to receive the Body and Blood of Christ will be judged even harder than they who believe it is only a symbol, out of disobedience, don’t you think? Yet they believe but yet they want no part of the Church Jesus Founded where they can receive Him literally. I am not saying that I am judging these there is only one Judge Jesus Christ. I pray they all come to know the Truth.
Your point is well taken. The distinction I made in reference to connect from the creation theme was that God took something other from creation (Adam’s rib) and changed the substance into a Woman, this was my point.
It amazes me how humanity responds when Truth gets revealed:shrug:. For the record, Your hero Scott Hahn is a convert who came into these revelations of the crucified Christ via the Catholic Church. Scott Hahn only repeats in the present what has always been believed in the Catholic Church in a day and age that non catholics can understand, God bless him and his wife Kimberly.
The only answer I can help you with is, God does not use symbols to relate His presence, The Word of God took on flesh to die a death that brings redemption to our humanity, God did not use any symbol to reveal himself in the flesh.
Paul would not have ever been able to preach Christ crucified without the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist… Here is Paul preaching Christ Crucified and living it out…
.
No, Jesus takes bread and wine and changes them into this body, blood soul and divinity True presence. After the Eucharist symbols cease to exist because Jesus now present in His blessed Sacrament.
Wrong again david; Jesus instituted His sacraments so that we can be partakers of His divinity… again a symbol can never give you Jesus divine life only Jesus truly present, can allow us to be partakers of His divinity.
The matzo was symbolic of their ancestors deliverance from Egypt? Since when?
Again, the meal yes, bread and wine - you’re stretching it.
But Cooter, you are just making the assumption that by the time of Jesus there was already symbolism. There was no symbolism. It was unleavened bread at the original Passover and it still was unleavened bread at Jesus’s time. All they are doing is eating the same meal that their ancestors ate before their escape from Egypt in remembrance of their deliverance.
And the whole point of my reply was that your context is wrong. You are imputing a context that is not there – that is not supported either by the text or by historical data.
So now you are shifting gear? First you say that the audience was the original audience, then after I have shown that to be false now you are changing tack and saying “appropriate” audience. Who determines the appropriateness of the audience. So therefore the disciples who were at table with Him were not “appropriate audience”?
The symbolism of the Seder but not the matzo individually nor the wine individually.
Again, you are assuming that it made sense to Jesus’s disciples in the way you think. The only way it would have made sense to His disciples is if you bring into the picture John 6. It is not the symbolism that made sense to them. Without John 6, it would not have made sense at all.
But that is exactly my mindset based on the fact that we follow His apostles. You know the one to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom.
Firstly, again this is an assumption. You keep saying this as if it was fact.
Only because you assume it is symbolic. But so far, with much keystrokes to shore up your defense, you have not been able to do that.
Assumption again. You are here to prove that it is symbolic. Not assume it.
He is the Shepherd and it is literal in the sense that He does shepherd us. Alpha an Omega are not just greek letters. Alpha and Omega means beginning and end.
Only God can know that, however, the Lutherans are Lutherans, they don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church founded by Christ, they think their mass is the one you have to attend to if you want to be able to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Lutherans claimed (and some perhaps still do) that the Pope was the anit-christ, some even claimed that you could read that was the case in the letters of St. Paul, it is absurd, but still it shows that they don’t think we are the ones who are right.
Luther did not teach consubstantiation, and Lutherans do not believe consubstantiation. Luther taught Sacramental Union. While this approach is not the same as Transubstantiation, neither is it entirely different. The fact is that Lutherans believe, literally, Christ’s words tell us that “this [bread] IS my body.” Is is is.
This is incorrect on a number of points. First, Lutherans do not deny that the Catholic Church is indeed part of the one true Church that Christ founded, though not exclusively so. The Augsburg confession says that the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.
The reformers believed that ther office of the papacy was anti-Christ, based on the level of primacy and supremacy it claimed for itself. While I personally find the language dated and unhelpful as we genuinely pursue the unity Christ calls us to, the issue of the papal primacy continues to be, for me, the main disgreement I have with Rome. To say, (as examples) that Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope John Paul II (who I consider the greatest Christian leader of my lifetime) are/ were anti-Christ is obsurd.
Yes, I admit that I might have been incorrect about Luther and consubstantation, but some Lutherans do believe in consubstantation, thats probably why I, and others to, think/thought that Luther taught it. However, my main point was that not all Protestants think it is symbolic, which is true even if Luther didin’t teach consubstantation. And I know that transubstantation and consubstantation is similiar, but it is still not the same thing, thats why I wrote both of the names and said it wasn’t the same thing.
I thought everyone without the right faith would go to hell? Salvation through faith alone right? And again, my point was that Lutherans don’t think they have to receive the Sacrament during a mass in the Catholic church, am I correct?
Yeah, we have problems sometimes with catechesis, just like you guys do.
You are correct, and I apologize for not acknowledging this point you made, that not all protestants believe it is symbolic.
On the first part, I don’t believe that’s what the confessions say. Also the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone speaks to how we access justification. I wouldn’t say it speaks to disputes about doctrine. Certainly Catholics, and other Christians, are saved, and to judge who is and who is not is well above our “pay grade”, so to speak.
Yes ,you make my point. It is figurative in an earthly sense , but literal in spiritual sense . That is what figurative speech is .Taking an earthly thing ,reality , to show a spiritual thing or reality. Hence, I take an earthly thing of eating (teeth and mouth) to show the spiritual ingesting of His word ,in faith .Peter replied nothing about eating with mouth ,but he did with the inner man of faith .He said ,“Your words are eternal life (not your flesh eating).You are the Son of God.” Augustine laid this out beautifully. He said leave your" teeth and bellies behind" ,and Peter “savored the Lord in his mouth by believing”,and his declaration of faith…So as you say with the explanations of other figurative speech (shepherd,alpha omega) , I use with the eating his flesh, figuratively to show a spiritual reality -that we are to spiritually “eat” every word out of His mouth,by faith.