Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

You are rehashing old arguments which I have already rebutted.

As I have already pointed out, the Didache is not where we base the belief in the Real Presence. That comes from Scripture and Tradition.

So Didache is not part of tradition ?

The Eucharist is only spiritual food and drink precisely because it is Jesus Christ.

No, it is spiritual food because of it’s Remembrance.He inhabits the praises of His people ,Thanksgiving is a form of praise .

In a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, you cannot refer to the bread which remains bread, and the wine that remains wine as spiritual food. They are simply physical food.

As noted above it is spiritual food in Remembrance. Why do you insist that figurative is not at least spiritual ?

What the Didache says is that after communion, then His Holy name tabernacles in us. How can it not when Christ is now in us.

Christ is in us as in regeneration ? Didache does not say Christ is tabernacling in us after communion.

I never said that the Didache is about RP. I said that the those who wrote the Didache believed in RP because the early Christians did so.

Ok. I still say Didache is not about RP , cause early Christians were not CC RP’ers.
]As I have explained above, if the Eucharist is symbolic, then the bread and wine are not spiritual food and spiritual drink.False .Remembrance in communion is spiritual food, as noted above .Even the Catholic definition of “symbol” is quite beautifully spiritual.

Notice how only the baptized is admitted to the Eucharist. If it was only symbolic why bar them? This is why a lot of evangelicals have open table fellowship. Any can come whether you have been baptized or not. Which is quite different to the early Christians.

Agree on baptism ,being Christian,is necessary .Don’t know of any church that has open communion to non-Christian ,non-regenerated .

Yes, the position was presented but it was rejected because there was zilch support for it. You cannot support it from the Bible, nor from the early Christian writings. Ditto vice-versa…

Just talk to the other Apostolic Church. They are as old as the us and we all date back to the Apostles - to Christ. And guess what - we both believe in RP.

Not exactly ,and Luther did also. A little bit of leaven affects the whole lump.

 

[david_ruiz]

No but if you did a little research you will find out that they all belonged to the Catholic Church. Back then, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church.

Your denomination wasn’t there. The protetants weren’t there. They came one thousand and five hundred years later and your denomination probably another five hundred years after that.So what . We didn’t reinvent the wheel .We are all from the same stock-catholic-universal stock.That what we say is contrary to today or even yesterday does not mean it was contrary from the beginning.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Cory,
Sorry for the delay. No bread remains? Where does Christ, or St. Paul say no bread remains? What Christ says is that this [bread] is my body. And so it is. Nothing is said about whether or not the brad remains or doesn’t, other than that it is His body. When we say it is the true body and blood of Christ in and under bread and wine, we are saying that Chriost said the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, no more no less.

Hi Jon,

No delay at all. I am worse in most instances though hopefully I will have more time for CAF this week.

You said that Christ is not in, under or with the bread - or at least that is what you believe.

If this is so, then when we say that the bread IS His Body, then the bread IS NOT bread anymore. If the bread remains, then it cannot be said that it IS Christ’s body - it would be as Luther put it: Christ is there but Christ is in, under, with the bread. Which means the bread IS NOT Christ’s Body.

Again, you are back to metaphysics, which to me as a Lutheran is irrelevent, though I recognize that to you it is not. Christ never says they co-exist, He says the bread is His body.

Exactly! If they do not co-exist, then bread cannot possibly be bread - cannot possibly be there. If the bread is there then Christ merely co-exists with the bread.

When I read the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, what I believe appears Lutheran. If it is Orthodox, that’s ok too.

No John. Everything you have written, even your citation from Luther himself, shows that what you believe as regards the Eucharist is NOT Lutheran but Orthodox.

The other Lutheran that I responded to - his view is definitely Lutheran. But not you.

My quibble is with the use of the term substance in a metaphysical way. I can say I receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ. I just don’t attach philosophy to it. I take Christ at His word.

As I have said above, very Orthodox.

If, in fact, there is a change in substance and accidents remain, as Transubstantiation says, if that is what happens, then I receive His body and blood with thanksgiving. If, in a mystery known only to God, the bread is His body and the wine His blood, then I receive it with thanksgiving.

As I do.

If you are interested, I recommend John Fleming’s Convinced by Truth. He was an Anglican priest and he goes into a fair bit of detail with regards the Eucharist and the validity of the Eucharist in this book.

http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=98

Christ doesn’t tell us the answer to this.

Neither did He say desist from seeking further understanding. One must follow the Truth when it becons.

And for me, it isn’t a big issue. Perhaps that’s why you say my approach seems Orthodox.

Not just that. Your belief is indeed Orthodox because you believe the bread and wine is His Body and Blood. Lutheran’s don’t believe that as evidenced by your citation from Martin Luther and as explained by the other Lutheran in the thread a few pages ago.

I have been wondering why you insist that it is a Lutheran understanding when it clearly is not.

I think you are Orthodox at heart but you are just not ready to accept it yet.

I think Luther would say my understanding is not unorthoodox for a Lutheran.

I think what Luther would say is exactly what he wrote - that he would rather have that if the other option is what David Ruiz is proposing. But that would certainly not be his main position.

Then I’m not just Ortodox and Lutheran, but Catholic too.

In this regard, not Lutheran at all but certainly Orthodox with a belief totally and completely acceptable to Catholics

 

[benedictus2]

The Holy Spirit has not, and never will abandon His Church Militant. Guided into truth is not a finite singular event. When you and I join the Church Triumphant, we both will have been guided into all truth. The Holy Spirits efforts to guide us now are unceasing, yet our undetanding of that guidance is clouded by sin.

But if Transubstantiation is wrong, then the Holy Spirit has abandoned His Church because He has allowed her to fall into heresy regarding this for over 700 years.

Pray for the day when our altars are as one, as Christ called for.

Jon

Call me pessimistic but I don’t think that will happen as a wholesale enteprise.

I recommended a book earlier by John Fleming. When the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) came into the communion with Rome, it did so without conditions. That is why it happened.

I don’t see that happening with the entire Lutheran umbrella. Perhaps if there is such a thing as TLC then there is more possibility of that subset going as a group.

With regards Lutherans, I think it will be one soul at a time. But even that has a potential for exponential growth.

 

[benedictus2]

Why not ? He said it quite bluntly several times to unbelievers , so why not with the intimate disciples ? ,

Oh really?! Perhaps you would care to cite chapter and verse where Jesus drank His own blood such that He can say I will drink My Blood AGAIN.

Aaah David, you are slipping into idiocy here. Wherever did you get such an idea?

No for it wasn’t plain in John 6 nor at the Last Supper.

Perhaps not to you but obviously to the Apostles and their succesors it was clear enough or this belief would have been challenged in the first 400 years of the Church when there was turmoil over theological understanding. But there was nothing. No peep out of anyone!

As I have re-iterated several times before, it was only Berengarius 1000 years later who questioned it. And straight away that heretical belief was squashed.

He plainly explained for sure the wine remained, and I would say so did the symbolism.

Sorry but He so very did not. It never said so in the text. And the proof text you were trying to use, I have already rebutted that and shown that to be false.

Only to CC

Which happens to be the Church that Christ founded. So who do we believe in this regard? The Church that Christ built or some renegade Church that sprang 2000 years later?

Hey even Luther believed in RP,just not CC,and Orthodox is not quite CC RP.

Well Hallelujah! You’ve just made my argument for me.

Ain’t that a fact that even Luther (who basically was instrumental in the forming of your Church and your theology), even he, believed in the Real Presene of Christ. Not a symbolic presence - a very real presence even though the bread remains. Luther believes that Christ is in the bread, under the bread and with the bread. Not symbolicaly. Truly.

And as you have also pointed out the only other Church that could trace herself back to the apostles also believe that the bread IS truly Christ.

Where does that leave your manmade church and manmade theolgy then? Obviously it is not giuded by the Holy Spirit in its belief.

If everybody jumps off a bridge shall I follow ?

But you have followed when they jumped off the bridge. That is why you are where you are now.

Scripture and early church let’s us both rest in our ways.

Sorry but a humongous and definite NO. Scripture supports only the Catholic understanding. As for the early Church, well its the same Church - only younger. The same Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It can be traced back,as some of my beliefs on RP

Your belief regarding the Eucharist can be traced back to Berangarius the heretic - 1000 years after the apostles.

.Yours may go farther back, but I would say not far enough , not to the apostles.

Oh yes most certainly to the apostles. History proves that just as history proves that your Church sprouted probably 100 years ago at best.

This is CC interpretation and a fantastic pitch for her side.

This is the interpretation that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into. And yes, it is wonderful that Christ has kept His promise to always guide His Church.

NO,transubstantiation is newer.

Oh but transubstation is just an explanation of a truth. Similar to us knowing now that water is H2O. It was always H2O but the ancient people did not know it. They only knew that water is water.

Prove ? We give evidences.

No you weren’t able to give any. You presented what you thought was evidence till we demolished them as you watched.

Good criteria, and I find no transubstantiation in it.

Actually, as in the H2O explanation above there was. They just didn’t have the term for it yet. They just knew that the bread IS the Body of Christ.

Which is so very, very NOT just symbolic.

He sure did , and it would leave transubstantiation behind.
That’s right ,cause they didn’t believe in any flesh on Calvary,unlike most non-RP’ers.

May I reminde you of this one

St Augustine believed in the real presence because Christ said to Himl:
Eat me,
I am the bread of the strong,
But you will not transform me and make me part of you.
Rather I will transform you and make you part of me.

For sure if you are talking around 1250 ,when the church made the decree of transubstantiation,and especially after Trent in 1500’s.

Actualy I am talking early - like the beginning.

As I have said before, your kind of heretical theology was first proposed only around 1100.

So sorry, but the facts bear these out. You would not have been welcome at the table of the early Christians for your heretical beliefs.

 

[benedictus2]

Well I took it to be , “On the night He was betrayed ,He took …bread…”.It certainly was not, "Father (or Holy Spirit) please turn the bread into His body. What do you think the words of “institution” are ?

This again is another one of your less than well thought out replies.

Do you think we are gods that we do not need to invoke the Holy Spirit to turn the bread into Christ’s Body?

Of course Christ did not invoke the Holy Spirit. He is God for heaven’s sake. Or is that something that just escaped you then.

Christ is God so what He says goes. He said Little Girl get up and the girl got up. He said Lazarus come out. Lazarus came out. He said to the cripple pick up your mat and walk ad the cripple did. He siad this IS my Body. And so it is.

Your losing steam David. And sense.

Pure conjecture .The Holy Spirit brings all things to Remembrance.

Not when you take al the other facts, and all the other traditions. What was written down in the Didache is what the early Christians did and passed on.

You would not comprehend that becuase you have only human traditions that rebels made up.

 

[benedictus2]

So the resurrected Jesus was not historic also ?

Sigh! Did you even read that? I suggest you read it again. While the resurrected Jesus is the historical Jesus, the resurrected Body is not quite the same as the historical body. The resurrected Body goes through doors and appears and disappears. At the same time it is also a physical body.

I think you are just firing replies without reading that is why after so many posts it seems your understanding is still stuck where you started.

You need to read and absord the replies.

 

[benedictus2]

That is a good example of a literal command. Can you give me one to show a symbolic command ?

Since you are the “symbolic” advocate, why don’t you give one…

Goes both ways.

See, I can tell you quite confidently that it does not because if there is one thing that is clear in Scripture, it is that He founded a Church that is guided into all truth. This is not my understanding. I did not arrive at this on my own. I received this from the Church that Christ established so therefore I received this understanding from Christ.

]Yes and no.As clear as any parable.As clear as John 6.

Except that He wasn’t speaking in parables. You keep forgetting that he hammered that through over and over again so that no one will be left in any doubt as to what He meant.

Yes, you complied with the command , but not in Spirit.You have made it a work , which is stench in His nostrils. Our fault would be either disobedience or of little faith, command were literal.

No, if there is any stench that would be your practice for failing to follow His command. But there is nothing new in that since protestantism is about following I/Me and Myself.

And yes, your fault is disobedience. And you know what, that is precisely the sin of Adam and Eve. The very sin that landed us in this quagmire.

Understand your point, but the evidence of effectualness is not there.

According to who? You? There are numerous miracles that God has granted to prove that the bread that we receive is indeed Him. Numerous examples. But those without faith will not see that.

Then why did you bring up the literal"eating" in OT as if it proves something? Besides, that is the debate, are we being told symbolic, like the Jews of old or literal ?

Oh David, this is getting very tiresome. I brought up the “literal eating” of the lamb to show you that if "literal " is required, then those who do only a symbolic eating will not get the promise. Is that clear enough?

No,because Jesus was still intact in front of them .Besides you have the problem of the apostles partaking of His “historical” body , and not His “resurrected body” ,which earlier you said it was the latter we partake of.

So now you are saying that the Lord is lying? And that He is incapable of being outside of time?

Your theology is very seriously deformed.

He began discourse figuratively and ended it figuratively.

And as i have shown before, (which obviously did not read or do not remember) a figurative reading makes an idiot of Christ. It seems you prefer that kind of understanding.

Well, Peter pretty much said that and Jesus ended the “discourse”.

Nah, Peter did not say that either. You are inventing things now. Which again is not surprising.

Augustine was quite explicit in this .

And again, no.

And twice He spoke figuratively in discourse.

Perhaps in some other incident and text but not in John 6. He was never figurative in that one.

You know David, when the Holy Spirit is giving you the chance at enlightenment and you keep fighting it wilfully, that I think is what Jesus called the sin against the Holy Spirit. This persistence to remain in error even when one knows that one no longer has any argument to back up one’s belief.

I think you know deep in your heart that you are wrong but you decided that you will stick with what you believe because that is what you want to believe.

In the Exodus account, Pharaoh was given numerous chances to change course, but because he refused, God left him to his choices, to his ways.

 

[wmscott]

Since you are the “symbolic” advocate, why don’t you give one…

See, I can tell you quite confidently that it does not because if there is one thing that is clear in Scripture, it is that He founded a Church that is guided into all truth. This is not my understanding. I did not arrive at this on my own. I received this from the Church that Christ established so therefore I received this understanding from Christ.

Except that He wasn’t speaking in parables. You keep forgetting that he hammered that through over and over again so that no one will be left in any doubt as to what He meant.

No, if there is any stench that would be your practice for failing to follow His command. But there is nothing new in that since protestantism is about following I/Me and Myself.

And yes, your fault is disobedience. And you know what, that is precisely the sin of Adam and Eve. The very sin that landed us in this quagmire.

According to who? You? There are numerous miracles that God has granted to prove that the bread that we receive is indeed Him. Numerous examples. But those without faith will not see that.

Oh David, this is getting very tiresome. I brought up the “literal eating” of the lamb to show you that if "literal " is required, then those who do only a symbolic eating will not get the promise. Is that clear enough?

So now you are saying that the Lord is lying? And that He is incapable of being outside of time?

Your theology is very seriously deformed.

And as i have shown before, (which obviously did not read or do not remember) a figurative reading makes an idiot of Christ. It seems you prefer that kind of understanding.

Nah, Peter did not say that either. You are inventing things now. Which again is not surprising.

And again, no.

Perhaps in some other incident and text but not in John 6. He was never figurative in that one.

You know David, when the Holy Spirit is giving you the chance at enlightenment and you keep fighting it wilfully, that I think is what Jesus called the sin against the Holy Spirit. This persistence to remain in error even when one knows that one no longer has any argument to back up one’s belief.

I think you know deep in your heart that you are wrong but you decided that you will stick with what you believe because that is what you want to believe.

In the Exodus account, Pharaoh was given numerous chances to change course, but because he refused, God left him to his choices, to his ways.

And there were many others who were sent by Christ into the world to preach the Gospel who had to shake the dust from their feet because of the obstinate ways and refusal to recognize the truths that Christ had imparted to His Church. So benedictus2 you are in good company and have done the lions share in trying to enlighten those who persist in darkness and falsehoods.

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=JonNC;8534212]

Pray for the day when our altars are as one, as Christ called for.

Jon

Jon, Johnny, Jaunito,

You have one leg in the Lutheran church and the other leg in the Catholic Church, you are being pulled apart in your mind body and soul by your up bringing in the Lutheran church, you are doing this to yourself.

You pray that the altars will become one, this will never happen, you pray in vain for this, why? because there is already one altar prepared, and by Jesus Christ this has been done. it is you, you sir, that must come to this Altar of altars that Christ called for that all should come. You must let go and let God help you and bring your other leg in to the Catholic Church.

Jon, enough of being on the outside looking in.

Ufam Tobie

 

[benedictus2]

You pray that the altars will become one, this will never happen, you pray in vain for this, why? because there is already one altar prepared, and by Jesus Christ this has been done. it is you, you sir, that must come to this Altar of altars that Christ called for that all should come.

Very well said.

The Church will never compromise the truth just so people will come back. It is the truth that must want people to come back. That is why the Traditional Anglican Communion were able to effect the communion - because they gave an unconditional assent to the faith and signed the the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In matters of faith, it is not the Church that bows to those who broke away and left. It is those who broke away and deserted the Church of Christ that must come back home - where a warm welcome awaits them.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by ufamtobie
You pray that the altars will become one, this will never happen, you pray in vain for this, why? because there is already one altar prepared, and by Jesus Christ this has been done. it is you, you sir, that must come to this Altar of altars that Christ called for that all should come

benedictus2:
Very well said.

The Church will never compromise the truth just so people will come back. It is the truth that must want people to come back. That is why the Traditional Anglican Communion were able to effect the communion - because they gave an unconditional assent to the faith and signed the the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In matters of faith, it is not the Church that bows to those who broke away and left. It is those who broke away and deserted the Church of Christ that must come back home - where a warm welcome awaits them.

Are both of you saying that the pope wastes his time meeting with Lutherans, that the 60 years of ecumenical discussions that have brought about closer understandings and in fact some significant convergences are, at best, a ruse? Are you saying that these are not worthy of prayer?

Jon

 

[jediliz]

question for the “its a symbol only” Christians:

If Jesus was speaking figuratively on the Eucharist, then why when he said he would HAVE TO SUFFER AND DIE A PAINFUL DEATH, was he NOT speaking figuratively there? How can you believe in the Death and Resurrection, but DENY the EUCHARIST?

Jesus was not using symbolism when he spoke of having to suffer on the Cross. NOR was he speaking “figuratively” when he said THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD!

 

[benedictus2]

Are both of you saying that the pope wastes his time meeting with Lutherans, that the 60 years of ecumenical discussions that have brought about closer understandings and in fact some significant convergences are, at best, a ruse? Are you saying that these are not worthy of prayer?

Jon

Not at all.

Dialogue will always bring benefits. But in the end if the Lutherans stick to their understanding as Luther has proposed then it is highly unlikely that there will be union.

The Church cannot compromise the truth just to accomodate those who have left the Church.

The truth stands and either they come and accept it or they remain seperated.

Within Lutheranism, there will always be those who will be against the Catholic teaching so it is very highly doubtful that there will be a wholesale convergence.

As I have explained, even in the Anglican communion only the TAC was able to come into union because they gave an unconditional acceptance of the Church’s teaching.

I don’t see that happening with Lutheranism. For one thing, (if I am not mistaken you also have priestesses. That alone is a major stumbling block to unity.

All the Lutherans’ are doing is expecting the Church to bend to their understanding. Should the Church not be able to express a point to their satisfaction then they will stand their ground and insist on their understanding. At this point then the question insists itself - which view is correct?

As far as I see it, that is a pie in the sky wish. It all amounts to their will and their understanding being done. Not God’s.

If one truly desires union, one need only front up to a Catholic parish and express that wish.

The reformation is long over. The practices and abuses that Luther railed against is long past. If Luther had not come up with his own brand of theology, the schism would have been long healed. To insist on this continued protest is an indication that one has last sight of the truth.

 

[david_ruiz]

Oh really?! Perhaps you would care to cite chapter and verse where Jesus drank His own blood such that He can say I will drink My Blood AGAIN.

You are absolutely right .He was never specific about drinking His blood to unbelievers ,not even John 6.

it was clear enough or this belief would have been challenged in the first 400 years of the Church when there was turmoil over theological understanding. But there was nothing. No peep out of anyone!

That’s right where there is no infraction ,there is no peep .Where there is no transubstantiation , there is no need for rebuttal. But I would say some debate was there ,as Augustine would point out to me with leave your teeth behind .Why would he say that if people really felt their teeth were sanctified for the eating ?

As I have re-iterated several times before, it was only Berengarius 1000 years later who questioned it. And straight away that heretical belief was squashed.

Actually .I thought it was around 850 A.D. that more evidence is given of a civil (non-excommunicatory) debate (Ratranmus).

Sorry but He so very did not. It never said so in the text. And the proof text you were trying to use, I have already rebutted that and shown that to be false.
Mark 14:24, 25 - This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you , I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God". Where we sit is usually where we stand . Interpretation is there in the eye of the beholder.

The Church that Christ built or some renegade Church that sprang 2000 years later?

There is that beautiful linguistic tool of at least hyperbole, a bit like Christ with the unbelievers in John 6.

Well Hallelujah! You’ve just made my argument for me.

Yes it does ,but only fromCC point of view ,as it must be .But not from others who beleive apostolic is as apostolic does . And much of church history is NOT apostolic .It is a double edged sword this thing of claiming 2000 years of history -you get all the baggage too, you know, more of that good, bad and ugly, that is part of all of us/churches.

Ain’t that a fact that even Luther (who basically was instrumental in the forming of your Church and your theology), even he, believed in the Real Presene of Christ. Not a symbolic presence - a very real presence even though the bread remains. Luther believes that Christ is in the bread, under the bread and with the bread. Not symbolicaly. Truly.

That’s right , but he was halfway there to being set free from CC transubstantiation and it’s application. CC RP dogma evolved , so did the reformation of it.

And as you have also pointed out the only other Church that could trace herself back to the apostles also believe that the bread IS truly Christ.

Yes, it is very well documented of Her tracing back to the apostles .The tracing has been rewarded with much power, wealth and prestige.

Where does that leave your manmade church and manmade theolgy then? Obviously it is not giuded by the Holy Spirit in its belief.

Where any Church is true is divine .But as to her politics , we are all intertwined.

Scripture supports only the Catholic understanding. .

Right , that is why I have been sharing Koran scriptures and writings of Confucius.(linguistic tool of at least hyperbole).

Oh yes most certainly to the apostles. History proves that just as history proves that your Church sprouted probably 100 years ago at best.

Oh, I am of Peter .No,No, no! I am of Paul… I am sorry , but there are only two kinds of people on this planet ,since day one(and it’s not the Irish and those who wish they were). Thank God that in heaven we won’t be going by names like Lutheran , or Baptist (and 50,000 others ) and Orthodox ,or …even Roman Catholic.

This is the interpretation that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into. And yes, it is wonderful that Christ has kept His promise to always guide His Church.

Yes , part of Her spiritual armor, circular protection. “Once right ,always right”.

No you weren’t able to give any. You presented what you thought was evidence till we demolished them as you watched.

That’s right . What does the Koran or Confucius know about RP.

Which is so very, very NOT just symbolic.

And don’t forget all the RP trimmings that are in the bible: priestly consecration only ,an offering TO God, fasting before ,keeping in gold ,even adoring ,kept in a monstrance, genuflecting before etc.

St Augustine believed in the real presence because Christ said to Himl:
Eat me,
I am the bread of the strong,
But you will not transform me and make me part of you.
Rather I will transform you and make you part of me.

Yes, and Augustine ate in faith like Peter, and left his stomach and “teeth behind”.

As I have said before, your kind of heretical theology was first proposed only around 1100.

I think your date is wrong.

So sorry, but the facts bear these out. You would not have been welcome at the table of the early Christians for your heretical beliefs.

We are aware of CC declaring such views like mine as anathema per Trent council of 1565.For sure thereafter . Not so sure around 100 AD with apostles John.

 

[david_ruiz]

Oh David, this is getting very tiresome. I brought up the “literal eating” of the lamb to show you that if "literal " is required, then those who do only a symbolic eating will not get the promise. Is that clear enough?Very clear .Then may I make it clear all I am saying is that the Passover was done in remembrance with symbols ,and they did not believe ,nor were they told that the symbols were in essence transubstantiated to the original elements of original Passover of Exodus.

 

[benedictus2]

You are absolutely right .He was never specific about drinking His blood to unbelievers ,not even John 6.

So, when you have run out of steam you feign stupidity or is it that you are being one?

If you go back through the discussion, you claim that Jesus said that He drank His own blood. So please, telll me which chapter and verse said that Jesus drank His own blood as you claimed.

That’s right where there is no infraction ,there is no peep .Where there is no transubstantiation , there is no need for rebuttal.

Aah, but it is not transubstantiation that you are arguing against. You are arguing against the real presence of Christ - that the bread is indeed the Body of Christ. That it is TRULY and not just symbolically the Body of Christ is what Christians from the beginning have always believed. And that belief was never challenged.

But I would say some debate was there ,as Augustine would point out to me with leave your teeth behind .Why would he say that if people really felt their teeth were sanctified for the eating ?

Huh! You are totally not making any sense.

Actually .I thought it was around 850 A.D. that more evidence is given of a civil (non-excommunicatory) debate (Ratranmus).

Ratranmnus - as I have shown - never argued against the real Presence of Christ. He only explained that the Body that is in the Eucharist is not quite the same historical body. It is still the historical body but not exactly of the same quality.

So no, there was no challenge to this doctrine till Berengarius.

Mark 14:24, 25 - This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you , I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God". Where we sit is usually where we stand . Interpretation is there in the eye of the beholder.

No because the Bible was not meant to be interpreted by every Tom, Dick and Harry. If that were so, the Hindus who claim that Christ is just another Krishna would be equally correct. I suppose you think that to be so.

There is that beautiful linguistic tool of at least hyperbole, a bit like Christ with the unbelievers in John 6.

No hyperbole there. When they started complaining His language became even more graphic. So no hyperbole. He was very clear about what He was saying and the apostles understood the same too. He didn’t even explain himself to the apostles. All He did was ask them if they will leave too. And their faithfulness to Him was rewarded when they were able to eat His Body and drink His blood just as He has commanded.

Yes it does ,but only fromCC point of view ,as it must be .But not from others who beleive apostolic is as apostolic does .

Well duh, you have just shown that it was not just from CC point. Sorry. there is no getting out of your statement. The Lutherans believe in the Real Presence even though they believe the bread remains, the Orthodox believe in the Real Presence just as the Catholic does, they just leave it as a mystery.

You and your church invented their own understanding 2000 years later.

And much of church history is NOT apostolic .

Yes, but the root of Church history IS apostolic. Churches who are not apostolic are impostors - churches that were established by men not by Christ.

It is a double edged sword this thing of claiming 2000 years of history -you get all the baggage too, you know, more of that good, bad and ugly, that is part of all of us/churches.

Not at all. It is natural to have baggage after having been around for 2000 years. It is just part and parcel of being human. Christ chose very human apostles. Even when He was still with Him they showed their frailty and yet Christ chose them and upon them built His Church.

So there is baggage, but because she is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church is always renewed.

Yours on the other hand have neither the apostolicity, nor the promise of the Holy Spirit. All you have is a man made church. And your church has plenty of baggage as well and no sacrament to clean it of its baggage.

As Stephen Ray so brilliantyly explained, the Church is St Peter’s Barque - a ship that is meant to get us to heaven. A ship’s usefulness is not whether there are no barnacles on the bottom of the ship but whether the ship can get you to your destination.

Your ship also has barnacles but the sad reality is that it has lost its course and has no way of finding it. It’s stuck in a fog and can’t get out because everything that it needs to navigate its course was abandoned when they abandoned the mother ship

That’s right , but he was halfway there to being set free from CC transubstantiation and it’s application. CC RP dogma evolved , so did the reformation of it.

But my dear, the point is, 1500 years later Luther believed in the real presence, whereas you don’t. So therefore, even the founding father of your church believed in the real presence.

Just goes to show that once removed from the Pillar of Truth the only thing that can follow is doctrinal corruption and further doctrinal corruption. Error building upon error.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes,** it is very well documented of Her tracing back to the apostles** .The tracing has been rewarded with much power, wealth and prestige.

Yes, indeed there was a time when there was much corruption. But as time has proved she is indeed the Church of Christ because whenever she hits a crisis there always follows a time of renewal. Christ raises saints suitable for the occasion.

With that statement alone, you have acknowledged that your interpretation is wrong because earlier on you said that to find out what Christ meant one must find out what the apostles believed. Since you agree that the Church is apostolic, therefore her belief is apostolic.

Where any Church is true is divine.

Not entirely true. It is more correct to say where any Church is truly founded by Christ, she is Divine.

But unfortunately for you, your Church was not founded by Christ. Therefore it is not divine. It is totally human. How can a church started by a human being be divine? Only a Church built by Christ - because He is God - can be Divine.

.But as to her politics , we are all intertwined.

I am not quite sure what you mean here. Yes, we are intertwined for every good thing you have, every truth you believe, you got from the Catholic Church. Every error and lie you believe, you made that yourselves.

Right , that is why I have been sharing Koran scriptures and writings of Confucius.(linguistic tool of at least hyperbole).

None of the Scriptures you have quoted proved your point. They actually disproved your point.

Oh, I am of Peter .No,No, no! I am of Paul… I am sorry , but there are only two kinds of people on this planet ,since day one(and it’s not the Irish and those who wish they were). Thank God that in heaven we won’t be going by names like Lutheran , or Baptist (and 50,000 others ) and Orthodox ,or …even Roman Catholic.

You may want to console yourself with that error but it doesn’t work. Because Christ established a Church. If He didn’t your statement might be true. If He had just sat down and wrote the NT himself, your statement might just be true. But since, He did not do those things and instead built a Church and cause the NT to be written by members of His Church, then sorry to say this but Church matters. It matters because this Is the freely willed act of God - to build a Church.

Yes , part of Her spiritual armor, circular protection. “Once right ,always right”.

Logically yes, because that is what the Holy Spirit is all about. Otherwise you are saying that the Holy Spirit makes mistakes.

That’s right . What does the Koran or Confucius know about RP.

Trying to be sarcastic in the hope that it will hide your lack of rational rebuttal? Sorry, but the absence is very much noticeable.

And don’t forget all the RP trimmings that are in the bible: priestly consecration only ,an offering TO God, fasting before ,keeping in gold ,even adoring ,kept in a monstrance, genuflecting before etc.

So I suppose that the Ark of the Covenant is made of gold is an invention.
If you will only read,really read the responses and maybe try to understand, you will learn much. But as it is, it seems you like to encase yourself in this wall of ignorance that no one is permitted to penetrate.

Yes, and Augustine ate in faith like Peter, and left his stomach and “teeth behind”.

Yes they ate in faith because the only reason they were able to eat the Lord because they had faith in Him.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that Christ can do what He promised - give us His flesh and Blood. Those of little faith will not be able to grasp that. They believe only what their eyes tell them.

I think your date is wrong.

I said 'around" 1100. Would 1047 be more to your liking?

We are aware of CC declaring such views like mine as anathema per Trent council of 1565.For sure thereafter . Not so sure around 100 AD with apostles John.

It was anathema then as well.

As you have already confirmed, the Church is apostolic therefore her belief is apostolic.

 

[benedictus2]

Very clear .Then may I make it clear all I am saying is that the Passover was done in remembrance with symbols ,and they did not believe ,nor were they told that the symbols were in essence transubstantiated to the original elements of original Passover of Exodus.

True, but the Eucharist is MORE than just another passover. The Eucharist was instituted by the God who became man.

The lamb did not say this is my body.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;8541878] Dialogue will always bring benefits. But in the end if the Lutherans stick to their understanding as Luther has proposed then it is highly unlikely that there will be union.

It depends on what each side means by “sticking to” their POV. If sticking to means not exploring our differences and seeking the help of the Spirit to overcome them, then I agree.

The Church cannot compromise the truth just to accomodate those who have left the Church.

Never ever compromise! Seek instead convergence, viewing each topic in light of the Gospel, the ancient Church, and how we express our beliefs.

The truth stands and either they come and accept it or they remain seperated.

Agreed, for both sides of our deivide.

Within Lutheranism, there will always be those who will be against the Catholic teaching so it is very highly doubtful that there will be a wholesale convergence.

You are probably right. On the other side, there are those Catholics who condemn recent popes for even their efforts in ecumenism. There is a status-quo element in both communions.

As I have explained, even in the Anglican communion only the TAC was able to come into union because they gave an unconditional acceptance of the Church’s teaching.

Yet not all of Anglicanism. And they came to that acceptance through dialogue and convergence.

I don’t see that happening with Lutheranism. For one thing, (if I am not mistaken you also have priestesses. That alone is a major stumbling block to unity.

It is. It also is for the LCMS with those Lutherans who have female clergy.

All the Lutherans’ are doing is expecting the Church to bend to their understanding. Should the Church not be able to express a point to their satisfaction then they will stand their ground and insist on their understanding. At this point then the question insists itself - which view is correct?
As far as I see it, that is a pie in the sky wish. It all amounts to their will and their understanding being done. Not God’s

To be quite honest, I don’t believe this fairly or accurately represents the approach of Lutherans in dialogue. We expect and insist that the CC express its POV, just as we do. Both sides must then listen and talk.

.

If one truly desires union, one need only front up to a Catholic parish and express that wish.

And this has been not to successful an approach for 500 years. Perhaps the post VII approach will be more successful.

The reformation is long over. The practices and abuses that Luther railed against is long past. If Luther had not come up with his own brand of theology, the schism would have been long healed. To insist on this continued protest is an indication that one has last sight of the truth.

Recriminations over the events 500 years ago will not solve our schism. Prayerful dialogue has a much better chance, with the help of the Spirit.

continued