Loss of Rewards

[lanman87]

For 1500 years the Church had no problem taking the Sacrifice of Christ and His Real Presence.

There was no clear teaching on the Eucharist for at least 800 years. We see different beliefs on the meaning of “real presence” and how it is a “sacrifice” for 100s of years. If I were a Christian in say 550, I could believe exactly what I believe today about the Eucharist and be considered an orthodox Christian. I say that only to say that the “this was believed for 1500 years” is only partly true. Some, believed that way for 1500 years, but some also believed in a spiritual “real presences” in the same way Calvin on other reformers did. Contrary to popular belief on this board, the reformers didn’t just make stuff up. They found basis for their teachings throughout church history.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Non-Catholic Christians hold the same (and sometimes even stricter) morality than Catholics

Reducing the consequences of mortal sin to a mere loss of rewards is the polar opposite of that.

There was no clear teaching on the Eucharist for at least 800 years.

The Real Prescene was basic doctrine.

Some, believed that way for 1500 years, but some also believed in a spiritual “real presences” in the same way Calvin on other reformers did.

The Reformers besides Luther believed in a symbolic Eucharist. . . .

 

[Julius_Caesar]

What is the new Law on that, or even old one?

He who eats My Body and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day.

A popular song says “Stand On the Promises of God” yet you seem to avoid this one.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

It says nothing of a priesthood or the successors to Peter and the apostles being priest.

Cyprian, Tertullian, and others say it the exact same way. It’s you who made the switch.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The same presumption is made with Ignatius and those whom he says deny the bread is His body, forgetting his context of said deniers not believing in His bodily death or resurection period.

Which is a symptom of denying His Body and Blood. And is honestly what you guys sound like when you use, “the flesh profiteth nothing” to make Jesus’ words symbolic when His flesh profiteth us for salvation.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Well, to play fair, we have another 700 years of development/refinement to go, to match the 1200 development years of transubstantiation

Transubstantiation was always there, just never dogmatized until 1200. You can’t make that argument for OSAS.

 

[lanman87]

The Real Prescene was basic doctrine.

Transubstantiation was not. Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are different things. One is the Christ is present in the Bread and Wine we take in the Lord’s Supper. The other is that the Bread ceases to be Bread and the wine ceases to be wine. There were several different beliefs about how the Bread and Wine are the “Body and Blood of Christ” in the early church. In the middle ages the Catholic church used Aristotelian logic to define one of those beliefs as dogma.

The Reformers besides Luther believed in a symbolic Eucharist. So yes you made it up.

Only Zwingli argued for a symbolic Eucharist. Calvin and other’s believed in the real presence. Just not in transubstantiation.

From Ligionier

Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread)…

 

[lanman87]

Cyprian, Tertullian, and others say it the exact same way. It’s you who made the switch.

Like I said, a later development. Tertullian was born in the mid 2nd century so his writings came in the late 2nd century. 150+ years is plenty of time for the office of Elders/Presbyters/Overseers to develop into Sacerdotal Priesthood.

 

[hope]

…it is as we both agree, a beautiful foreshadow of Calvary…and it is what many suppose was the setting for the Last Supper, and if it was the one Jewish sacrifice where the priest played the least role (or lay person the most), why would the Lord revert to ministerial distinctions as rightfully with other sacrifices?

Foreshadowing the Cross. Of course but than Jesus said that the Last Supper also was. Not foreshadowing but more. It would be His way of giving us His Body and Blood. He instituted the new priesthood at this time so that Do this in memory of me would be continued. What was the this? The Passover of the Jews was the final straw to break the hold and let them free but it was to prevent the death of the first born Jew. It wasn’t an accident but planned by God to be fulfilled by Jesus at the last Supper. Today the Priest represents Jesus and when attending Mass we are really there at the Last Supper which is the Cross. We receive Jesus as He promised
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

 

[hope]

What you ignore is the giving of the Keys. The priesthood was not instituted until the Last Supper when the Apostles were instructed to do as Jesus did.