Partaking Of The Divine Nature

[Mickey]

Christ’s body and blood are no more present today in the elements of bread and wine than they were when the Lord instituted the ordinance

John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

 

[Matariel]

In the Lord’s Supper there is indeed a real communion with Christ, though not with the idea that Christ’s body and blood are present in the elements. That would be ingestion of Christ; not communion with Him. The Bible is clear that “body” and “blood” are used in these passages are symbolic characterizations.

Then why did everyone since the time of the Apostles, up to when the heretical, humanist, liberal Zwingli came along, believe in the Real Presence? Why did the early Christians believe in the Real Presence?

Christ’s body and blood are no more present today in the elements of bread and wine than they were when the Lord instituted the ordinance, took bread and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body,” then likewise took a cup and gave it to them, explaining, “Drink of it, … for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28 ). His real body and blood could not have been in the bread and wine then, because he was right there talking to the disciples!

Oh, so Christ isn’t omnipotent?

Likewise today; Jesus is somewhere, mediating on our behalf; but not in the real form of flesh and blood in the bread and wine; for this would contradict what he has established as a beautiful communion with Him personally.

You’re words are incomprehensible; Protestants have an empty ordinance, but the Catholic belief is a real and true communion with Christ, intimate and loving. This is one of the reasons I am becoming Catholic, since Zwingli (1600 years after Christ ) came up with the hokey empty-symbolism theory, and Catholics have believed (completely in line with what Christ taught) for 2,000 years in the Real Presence of our Lord, and not a Real Absence, like the majority of Protestants, who believe Zwingli over against Christ, St.Paul, and all the Fathers.

During the Lord’s supper, Jesus invites us to intimate communion with Him; and committment to Him and to one another in the Church; he does not therein invite us to eat Him. Salvation, forgiveness of sin, relationship with Christ, etc., are not effected by literally eating anyone’s flesh and blood.

That’s not what Christ says:

“He who eats Me, lives because of Me.”

“My Body is real food, and My Blood is real drink.”

Jesus’ instruction was clear: “Do this is remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24, 25). The unleavened bread and unfermented fruit of the vine—which alone can appropriately symbolize the sinless perfection of the person of Christ—are shared “in remembrance of me”; they speak of sacrificial death and salvation and proclaim them until He comes.

Catholics totally agree… why’s this an issue?

 

[Matariel]

John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

Yeah, Protestant 101, why would you want to side with those disciples?

They refused to believe the Real Presence too…

 

[Protestant101]

Originally Posted by Mickey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cag/viewpost.gif
John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

Yeah, Protestant 101, why would you want to side with those disciples?

They refused to believe the Real Presence too…

This is a very common mistake repeated by many Catholics where the scripture in John 6 is wrested out of context.

First, those disciples who walked with Jesus no more did not walk away from him because they did not believe in “the real presence” but because Jesus tried to say He “came down from heaven.”

41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Jn 6:41-42). Grand Rapids: Zondervan

.Jesus was always getting into trouble for saying that He was God; the Jews of the day thought this to be blasphemy, and the Bible gives us other examples where they wanted to kill Him for the “blasphemy” of saying things to indicate that he was God.

Those “disciples” who walked no more with Jesus only did so because they thought he was once more guilty of blasphemy.

 

[Protestant101]

Quote:
Christ’s body and blood are no more present today in the elements of bread and wine than they were when the Lord instituted the ordinance, took bread and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body,” then likewise took a cup and gave it to them, explaining, “Drink of it, … for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28 ). His real body and blood could not have been in the bread and wine then, because he was right there talking to the disciples!

Oh, so Christ isn’t omnipotent?

 

[Matariel]

You make a very nice smokescreen here by saying this kind of comment about Christ’s omnipotence. But by suggesting that people say He is not omnipotent because they don’t believe this Roman Catholic doctrine, you give credence to the apostasy of pantheism, the doctrine or belief that God is all the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the whole universe as a manifestation of God. A Pantheist is someone who believes that God and the universe are the same; in other words "God is in all the plants, and in all the objects around us.

 

[Matariel]

This is a very common mistake repeated by many Catholics where the scripture in John 6 is wrested out of context…Those “disciples” who walked no more with Jesus only did so because they thought he was once more guilty of blasphemy.

“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Thaaaaaaat’s when they walked away; because He said whoever eats the Bread will live forever. It’s right there in God’s Word!

 

[Matariel]

This is a very common mistake repeated by many Catholics where the scripture in John 6 is wrested out of context…Those “disciples” who walked no more with Jesus only did so because they thought he was once more guilty of blasphemy.

“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Thaaaaaaat’s when they walked away; because He said whoever eats the Bread will live forever. It’s right there in God’s Word!

Also, I’m still waiting to hear your response on what I said earlier; let me reinterate.

If Zwingli was right, and the Sacrament was just an empty symbol; then, why were the early Christians universally accepting of it? Why did direct disciples of Peter and John teach it? Why was in unquestioned (except, of course, by the Gnostics) in the Church until the liberal, humanist Zwingli came along?

And don’t bring up Ratramnus; he did believe in the Real Presence, just differed as to how it happened.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;4125599:

No, Catholics and Anglicans do have footwashing.

Yes; the Catholic and Anglican Churches have footwashing services every Lent.

But it is not a part of the communion/mass service; which is one of many things that make the Catholic Eucharist short of the Biblical example.

 

[Matariel]

Matariel;4135397:

But it is not a part of the communion/mass service; which is one of many things that make the Catholic Eucharist short of the Biblical example.

Actually, I was an acolyte at it last Lent, and it occurs during Mass before distribution of the Eucharist. The bishop washed my feet, in his vestments and all. It was so humbling.

 

[patrick457]

Matariel;4135397:

But it is not a part of the communion/mass service; which is one of many things that make the Catholic Eucharist short of the Biblical example.

Yes, the washing of the feet was once an extra-liturgical (yet common) practice before the liturgical reforms and was done outside of Mass, but so what?

Here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject:

Owing to the general use of sandals in Eastern countries the washing of the feet was almost everywhere recognized from the earliest times as a duty of courtesy to be shown to guests (Genesis 18:4, 19:2; Luke 7:44, etc.). The action of Christ after the Last Supper (John 13:1-15) must also have invested it with a deep religious significance, and in fact down to the time of St. Bernard we find ecclesiastical writers, at least occasionally, applying to this ceremony the term Sacramentum

in its wider sense, by which they no doubt meant that it possessed the virtue of what we now call a sacramental. Christ’s command to wash one another’s feet must have been understood from the beginning in a literal sense, for St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:10) implies that a widow to be honoured and consecrated in the Church should be one “having testimony for her good works, if she have received to harbour, if she have washed the saints’ feet”. This tradition, we may believe, has never been interrupted, though the evidence in the early centuries is scattered and fitful. For example the Council of Elvira (A.D. 300) in canon xlviii directs that the feet of those about to be baptized are not to be washed by priests but presumably by clerics or at least lay persons. This practice of washing the feet at baptism was long maintained in Gaul, Milan, and Ireland, but it was not apparently known in Rome or in the East…

…The liturgical washing of feet (if we can trust the negative evidence of our early records) seems only to have established itself in East and West at a comparatively late date. In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. The matter is also discussed by Amalarius and other liturgists of the ninth century. Whether the custom of holiding this “maundy” (from “Mandatum novum do vobis”, the first words of the initial Antiphon) on Maundy Thursday, developed out of the baptismal practice originally attached to that day does not seem quite clear, but it soon became an universal custom in cathedral and collegiate churches. In the latter half of the twelfth century the pope washed the feet of twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner. The “Caeremoniale episcoporum” directs that the bishop is to wash the feet either of thirteen poor men or of thirteen of his canons. The prelate and his assistants are vested and the Gospel “Ante diem festum paschae” is ceremonially sung with incense and lights at the beginning of the function. Most of the sovereigns of Europe used also formerly to perform the maundy.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;4135465:

Yes, the washing of the feet was once an extra-liturgical (yet common) practice before the liturgical reforms and was done outside of Mass,

I am glad we are in agreement on something!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In the Lord’s Supper there is indeed a real communion with Christ, though not with the idea that Christ’s body and blood are present in the elements. That would be ingestion of Christ; not communion with Him.

St. Paul thought otherwise I Corin. 10:18,

In Health they told us “you are what you eat.”

The Bible is clear that “body” and “blood” are used in these passages are symbolic characterizations.

The Bible is clear He means “Body” and Blood" means “Body” and “Blood”

Amazing how Bible literalists insist on a literal interpretation, until it comes to these verses. Those who heard Christ understood that, and that gives us our sole Biblical mention of Protestants. John 6:66 (interesting number, no?).

St. Ignaitus of Antioch c. 105, who was ordained by the Apostles themselves were the believers were first called Christians, discusses why the heretics went back and walked with HIm no more: “because they will not acknowledge that the Eucharist is the self same Body which hung on the Cross for our salvation.”

Christ’s body and blood are no more present today in the elements of bread and wine than they were when the Lord instituted the ordinance, took bread and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body,” then likewise took a cup and gave it to them, explaining, “Drink of it, … for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28 ). His real body and blood could not have been in the bread and wine then, because he was right there talking to the disciples!

It, He, was, and is. Say way as when He was sitting on the fould on Earth, at the same time, He was sitting on the Throne in Heaven. This is why we Orthodox say “Mystical,” not “Last” “Supper.”

Likewise today; Jesus is somewhere, mediating on our behalf; but not in the real form of flesh and blood in the bread and wine; for this would contradict what he has established as a beautiful communion with Him personally. During the Lord’s supper, Jesus invites us to intimate communion with Him; and committment to Him and to one another in the Church; he does not therein invite us to eat Him. Salvation, forgiveness of sin, relationship with Christ, etc., are not effected by literally eating anyone’s flesh and blood.

Again, St. Paul thought differently. I Corin. 10:16-8.

Jesus’ instruction was clear: “Do this is remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24, 25). The unleavened bread and unfermented fruit of the vine—which alone can appropriately symbolize the sinless perfection of the person of Christ—are shared “in remembrance of me”; they speak of sacrificial death and salvation and proclaim them until He comes.

Look at the ways the Jews “remember” the Passover: they remember it as if they were the ones, today, being delievered.

I asked you about your sig.

“Scripture Must Be Its Own Expositor, since It Is A Rule Of Itself…”

explaing Acts 8:31. Did I miss your answer?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How is it that you have come to believe the bread was unleavened and the grapes were not fermented?

John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

Glad to see you fellow Orthodox help the followers of the Vatican to defend the Catholic Faith.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then why did everyone since the time of the Apostles, up to when the heretical, humanist, liberal Zwingli came along, believe in the Real Presence? Why did the early Christians believe in the Real Presence?

Oh, so Christ isn’t omnipotent?

You’re words are incomprehensible; Protestants have an empty ordinance, but the Catholic belief is a real and true communion with Christ, intimate and loving. This is one of the reasons I am becoming Catholic, since Zwingli (1600 years after Christ ) came up with the hokey empty-symbolism theory, and Catholics have believed (completely in line with what Christ taught) for 2,000 years in the Real Presence of our Lord, and not a Real Absence, like the majority of Protestants, who believe Zwingli over against Christ, St.Paul, and all the Fathers.

Zwingli thought he knew better. There’s danger in that. Matthew 16:21-3.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is a very common mistake repeated by many Catholics where the scripture in John 6 is wrested out of context.

Acts 8:31.

The Fathers of the Church Christ founded are guiding us. Who’s guiding you?

First, those disciples who walked with Jesus no more did not walk away from him because they did not believe in “the real presence” but because Jesus tried to say He “came down from heaven.”

Then why didn’t they leave at verse 41?

Jesus was always getting into trouble for saying that He was God; the Jews of the day thought this to be blasphemy, and the Bible gives us other examples where they wanted to kill Him for the “blasphemy” of saying things to indicate that he was God.

John 6:66 doesn’t say “Jews.” It says “disciples.” Read it.

Those “disciples” who walked no more with Jesus only did so because they thought he was once more guilty of blasphemy.

Then why were they walking with Him in the first place? Matthew 15:14.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Quote:
Christ’s body and blood are no more present today in the elements of bread and wine than they were when the Lord instituted the ordinance, took bread and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body,” then likewise took a cup and gave it to them, explaining, “Drink of it, … for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28 ). His real body and blood could not have been in the bread and wine then, because he was right there talking to the disciples!

You make a very nice smokescreen here by saying this kind of comment about Christ’s omnipotence. But by suggesting that people say He is not omnipotent because they don’t believe this Roman Catholic doctrine, you give credence to the apostasy of pantheism, the doctrine or belief that God is all the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the whole universe as a manifestation of God. A Pantheist is someone who believes that God and the universe are the same; in other words "God is in all the plants, and in all the objects around us.

Do I not fill heaven and earth? declareth the Lord. Jeremiah 23:24.

For in Him dwells all teh fullness of Godhead bodily. Col. 2:9

As God has said: I will dwell in them. II Cor. 6:16.

I agree with you that many Catholics experience Christ in an intimate way during many of their “ordinances;” but Catholic leaders are wrong for promoting the pantheistic theory of Christ being literally present in material goods; and I also disagree with what you say about the Protestant ordinance of communion. To me; it is a very special time of intimate communion and fellowship with my Lord; and with my fellow church members.

Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh is not of God. I John 4:3.

A communion service is not complete without the foot washing ordinance; which Catholics do not teach; yet, it is exactly what Jesus did in the same instance where He broke the bread, and poured the wine. If you are going to do what Jesus did; why wouldn’t you want the true ordinance where the footwashing is included?

Jesus gave no such “ordinance.” And we do have the foot washing rite on Great and Holy Thursday.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

QuoteMaterial
But it is not a part of the communion/mass service; which is one of many things that make the Catholic Eucharist short of the Biblical example.

I’ll miss a footwashing over missing the clear words on the Real Presence anyday.

 

[Matariel]

“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

…Also, I’m still waiting to hear your response on what I said earlier; let me reinterate.

If Zwingli was right, and the Sacrament was just an empty symbol; then, why were the early Christians universally accepting of it? Why did direct disciples of Peter and John teach it? Why was in unquestioned (except, of course, by the Gnostics) in the Church until the liberal, humanist Zwingli came along?

Still waiting for your answer, Protestant 101…

 

[Matariel]

I love it when believers of Holy Orthodoxy and Holy Catholicism come together to support each other in areas of common belief (Which are more than they disagree on,believe it or not!)

:grouphug: