B
bookgirl32
Guest
Hi Non Catholic, you seemed to miss my post to you regarding Jesus’ “explanation” in another thread. Care to go back and answer that?
Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?
- Status
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Hi SIA,
Happy New Year! How are you? I think you know what I am going to say, but I am forced to say it anyway!
What you consider yourself doesn’t matter. You could consider yourself Pope. You aren’t! I know that you aren’t stupid, You know that you as an Anglican are a member of a counterfeit, imitation version of Jesus’ real church that He established 2,000 years ago! Don’t be ashamed to admit it! Don’t pretend to be something that you aren’t.History shows us that before 1517AD, there was One Christian Church “ONE” with several different sects. (They are still firmly together even today! They are still Jesus’ real church! They are the “Body of Christ” Jesus is the head) The Anglican church is the one started by King Henry the VIII. At the time the Pope was not only the head of the Catholic church but he also had the power to tell the monarch of a country how to run his country. King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and was denied. For selfish reasons, he broke away from the Catholic church, and his followers must suffer by not being fully Catholic. I like to consider your church “The Great Pretender” Everything is good except your church has no authority to claim anything except sinfullness of beliefs!
Anyway, while some good people were attempting to right some wrong practices in the Church, the devil saw this as a change to infecte the christian church and steal souls from the real church. And it worked!
He even had them change and deleate Catholic scriptures to corrupt the real word of God! It continues even to today!Click on: KJV Bible
Foolishly, today there are 33,000 counterfeit denominations, and non-denominations with 28,000 sub denominations, and various associations, conferences, conventions, communions, fellowships, groups, sect, cults and unions. All 61,000 posess some of 1,375 doctrines and dogmas. Some 16, others 21, others more or less. You have over 100 versions of the KJV of the bible. What is that all about? One phoney bible not enough?
Strangely, All 61,000 “groups” all partially agree with the CC and all partially disagree with the CC. So I ask you who the heck is right?
The church that has taught only the truth for 2,000 years refusing to compromise the truth and remained faithful to Jesus teachings, even at the cost of lossing millions of souls to satan and his false teachings, or 61,000 false denominations teaching over 1,375 doctrines and dogma and foolishly saying they are “christians!”You can copy money but if it doesn’t have the backing of the authorized issurer it is counterfeit. It can’t be spent to buy anything! It is phony!
You can copy Christianity, but if it doesn’t have the backing of the Holy Catholic Church it is counterfeit. It can’t be used alone to obtain salvation!
Only the Catholic church offers real communion. The Eucharist! In ordeer to have the real communion it takes not only the words and Bread and Wine but also as Apostolic Successor because Jesus gave them the power, not anyone who wants to say the words. Jesus can not be found in phoney Eucharist.
In the Catholic Eucharist, Jesus is present both Physically and Spiritually. He is “Completely” present. He doesn’t leave after the Mass. He rermains there to be worshipped! Yes, your Lord and God is Here for you to worship and eat as He commanded you must do in order to obtain eternal salvation. Only true believers understand that because the devil keeps his followers blinded to the truth!
Here is the proof:
freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky056.gifGod Bless**
**
I, and many other Catholics pray daily for the conversion and reversion of all Protestants that they may obtain the fulliness of Christ! You are loved! Come follow Christ!
God Bless**
S
SIA
Guest
Thank you for your contribution although I am certain that you will know in advance that I do not agree with your analogy. What you consider me doesn’t matter. What Christ considers me matters only. You probably have no clue about the Anglican movement in African countries right now and I am certain by your closed minded Catholic attitude that you don’t care, but nonetheless people by the thousands daily are coming to know Christ and his saving power through the Anglican Communion. Call it whatever you wish; counterfeit, fake, the pretender’s church. It matters only what Christ knows that is in the hearts of Anglicans.**Hi SIA,
Happy New Year! How are you? I think you know what I am going to say, but I am forced to say it anyway!
History shows us that before 1517AD, there was One Christian Church “ONE” with several different sects. (They are still firmly together even today! They are still Jesus’ real church! They are the “Body of Christ” Jesus is the head) The Anglican church is the one started by King Henry the VIII. At the time the Pope was not only the head of the Catholic church but he also had the power to tell the monarch of a country how to run his country. King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and was denied. For selfish reasons, he broke away from the Catholic church, and his followers must suffer by not being fully Catholic. I like to consider your church “The Great Pretender” Everything is good except your church has no authority to claim anything except sinfullness of beliefs!
Anyway, while some good people were attempting to right some wrong practices in the Church, the devil saw this as a change to infecte the christian church and steal souls from the real church. And it worked!
Click on: KJV Bible**
Foolishly, today there are 33,000 counterfeit denominations, and non-denominations with 28,000 sub denominations, and various associations, conferences, conventions, communions, fellowships, groups, sect, cults and unions. All 61,000 posess some of 1,375 doctrines and dogmas. Some 16, others 21, others more or less. You have over 100 versions of the KJV of the bible. What is that all about? One phoney bible not enough?
Strangely, All 61,000 “groups” all partially agree with the CC and all partially disagree with the CC. So I ask you who the heck is right?
You can copy money but if it doesn’t have the backing of the authorized issurer it is counterfeit. It can’t be spent to buy anything! It is phony!
You can copy Christianity, but if it doesn’t have the backing of the Holy Catholic Church it is counterfeit. It can’t be used alone to obtain salvation!
Only the Catholic church offers real communion. The Eucharist! In ordeer to have the real communion it takes not only the words and Bread and Wine but also as Apostolic Successor because Jesus gave them the power, not anyone who wants to say the words. Jesus can not be found in phoney Eucharist.
In the Catholic Eucharist, Jesus is present both Physically and Spiritually. He is “Completely” present. He doesn’t leave after the Mass. He rermains there to be worshipped! Yes, your Lord and God is Here for you to worship and eat as He commanded you must do in order to obtain eternal salvation. Only true believers understand that because the devil keeps his followers blinded to the truth!
Here is the proof:
freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky056.gifGod Bless
**
I, and many other Catholics pray daily for the conversion and reversion of all Protestants that they may obtain the fulliness of Christ! You are loved! Come follow Christ!
God Bless**
H
hmgs1
Guest
This is the kind of bickering that I think plays right into the hands of Old Scratch and has people nodding their heads about the church when they walk out of seeing the Golden Compass at the cinema.
First, remember my denomination supports the concept of the Real Presence of Christ in the elements, though it is not a fall on your sword part of our theological doctrine.
Now, let me ask my Catholic colleagues (ONLY) a simple question, YES or NO with explanation (no cop-out answers like “well, that will never happen”):
If you stand in heaven before God to receive judgment and learn from the Almighty that the elements were symbolic only and were never changed into the body and blood of Christ, will God damn you to Hell for that mistake?
First, remember my denomination supports the concept of the Real Presence of Christ in the elements, though it is not a fall on your sword part of our theological doctrine.
Now, let me ask my Catholic colleagues (ONLY) a simple question, YES or NO with explanation (no cop-out answers like “well, that will never happen”):
If you stand in heaven before God to receive judgment and learn from the Almighty that the elements were symbolic only and were never changed into the body and blood of Christ, will God damn you to Hell for that mistake?
R
Robbinson
Guest
No. I believe God is merciful and we will not be damned for our sincere mistakes. Thus the Catholic Catechism teaching that salvation is possible for all Christian bretheren even if not in the Church and I believe the same would be true for Catholics if, in fact, the Church was incorrect on doctrine being followed by its members.
That being said, I do believe that we all (as Christians) and a responsibililty to seek the truth - to test our beliefs, to become aquainted with the history of the Church and understand the genesis of the doctrines that we have been taught by our parents or friends.
Blessing Bill and best wishes for a Happy New Year.
Brian
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
Thank you for your contribution although I am certain that you will know in advance that I do not agree with your analogy.
**
Hi SIA,
What you consider me doesn’t matter.
**
Of course!**
What Christ considers me matters only.
**
That is the problem, He also know you are with a phoney church He established another cgurch, your’s isn’t it!**
You probably have no clue about the Anglican movement in African countries right now and I am certain by your closed minded Catholic attitude that you don’t care,
**Actually I know that India is experiencing the the largest growth and has the 2nd largest group beyond the USA. Your church does good things. I know you are a good person, I have read most of your posts. YTou are more Catholic than many Catholics that I know!I only wish that your church would reunite with the real church. It actually may happen. I do not have a “closed minded” Catholic attitude. I just know History. Although I am not as smart as people like you I pride myself on common sense. Anyone who can read can know the truth.2,000 years old, established bu Jesus Himself, wityh warning about false religions, prophets, etc, and “smart” people are still fooled by Satan. Such a shame! **
but nonetheless people by the thousands daily are coming to know Christ and his saving power through the Anglican Communion.
**That proves what? Wicca is the largest growing religion in the USA right now. Does that make them correct? Many Protestants and Catholics are going over to witchcraft! The devil works in many ways to gain souls!**
Call it whatever you wish; counterfeit, fake, the pretender’s church.
**Thank you, because It is what it is!**
It matters only what Christ knows that is in the hearts of Anglicans.
**
I have no doubt that your church contains many good people as does the catholic church, we are all brothers in Christ! Pray that our leaders can bring the two groups back under the authority of the one true apolostic church. Good people deserve to be saved and that can only happen with the truths that Jesus taught and have been preserved by the Catholic church through apostolic succession. Real communion with true teachings!
Let’s pray for one another and for the end of Abortion. Jesus will take care of the rest!
God Bless**
T
thirdn6
Guest
Keep in mind that the OP is asking answers regarding:
- If protestants (non-Catholics after Reformation) believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine after consecration by their pastors or ministers (sorry, I can’t call them priests) on their fellowship table.
I answered NO because the Catholic Church ALONE has the valid Eucharist. And no matter how many yes votes the thread can get it could not effect any change to the elements at all. - If it is symbolic.
I am not in disagreement to protestants who believe this for the reason I stated above. It is completely a different take.We cannot impose on anybody our own belief even though we regard it to be a mistake and misleading.
First, what is a mistake? Wrong take on something… ideas, actions, decisions, judgments, beliefs? In this case (your question)- a belief. Have you found it to be a “no-other-choice” kind? No. If there is something wrong, there is also something right- you agree? Will somebody get damned because one made a mistake of believing what is wrong (if it turns out to be a mistake as you say) and hold it for a lifetime? Can a mistake be corrected in the first place? Why do ‘someone’ say it is a mistake? Why do someone say that ‘that belief’ is a mistake?
Regarding faith, Catholics believe what has been ‘passed on’ to them since the early Church by Christ to the Apostles and guided by the Holy Spirit to all truths until the end of time. Protestants believe what has been ‘passed on’ to them since the pre or during or post Reformation by men who separated themselves from the Church (unless you’re starting your own church) and claimed to be individually guided by the Holy Spirit. What does the Scripture say? Who do we have to believe- doctrines of men or doctrines of the Church?
Everyone knows and the Church knows that single instance of mistake does not mean refusal to accept corrections. Few times would incur reprimands. Insistent refusal to correct a mistake/error is disobedience (most often accompanied by pride) and heretical (incurs excommunication).
How many chances do we have to correct a mistake in this lifetime? Before we appear not in some Court of First Instance but at the Final Judgment in the presence of our Lord? We are given enough chances to correct our beliefs before we get there (I hope you agree) unless we receive an unexpected summon telling us enough is enough! There, there is no more complaining “Lord, Lord…”, no more ‘buts’, no more “I wasn’t convinced” reasonings- if you’re asked to go to the left you go to the left, if you’re asked to go to the right you go to the right. But keep in mind that all the saints will go the right. If you don’t see them, then… YOU REALLY REFUSED TO CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES. YOU DIDN’T LISTEN. PERIOD.
My answer to your question is… YES!
R
Radical
Guest
Hello Brian, aka Robbinson,
If you look at the letter (to the Smyrnaeans) you will note that the “Jesus came in the flesh” theme dominates the first half of the letter. At paragraph 1 Ignatius stresses that Jesus was truly nailed in the flesh (as opposed to spiritually nailed, which he also mentions). All of paragraph 2 is concerned with stressing that Jesus truly suffered (against the idea that he only appeared to suffer as he was a disembodied spirit). All of paragraph 3 is concerned with showing that after the resurrection Jesus possessed flesh and blood (against the claim that he was only spirit). Paragragh 4 warns about those gnostic teachings. Paragraph 5 argues that those who do not confess that Jesus was clothed in flesh must be excluded until they change their minds. Paragraph 6 starts by saying that those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flsh will be judged. At that point Ignatius provides the oft quoted statement:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
As you will recall, I interpret that passage as follows (with my additions in bold):
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. **They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself **
Now if I am right and Christ and the Apostles did not teach a real bodily presence, then the first addition would be unnecessary as that would be the meaning that should be understood by all. The second addition is merely repeating what Ignatius had said in the earlier paragraphs and then applying the consequences of the heretical belief to the Eucharist. Hopefully you can now see how I can reasonably believe that Jesus could have taught a symbolical eucharist and that Ignatius was not in any way contradicting that teaching. It should be also noted that Ignatius wasn’t all that clear or prescise in what he said. First, how is caring for the poor etc. related to understanding that Jesus came in the flesh? How is their refusal to pray related to their denial? As for precision, the eucharist is really the body and the blood of Christ (in a symbolic manner) and not just the flesh.
It doesn’t matter all that much, but what is your authority for claiming that Ignatius was a direct disciple of John? That you would revert to Ignatius is of no surprise as he is the only Apostolic Father that can be reasonably used to support your position. Regarding Christ and the Apostles you strongly believe that they taught a real bodily presence and if that was the case, there would be no need to think that Ignatius believed anything different. On the other hand, I strongly believe that Christ and the Apostles did **not **teach a real bodily presence and if that was the case, I must be able to reasonably explain why Ignatius would seem to be saying that the Eucharist is actually the flesh of Jesus. Regarding the Didache, I have no problem of that sort. The Didache speaks of drinking the cup and eating the bread and makes no mention of body, flesh or blood. Rather the Didache speaks about God giving us spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Jesus. The Didache teaches most a my view and leaves out significant aspects of your belief…
Ahhh but you see, a response that is directed against a heresy that denied that Jesus came and suffered in the flesh can reasonably explain why Ignatius would criticize those heretics by saying that they deny that the eucharist is the flesh of Jesus.
If you look at the letter (to the Smyrnaeans) you will note that the “Jesus came in the flesh” theme dominates the first half of the letter. At paragraph 1 Ignatius stresses that Jesus was truly nailed in the flesh (as opposed to spiritually nailed, which he also mentions). All of paragraph 2 is concerned with stressing that Jesus truly suffered (against the idea that he only appeared to suffer as he was a disembodied spirit). All of paragraph 3 is concerned with showing that after the resurrection Jesus possessed flesh and blood (against the claim that he was only spirit). Paragragh 4 warns about those gnostic teachings. Paragraph 5 argues that those who do not confess that Jesus was clothed in flesh must be excluded until they change their minds. Paragraph 6 starts by saying that those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flsh will be judged. At that point Ignatius provides the oft quoted statement:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
As you will recall, I interpret that passage as follows (with my additions in bold):
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. **They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself **
Now if I am right and Christ and the Apostles did not teach a real bodily presence, then the first addition would be unnecessary as that would be the meaning that should be understood by all. The second addition is merely repeating what Ignatius had said in the earlier paragraphs and then applying the consequences of the heretical belief to the Eucharist. Hopefully you can now see how I can reasonably believe that Jesus could have taught a symbolical eucharist and that Ignatius was not in any way contradicting that teaching. It should be also noted that Ignatius wasn’t all that clear or prescise in what he said. First, how is caring for the poor etc. related to understanding that Jesus came in the flesh? How is their refusal to pray related to their denial? As for precision, the eucharist is really the body and the blood of Christ (in a symbolic manner) and not just the flesh.
R
Radical
Guest
Brian/Robbinson, I of course, do not simply presume that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Lord’s Supper. I have examined the Scriptures carefully, note what two Apostolic Fathers have to say about the subject and then move on to the early Church fathers for more support. Tertullian of Carthage is one of the ECFs that I would point to as holding a non-real bodily presence view. He wrote at the very end of the 2nd century and continuing into the very start of the third. Here are some works of his which discuss or are related the Lord’s Supper:
*Against Marcion
Book III C.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. *
In that first quote Tertullian is using “figure” to mean “symbol”. By referring to himself as the bread of heaven, Christ is using bread as a symbol and Christ’s body does not become bread other than it is given bread as a symbol.
*Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. ** Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. ** *
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being dsitinct from the body. The symbol bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand.
…continuing with chapter 40:
*An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! *But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, ** which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.
…continuing with chapter 40:
He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however,* that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah,** who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — ** in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine.** Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.*
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively.
*Against Marcion
Book III C.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. *
In that first quote Tertullian is using “figure” to mean “symbol”. By referring to himself as the bread of heaven, Christ is using bread as a symbol and Christ’s body does not become bread other than it is given bread as a symbol.
*Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. ** Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. ** *
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being dsitinct from the body. The symbol bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand.
…continuing with chapter 40:
*An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! *But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, ** which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.
…continuing with chapter 40:
He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however,* that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah,** who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — ** in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine.** Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.*
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively.
R
Radical
Guest
continuing from where I left off:
From On the Resurrection of the Flesh by Tertullian:
*C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to **devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 **impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. ***
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”
You have seen how I account for Ignatius. How do you account for these words from Tertullian?
From On the Resurrection of the Flesh by Tertullian:
*C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to **devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 **impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. ***
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”
You have seen how I account for Ignatius. How do you account for these words from Tertullian?
R
Robbinson
Guest
Hi Radical:
I’m out of town, so will have to give you more when I’m back home.
St. Ignatious was a contempory of St. John - there are letters believed to have been written by him to St. John. I believe I recall reading that he was a disciple of St. John (I’ll see what I can dig up - but he clearly was a contemporary of his and in the Church).
Re: the Ignatious quote - by your own admission you are writing words into his quote that just arent there. Yes the Gnostics denied the body/flesh of Christ, but that alone wouldn’t be sufficient to justify your conclusion that his quote (so clear on its face) meant “symbolicly his flesh”
Re: other quotes/support - I believe I previously supplied 2 others (look earlier in the thread) - but not to worry, I’m pretty confident that when I’m home I can pull together much more documentation for the early Church Fathers belief in the real presence.
I think you will find your best argument will be to just disgree with them - I think the battle of history will be a tough road for you on this one. But we can wait and see. Sorry for the delay.
Blessings,
Brian
R
Radical
Guest
Hi Brian
*They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the (blood and the) flesh (and the rest of the body) of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh (blood and body) which suffered (and was poured out) for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. *
Now although the text doesn’t contain those words, the RCC would feel quite justified on adding them based on what the RCC is sure Ignatius must have actually believed. Likewise, I feel quite justified on adding “symbolically or spiritually” based on what I am sure Ignatius must have actually believed.
May God bless you
Well, let’s be clear in regard to my additions. The last two sentences are merely added to summarize what Ignatius had said in the preceding 5 paragraphs. Read the first 5 paragraphs so as to establish the context and those additions are not needed. With regard to “symbolically or spiritually” that same addition could be properly read into many sentences spoken by Christ…for example when Jesus said, I am (symbolically or spiritually) the true vine. So as to avoid mistakes by those who are inclined to be overly literal those words must be read into almost all of Jesus’s figurative statements (as he rarely speciified). Further, if one was to be honest about what the RCC understands to be Ignatius’s beliefs one would also be making additions to Ignatius’s words along the lines of:
*They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the (blood and the) flesh (and the rest of the body) of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh (blood and body) which suffered (and was poured out) for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. *
Now although the text doesn’t contain those words, the RCC would feel quite justified on adding them based on what the RCC is sure Ignatius must have actually believed. Likewise, I feel quite justified on adding “symbolically or spiritually” based on what I am sure Ignatius must have actually believed.
and I am not suggesting that is is “alone”…that is where the scriptures and the writings of other ECFs add to the case
looking forward to your efforts
well I’ll be soon returning to work…so my posting pace will surely drop
May God bless you
R
Rose_Maniple
Guest
I am a Protestant in the technical sense of being an adherent of one of the churches of the Reformation. It’s not a term I use in self-description, since it carries theological connotations I don’t identify with. (Denial of the Real Presence being one of them).
I also go to Solemn Evensong & Benediction one Sunday a month (except in the summer). It is always the liturgical highlight of my month.
On Corpus Christi, I go to Solemn High Mass, Outdoor Procession of the Blessed Sacrament, and Benediction.
All of this is in Anglican churches.
I make a point of spending a moment before the tabernacle from time to time. Ought I so to do more often? Probably! Perhaps a good New Year’s resolution.
I also go to Solemn Evensong & Benediction one Sunday a month (except in the summer). It is always the liturgical highlight of my month.
On Corpus Christi, I go to Solemn High Mass, Outdoor Procession of the Blessed Sacrament, and Benediction.
All of this is in Anglican churches.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
I am a Protestant in the technical sense of being an adherent of one of the churches of the Reformation. It’s not a term I use in self-description, since it carries theological connotations I don’t identify with. (Denial of the Real Presence being one of them).
**
Hi Rose Maniple,
Happy New Year! **
I make a point of spending a moment before the tabernacle from time to time. Ought I so to do more often? Probably! Perhaps a good New Year’s resolution.
** It doesn’t matter Rose, No one lives there! Denial of the real presence isn’t the point. The authority to bring Jesus physically into the Eucharist isn’t present! **
I also go to Solemn Evensong & Benediction one Sunday a month (except in the summer). It is always the liturgical highlight of my month.
On Corpus Christi, I go to Solemn High Mass, Outdoor Procession of the Blessed Sacrament, and Benediction.
All of this is in Anglican churches.
**
I could have told you that!
Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” – John 6:67-69
Rose, your church left! :bighanky: Remember that before 1517AD, there was only One Christian Church “ONE” with several different sects. (They are still firmly together even today! ).
While some good people were attempting to right some wrong practices in the Church, the Devil saw this as a change to infect the christian church and steal souls from the real church.
I really don’t blame you for not wanting to be identified with the Foolishness, today there are 33,000 counterfeit denominations, and non-denominations with 28,000 sub denominations, and various associations, conferences, conventions, fellowships, groups, sect, cults and unions. All 61,000 having 1,375 doctrines and dogmas They all partially agree with the CC and all partially disagree with the CC. Unfortunately, your church is one of these 61,000.
Probablyif King Henry VIII didn’t want a divorce you might still be Catholic. He actually defended against the Devil’s changes until His personal desires blinded Him. Satan uses any tool He can to corrupt people so something else might have happened.
An analogue is not the same thing as the same thing, but this may help explain the situation you are in Rose:
You can copy money but if it doesn’t have the backing of the authorized issurer it is counterfeit. It can’t be spent to buy anything! It is worthless no matter how real it looks. It might deceive, but it isn’t real!
In the same way, you can copy Christianity, but if it doesn’t have the backing of Jesus, real church it is counterfeit. It can’t be used to obtain salvation on its own.
Only Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians offers the real Eucharist by Apostolic succession! In it , Jesus is actually present both Physically and Spiritually. He is “Completely” present. Your Lord and God is Here for you to worship and eat as He commanded you must to obtain eternal salvation.
Only true believers understand this because the devil keeps his followers blinded to the truth! Many Protestant “believe” they have the real presense. It just isn’t so! I wish it could be but Jesus warned about false churches and preachers. He said to follow Him not Kings and others! The Body of Christ is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, which is 2,000 years old!
I love to attend Anglican Solemn High Mass and wish I could take your communion. I can’t because our churches aren’t in communication even if there is a mirror image.
Jesus just isn’t in your Eucharist. If He was , you and I could do it at home ourselves without going to church. Our authority to pretend to make the Eucharist the real body and blood of Christ would be the same as your priests, from man, Ourselves, not from Jesus! Your church went away from Jesus!
Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” – John 6:67-69
Lets pray for one another. Please realize that what I said was not meant to hurt. it was said out of Love, not hate or arrogance. It is history. It is fact. It is even contained in the incomplete and corrupted versions of the scriptures that you are forced to use!
[New KJV Bible]("http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html"Click on: )
God Bless
G
GKC
Guest
Nothing in Realcatholicgk’s post above for an Anglican to take exception to, given *Apostolicae Curae *. As I often point out, RCs should affirm what the RCC requires them to affirm; no problem. That Anglicans have a different view of the matter (so to speak) is also a given, of course.
But do note that Henry wasn’t looking for a divorce. He was asking for a decree of nullity, based, as he said in his causa, on an *ultra vires *dispensation from Julius II. He actually had a stronger case, not used, but what he did was commonplace at the time, in seeking a decree.
GKC
*Anglicanus Catholicus *
But do note that Henry wasn’t looking for a divorce. He was asking for a decree of nullity, based, as he said in his causa, on an *ultra vires *dispensation from Julius II. He actually had a stronger case, not used, but what he did was commonplace at the time, in seeking a decree.
GKC
*Anglicanus Catholicus *
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
Nothing in Realcatholicgk’s post above for an Anglican to take exception to, given *Apostolicae Curae *. As I often point out, RCs should affirm what the RCC requires them to affirm; no problem. That Anglicans have a different view of the matter (so to speak) is also a given, of course.
**
Hi GKC,
Nice post. Yes, We can agree to disagree on many things GKC but as you said Apostolicae Curae made official what was already known. Matt 16:19 makes clear that Angelican priest can not pass on apostolic powers to preform any real sacraments The Eucharist, being the most important one of course. No apostolic succession, no real “Phyiscal” presence no matter how much it is wished for or desired… At best you can have the spiritual presence when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name. That of course isn’t enough! We all hunger for more!
Lets pray that Our two churches can reunite.We miss the “Third Christians” from the Catholic faith.**
But do note that Henry wasn’t looking for a divorce. He was asking for a decree of nullity, based, as he said in his causa, on an *ultra vires *dispensation from Julius II. He actually had a stronger case, not used, but what he did was commonplace at the time, in seeking a decree.
I have been blessed to be married to the same Saintly woman (Trust me on that one! She have to be to put up with me) for 40 years. To me a marriage can’t be desolved. Like Jesus said when "Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” Matt 19: 3-7
GKC
*Anglicanus Catholicus *
G
GKC
Guest
“Nice post. Yes, We can agree to disagree on many things GKC but as you said Apostolicae Curae made official what was already known. Matt 16:19 makes clear that Angelican priest can not pass on apostolic powers to preform any real sacraments The Eucharist, being the most important one of course. No apostolic succession, no real “Phyiscal” presence no matter how much it is wished for or desired… At best you can have the spiritual presence when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name. That of course isn’t enough! We all hunger for more!
Lets pray that Our two churches can reunite.We miss the “Third Christians” from the Catholic faith.”
More precisely, *Apostolicae Curae *answered the question (asked for a specific reason) of what the RCC’s attitude toward Anglican orders had been, historically, and whether that attitude should be changed. *Apostolicae Curae *makes it, though not quite de fide, as at least sententia as fidem pertinens, that Anglican orders are null and void, and certainly all RCs should affirm that, as RCs, on that authority. The scriptural reference, is, of course another point you should affirm similarly, though it is not the point upon which the judgment of *Apostolicae Curae * rests, that being the intertwined points of form (in the Edwardine Ordinal) and intent. Petrine authority does not affect Apostolic succession.
But Anglicans do not affirm what you affirm about those things, as is not surprising. What we affirm is that our orders, which are in Apostolic succession, are valid, and convey the valid order of the episcopacy and priesthood, and that sacraments confected by our clergy are valid and convey grace. Of course you should disagree.
As to your marriage, good for you. I myself have been married to the one and the same for slightly over 40 years. Good for both of us.
GKC
U
ufamtobie
Guest
Bill, No not at all would we be damned for believing that Jesus Christ Can Do All Things.
People who CAN’T believe that Jesus Christ can do all things for them such as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ here in the Eucharist, are telling Jesus Christ you don’t have the Power to do such a thing and they become like those disciples who left him regarding this matter. One either Believes or Does not Believe there is no in betweens, for this is called “luke warmness” and Our Lord Will Spew you out.
Bill, Now let me put this same question to you: If you stand before Jesus Christ to receive judgement and come to know the Truth that it is 100% the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and not Symbolic, will Jesus Christ condemn You to Hell for this Serious Mistake? And Most immportantly Bill, condemned for trying to persue others to believe that it is only a Symbol and not the TRUE PRESENTS of Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist. Wow Bill, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Bill, please no (copout answers, like, this will never happen) When Jesus Sloemnly Assures us all, that it will Happen.
For Jesus States that He Solemnly Assures us WE will have “No Life in US” if WE do not believe and Eat his Body and Blood. Bill, does this sound like a Symbol to you?
Bill, what does this “No life in you” mean? It means condemnation to HELL
Ufamtobie
L
look3467
Guest
The totality of the bible theme and not on a selected few scriptures is the real truth of understanding is.
Listen, everybody has a belief, whether it be of washing of feet to partaking of the Holy Communion to water baptisms of infants orof adults.
The key to all of it is that God made us to be intelligently enabled at a cost.
That cost, cost Him His Son!
But the good news is that by His Son, we are able to maintain our individual intelligence without he cost of our eternal condemnation as it was from the start.
What all does that mean in simplicity?
God’s Son died for all mankind, not just for the righteous ones but for the unrighteous alike.
If then that is the case, we are all brothers and sisters of which Jesus commands us to love them even if they are our enemies.
For Jesus came to set the example of a Godly creature and not one of an earthly creature.
So, I am neither Catholic or a protestant, or anything else mankind may label me, but simply a believer in Jesus, who sees all religious beliefs as in their own right, element and subject to change depending on their spiritual quest for truth.
Here is what Paul said: 2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.
Was Paul a Roman citizen?
Paul was for all, for the glory of Christ, that with Christ in him, he might see them all as brothers and sisters.
Be what you want to be, worship where you want to worship, but love God and neighbor as He first loved us.
Peace>>>AJ
Listen, everybody has a belief, whether it be of washing of feet to partaking of the Holy Communion to water baptisms of infants orof adults.
The key to all of it is that God made us to be intelligently enabled at a cost.
That cost, cost Him His Son!
But the good news is that by His Son, we are able to maintain our individual intelligence without he cost of our eternal condemnation as it was from the start.
What all does that mean in simplicity?
God’s Son died for all mankind, not just for the righteous ones but for the unrighteous alike.
If then that is the case, we are all brothers and sisters of which Jesus commands us to love them even if they are our enemies.
For Jesus came to set the example of a Godly creature and not one of an earthly creature.
So, I am neither Catholic or a protestant, or anything else mankind may label me, but simply a believer in Jesus, who sees all religious beliefs as in their own right, element and subject to change depending on their spiritual quest for truth.
Here is what Paul said: 2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.
Was Paul a Roman citizen?
Paul was for all, for the glory of Christ, that with Christ in him, he might see them all as brothers and sisters.
Be what you want to be, worship where you want to worship, but love God and neighbor as He first loved us.
Peace>>>AJ
H
hmgs1
Guest
I don’t have to check or wreck anything.
I do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. I do not believe there is definitive evidence they exist because of transubstantiation. However, I also do not believe there is definitive evidence to deny they exist due to transubstantiation. I also accept that my faith may be in error and the elements might be symbolic only. I also accept that Christ might exist in whatever form is comfortable to the communicant, because God can do all things, not just what the Catholic, Presbyterian or Baptist churches want him to do.
Having once been evangelical, I can tell you that these good Christians believe likewise. God can do anything. However, they feel in this case the Eucharist is powerful symbolism, not because God can’t do it otherwise, but because that is the way He chooses to reveal himself to them.
And the Catholic Church is no different. Many evangelicals believe the earth was created in seven 24-hour periods of time, while the Vatican has specifically dismissed intelligent design and stated faith in evolution are not in conflict. Why? Doesn’t the Pope believe God can do anything, to include create the universe in seven days?
The point you missed and Brian nailed was that to God perhaps the composition of the elements takes back seat to far more important aspects of communion, but by bickering over over this “how many angels on the head of a pin” type issue we totally lose sight of them. And what an image we portray to outsiders as a bonus. Why would anyone want to be Christian given how nasty we tend to treat each other?
I swear Gandhi must truly have spoken with the Holy Spirit when he said, “I love your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Amen.
I do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. I do not believe there is definitive evidence they exist because of transubstantiation. However, I also do not believe there is definitive evidence to deny they exist due to transubstantiation. I also accept that my faith may be in error and the elements might be symbolic only. I also accept that Christ might exist in whatever form is comfortable to the communicant, because God can do all things, not just what the Catholic, Presbyterian or Baptist churches want him to do.
Having once been evangelical, I can tell you that these good Christians believe likewise. God can do anything. However, they feel in this case the Eucharist is powerful symbolism, not because God can’t do it otherwise, but because that is the way He chooses to reveal himself to them.
And the Catholic Church is no different. Many evangelicals believe the earth was created in seven 24-hour periods of time, while the Vatican has specifically dismissed intelligent design and stated faith in evolution are not in conflict. Why? Doesn’t the Pope believe God can do anything, to include create the universe in seven days?
The point you missed and Brian nailed was that to God perhaps the composition of the elements takes back seat to far more important aspects of communion, but by bickering over over this “how many angels on the head of a pin” type issue we totally lose sight of them. And what an image we portray to outsiders as a bonus. Why would anyone want to be Christian given how nasty we tend to treat each other?
I swear Gandhi must truly have spoken with the Holy Spirit when he said, “I love your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Amen.
- Status