Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Cinette]

That is exactly what he thinks. On a previous post He said that since Christ is now at the right hand of the Father, he can’t possibly be here on earth.

He has a very limited god. No, he can’t believe in the Real Presence. His god certainly can’t do that.

When we say that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father what is being referred to is not a literal, physical location, but refers to the status of Jesus as the Son of God. To be seated at the right hand is to be the heir or regent, someone who has been given power. That is why James and John asked if they could be seated at the left and right hand of Jesus.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Isn’t that circular reasoning? You don’t believe that Christ was ever physically in 2 places at once because you don’t believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But you’re also using that as a basis for denying the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the first place.

Hi Peter, I beleive Christ is there in Spirit not physical body,like in flesh I believe hecan be anywhere in the Spirit but not when he was in the flesh Dont you think he knew that would have even been more confusing if he had done that while on earth? Yes God is everywhere,but when he came in the flesh he stayed like that untill he died He did however transform on the mount,but he never went anywhere else. Do you know where I’m at know? Nancy

 

[tqualey]

Ooooops … you almost had it, Nancy - then it slipped away from you So, let’s go back and see what we have:

I could read you the whole bible and you still would not see the truth because the truth is not in you,dear.By the way I do have a boat and do like fishing:thumbsup: Maybe some other time?

It really is not necessary to read the whole Bible to me - that is not what these posts have been about. The topic is for you to focus on one item, address it clearly, give references as you state your case. Benedictus2 (you know, that nice old guy with the poor eye-sight… ) did an incredible amount of leg work for you as he showed you how to set up your work. But, you didn’t respond to that. Shame This really was a golden opportuity for you to clearly express yourself.

Now, when you say the truth is not in me, this really sounds like you are having a problem and just decided to engage in some name calling. Chances are, you are old enough to know better. The truth needs to be in you and you need to state it clearly - and that is what dialogue is all about. Don’t wonder about what is in me (it really should show up quite clearly from the quality of my posts… )

Look what we have - you wanting to read the whole Bible, as opposed to just sticking with John 6 and explaining your position in your own words. You seem determined to go the route of Protestant101 and NonCatholic - just rambling with random bits of anti-Catholic bitterness. This really isn’t the way to go. Limit your topic, stay focused and communicate clearly are the steps you still need to take to move this dialogue forward.

The boat idea belongs to someone else … not me - and I don’t fish… Unless it is for souls like the Lord advised Peter

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter, I beleive Christ is there in Spirit not physical body,like in flesh I believe hecan be anywhere in the Spirit but not when he was in the flesh Dont you think he knew that would have even been more confusing if he had done that while on earth? Yes God is everywhere,but when he came in the flesh he stayed like that untill he died He did however transform on the mount,but he never went anywhere else. Do you know where I’m at know? Nancy

Good post except that it really doesn’t answer my “circular reasoning” charge.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Ooooops … you almost had it, Nancy - then it slipped away from you So, let’s go back and see what we have:

It really is not necessary to read the whole Bible to me - that is not what these posts have been about. The topic is for you to focus on one item, address it clearly, give references as you state your case. Benedictus2 (you know, that nice old guy with the poor eye-sight… ) did an incredible amount of leg work for you as he showed you how to set up your work. But, you didn’t respond to that. Shame This really was a golden opportuity for you to clearly express yourself.

Now, when you say the truth is not in me, this really sounds like you are having a problem and just decided to engage in some name calling. Chances are, you are old enough to know better. The truth needs to be in you and you need to state it clearly - and that is what dialogue is all about. Don’t wonder about what is in me (it really should show up quite clearly from the quality of my posts… )

Look what we have - you wanting to read the whole Bible, as opposed to just sticking with John 6 and explaining your position in your own words. You seem determined to go the route of Protestant101 and NonCatholic - just rambling with random bits of anti-Catholic bitterness. This really isn’t the way to go. Limit your topic, stay focused and communicate clearly are the steps you still need to take to move this dialogue forward.

The boat idea belongs to someone else … not me - and I don’t fish… Unless it is for souls like the Lord advised Peter

God bless

Did you know that Deacons always administered the sacrement at the begining ? and that it was started by a non-Catholic? Just wondering. Sorry about the boat thing :imsorry: Nancy

 

[Cinette]

Mary is dead. “The dead know not anything.” (Eccl.9:4-5) I talk to Jesus, for He is alive; and He knows everything.

You have provided nothing but worldly rationalization, and anecdotal theology to “prove” the Catholic insistence on John 6. But you actually have not proven one bit of HOW or WHY the “flesh” in John 6 is NOT symbolic. All you can do is to repeat like a robot the same 2 or 3 verses, as if the more you say it; the more it will mysteriously “prove” the Pope’s spiritualistic doctrine of Christ being a piece of bread when the blasphemous priests say so.

I have showed you many verses which prove that God’s written word is our “spiritual food” and how we are to “eat of it” regularly. It’s up to you if you ignore the Words of our Lord, but you can’t expect anyone to believe your Pope or your Catechism on this topic when it deliberately denigrates God’s Word as inferior to the Papal pronouncements on John 6.

Protestant101

With the free will which you have been given, you have chosen to be blind and deaf.

I agree with you that no amount of repetition of Jesus’ word will convince you. So continue as you are if it makes you happy.

 

[Cinette]

Wrong again. Another instance of your inability to read.

So here it is again. John 6:51-58. Tell me when you read those verses, who is speaking?

Please do answer that question as I would so dearly love to know who speaks those words in your Bible.

I have said many times Benedictus - these people can write but they cannot read.

 

[Cinette]

The Bible doesn’t say that the “flesh” is literal. Only the Pope does/has.

The history of this doctrine shows that it was not developed until well after Jesus said those words…You go for the Catholic interpretation, only because the Pope says to. You have to or you cannot be a Catholic

The Catholic interpretation was there from the time of the Apostles.

But then you only believe what you want to believe.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Good post except that it really doesn’t answer my “circular reasoning” charge.

When did I do circular reasoning in the cross ref? Am I being vicius? you know I did nursing and some work with special children and we were taught to redirect when they were out of control. I’ll be checking myself out more Thank You Nancy

 

[Peter_J]

Did you know that Deacons always administered the sacrement at the begining ? and that it was started by a non-Catholic? Just wondering.

Care to elaborate?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nancy,

Considering we are so close to the 1,000th post on this thread, I had been hoping you would have stayed focus for just this little while longer. Alas… too much to ask for, I guess!

Now, let’s see what we have here…

Did you know that Deacons always administered the sacrement at the begining ? and that it was started by a non-Catholic? Just wondering. Sorry about the boat thing :imsorry: Nancy

Nancy, if you look up at the very top of the post box you will see a title…yes, just a little higher… there you go! Now, the title is there to help keep you focused. So, let’s compare the title to what you wrote: Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present - and - you wrote about Deacons… hmmmm… not much of a connection.

Maybe there is something to this boat thing … because, I think you have gone over-board! Back in Acts 6:1-7 we see the Twelve Apostles acting in consort to resolve a particular problem between Greek and non-Greek followers of Jesus who would later be called Christians and a little later from that called Catholic. There were no non-Catholics (in the common understanding of the term) until the 16th Century.

This is only a guess … but, it really does appear that you are just not interested in staying on topic, of engaging in constructive dialogue and of remaining focused. I’ve really done my best here - and really don’t have the time to play games with you, Nancy, From this point on, I am out of time.

God bless

 

[ryanoneil]

Realcatholicgk;4728348:

no where in the history of the church do we ever see any ECFs using John 6 to describe communion.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:54)

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (John 6:55-56)

“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).

"Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53)

"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).

 

[NonCatholic]

Hi, Nancy,

Considering we are so close to the 1,000th post on this thread, I had been hoping you would have stayed focus for just this little while longer. Alas… too much to ask for, I guess!

Now, let’s see what we have here…

Nancy, if you look up at the very top of the post box you will see a title…yes, just a little higher… there you go! Now, the title is there to help keep you focused. So, let’s compare the title to what you wrote: Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present - and - you wrote about Deacons… hmmmm… not much of a connection.

Maybe there is something to this boat thing … because, I think you have gone over-board! Back in Acts 6:1-7 we see the Twelve Apostles acting in consort to resolve a particular problem between Greek and non-Greek followers of Jesus who would later be called Christians and a little later from that called Catholic. There were no non-Catholics (in the common understanding of the term) until the 16th Century.

This is only a guess … but, it really does appear that you are just not interested in staying on topic, of engaging in constructive dialogue and of remaining focused. I’ve really done my best here - and really don’t have the time to play games with you, Nancy, From this point on, I am out of time.

God bless

Hey Tom,

You being very disrespectful to Nancy and you need to do the right thing and apologize to her for being so condescending. If she gets off topic, then say so and move on. Not very Christlike is it?

 

[Cinette]

I thought they were supposed to be “Bible Christians”?

But all I’ve seen is mental gymnastics and eisegesis. Sheesh.

I would’ve thought people would at least be honest with themselves. :nope:

Protestant101 and NonCatholic have as yet to refute this passage from me:

I’ve never heard any Protestant even attempt to refute that; they must’ve glossed over it.

Are people really so self-absorbed that they’d intentionally gloss over information that shatters their little weltschuuang, simply because they don’t want to admit being wrong?

Pride…:tsktsk:

Yes - Pride - the root of all sin!

 

[Peter_J]

When did I do circular reasoning in the cross ref?

See my earlier statement:

Isn’t that circular reasoning? You don’t believe that Christ was ever physically in 2 places at once because you don’t believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But you’re also using that as a basis for denying the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the first place.

Am I being vicius?

Not that I know of. (Of course, I haven’t read all of your posts. It’s possible that you have dark side that I don’t know about. )

you know I did nursing and some work with special children and we were taught to redirect when they were out of control.

I didn’t know that, but I’m glad to hear it.

 

[NonCatholic]

Isn’t that circular reasoning? You don’t believe that Christ was ever physically in 2 places at once because you don’t believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But you’re also using that as a basis for denying the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the first place.

She is correct!

 

[ryanoneil]

Many scholars within the RCC claim that transubstantiation cannot be gleaned from the texts of scripture and no where in the history of the church do we ever see any ECFs using John 6 to describe communion.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:54)

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (John 6:55-56)

“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).

"Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53)

"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The Catholic interpretation was there from the time of the Apostles.

But then you only believe what you want to believe.

Hi Cinette, Just wondering there are alot of meanings to the word revert,what does it mean to you?
What kind of books do you like to read? I have an African American friend she is a very kind and loving person. Are you African or a missionary? Nancy

 

[NonCatholic]

When we say that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father what is being referred to is not a literal, physical location, but refers to the status of Jesus as the Son of God. To be seated at the right hand is to be the heir or regent, someone who has been given power. That is why James and John asked if they could be seated at the left and right hand of Jesus.

You miss the point of the assention and also John 17. He is at the right hand of God and is in Heaven; whilest the “Helper” is convicting and bringing the elect homeward until His “Second Coming”.

You are correct the right hand is the seat of honor; whereas the left side was the seat of judgment…you always want to be on the right side.

 

[Peter_J]

Hey Tom,

You being very disrespectful to Nancy and you need to do the right thing and apologize to her for being so condescending. If she gets off topic, then say so and move on. Not very Christlike is it?

NonCatholic,

I don’t want to get into an argument with you about whether those criticisms are accurate or not.

Rather let’s suppose – for the sake of argument – that they are accurate.

Well then consider this: How many internet users (Catholic, Protestant, whatever) make vicious and uncharitable statements every day, all across the “World Wide Web”? A number that boggles the mind. Clearly you won’t be able to turn back the tide. Hence, if you sincerely believe that someone’s posts are uncharitable, then why not just ignore him or her and get keep on discussing things with other internet users?

That’s my approach anyhow. (Not that anyone would ever be uncharible to little ol’ me. )