Protestants:Doesn't the Bible support the true presense?

[NDfan]

The problem is, you want the mystery of the Eucharist to be rationally understandable.

Christianity is not rational.

Our rational minds cannot fathom a man dying, going to hades, then rising again three days later.

Our rational minds cannot fathom a virgin birth with no earthly father.

Our rational minds cannot fathom staffs turning into snakes.

Yes chester I don’t disagree with you brother. But remember these miracles were visible. The miracle that supposedly takes place with the Eucharist is not visible. So how can we validate it. Christ tells us to be discerning.

I have no issue with leaving the mystery of what happens during communion to Christ and GOD. But don’t tell me a definition of what happens, then say only a valid Priest within the RC can do it, then flat out contradict the teaching.

If you really want me to believe it then show me someone that is an alcoholic that can still take the cup with no issue. Or someone allergic to bread that has no recourse with the host. Then and only then will I understand it to be a miracle. Miracles need proof otherwise it’s just your word against mine.

If the church is going to admit that the bread and wine still exist than stop calling it transubstantiation. But wait that would require a change in Dogma which the church cannot do. It also would require adopting a position closer to Martin Luther. Imagine that. That’s the problem I have with this whole thing. Don’t tell me the entire substance changes to flesh and blood and that I’m merely perceiving it to be bread and wine because the accidents are held by a miracle. Then come back and say no there really is wine in the cup and bread in the host. If you took consecrated bread and wine and analyzed it, the substance would still be bread and wine. This contradicts transubstantiation. So just admit that we don’t know what happens but that we believe in a presence of our Lord. And stop telling Protestant churches they have no valid Priestly order to perform transubstantiation because the Roman Catholic church itself is not performing transubstantiation.

These are miracles.

You either accept them or reject them.

What we can comprehend is God working in our lives. We can trust him to give us the gift of faith. We will not be granted the gift of understanding with regard to these matters.

Yes chester again I am with you brother 100%. But again don’t try to tell me you are doing something that you are not. Leave it as unexplained.

PEACE

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Yes chester I don’t disagree with you brother. But remember these miracles were visible. The miracle that supposedly takes place with the Eucharist is not visible. So how can we validate it. Christ tells us to be discerning.

I have no issue with leaving the mystery of what happens during communion to Christ and GOD. But don’t tell me a definition of what happens, then say only a valid Priest within the RC can do it, then flat out contradict the teaching.

If you really want me to believe it then show me someone that is an alcoholic that can still take the cup with no issue. Or someone allergic to bread that has no recourse with the host. Then and only then will I understand it to be a miracle. Miracles need proof otherwise it’s just your word against mine.

If the church is going to admit that the bread and wine still exist than stop calling it transubstantiation. But wait that would require a change in Dogma which the church cannot do. It also would require adopting a position closer to Martin Luther. Imagine that. That’s the problem I have with this whole thing. Don’t tell me the entire substance changes to flesh and blood and that I’m merely perceiving it to be bread and wine because the accidents are held by a miracle. Then come back and say no there really is wine in the cup and bread in the host. If you took consecrated bread and wine and analyzed it, the substance would still be bread and wine. This contradicts transubstantiation. So just admit that we don’t know what happens but that we believe in a presence of our Lord. And stop telling Protestant churches they have no valid Priestly order to perform transubstantiation because the Roman Catholic church itself is not performing transubstantiation.

Yes chester again I am with you brother 100%. But again don’t try to tell me you are doing something that you are not. Leave it as unexplained.

PEACE

Unfortunately(for your argument, that is), it is not left unexplained.

Jesus said DO THIS.

Jesus said this IS my body.

Paul said that if we partake of the bread without recognizing the body of christ then we are in danger.

What do we make of the early Christians, followers of Christ who went voluntarily to brutal deaths for the faith, when they say these things:

St. Ignatius

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

St. Justin Martyr

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; **but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also *we have been taught *that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” **

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

 

[tqualey]

Hi NDfan,

No discrespect taken. We all need to work out the particular of our Faith - and, this is an excellent forum to do it in. You certainly will come up with some excellent posts … mine sort of trail along… but, I think the others have a lot to offer you.

Sighs. Tom no disrespect brother but again not to beat a dead horse, I spent over 40 years in the Catholic church so please don’t throw the new advent link at me.

…snip…]

And don’t confuse real presence with transubstantiation. They’re not the same. I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation. I’ll try to find the source for you. It was a religious poll conducted.

GOD Bless you too.

Unless you are making the distinction that transubstantiation is the act of the change (one moment ago it was common bread and wine - but after the words of consecration it is now the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ) and the Real Presence is the completion of the act…? I don’t know… I don’t think it happens in stages … where the bread is … going, going, gone! I guess I do not understand the distinction you have made here.

Bear with me for a moment longer… thanks. Let me try another approach and see if this helps. Please: I would like you to think of a tree. Got it? Good.

Now, in your mind, you have the essence of a tree. Every tree around (based on your common understanding of the term “tree”) matches in some way what you have in your mind. Even though an oak is different from an elm is different from a pine - they all share the essence of tree. You now can go from scene to another and spot the trees and distinguish them from other types of plant life.

You come upon a bush - and properly identify that it lacks the essense of tree - or ‘tree-ness’. Even a small tree has the essence that a bush does not.

In reality you may be allergic to a particular type of tree - so when you see it - you know about it and avoid it. Other trees do not give you this problem so you need not avoid them. This distinction between different trees exists because you know ‘tree-ness’ in general - and this particular ‘tree’ very specifically. So you avoid it to avoid the allergy. You can think of this harmful tree all you want - and not get the allergy - because - none of the accidents of the offending tree get to you.

Admittedly, this analogy limps…actually, it is quite crippled! But, I hope you see what I am trying to do. That what makes bread, bread has changed in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ when the words of consecration are pronounced. It really is a super-natural happening that our natural minds can not grasp.

The flip side to this issue is equally simple: Christ and His Church are liars. This entire event is contrived, a fraud and has no basis for the rational mind. And, if the Eucharist is the core belief of the CC then there is nothing holding this house of cards together.

As I see it, there really isn’t any middle ground between these two positions. So, if you believe that Jesus can do anything - believe in His Word - believe in the CC that He founded on Peter as the Rock and gave the HS to guide and protect it from error.

God bless

 

[ncgolf]

But remember these miracles were visible.

The conception by the Holy Spirit was visible? … The child yes but not the fertilization of the egg … are you sure you are discernful as you think.

The miracle that supposedly takes place with the Eucharist is not visible.

Only by the eyes … only because we are still on this earth.

Christ tells us to be discerning.

He also said do not be afraid.

I have no issue with leaving the mystery of what happens during communion to Christ and GOD. But don’t tell me a definition of what happens, then say only a valid Priest within the RC can do it, then flat out contradict the teaching.

Where was this done?

If you really want me to believe it then show me someone that is an alcoholic that can still take the cup with no issue. Or someone allergic to bread that has no recourse with the host. Then and only then will I understand it to be a miracle.

John 20:25 25 “So the other disciples told him, We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

If you took consecrated bread and wine and analyzed it, the substance would still be bread and wine. This contradicts transubstantiation.

Not in the least … all it shows is we cannot use science for this … is that your standard or the only standard that can be used? Do you use science to validate or expect science to validate the other Christian claims?

So just admit that we don’t know what happens but that we believe in a presence of our Lord.

Any Catholic, IMO, will admit at some level it is beyond our grasp to totally understand this … just as it is for me to truly understand heaven.

And stop telling Protestant churches they have no valid Priestly order to perform transubstantiation

They dont.

because the Roman Catholic church itself is not performing transubstantiation.

I do not think you are in a position to make this claim … for one you do not even believe it.

 

[NDfan]

Hi NDfan,

Actually, I thought Chester gave an excellent answer.

Now, let’s see…

Yes and I agreed with everything my brother chester said. Only with some minor clarifications

First thing: The Priest does not ‘command’ Christ. The command comes from Christ. ** “…do this in rememberance of me…” ( Luke 22:19 )**

Yes eat the supper in remembrance of ME. Not transubstantiate the bread and wine into my literal body and blood. Christ still calls the cup fruit of the vine after the supposed consecration takes place. Fruit of the vine is a fancy way of saying wine. So Christ is saying drink this wine in remembrance of me. For I will not drink it new again with you until in my Father’s Kingdom. Obviously Christ still saw it as wine.

From the Catechism of Catholic Church:

Absolutely beautiful isn’t it? Well written and I love it.

**1142 ** But "the members do not all have

Again no issue here. Not everyone is called into service for Christ. But the Holy Spirit does not allow them to act as Christ. That’s not found in scripture anywhere.

The ordained minister is, as it were, an “icon” of Christ the priest.

Yes. We all should take communion together. But scripture does not state the Bishop or overseer as scripture calls it has to preside over communion. This developed much later and was not practice of the early church.

The priest takes Christ’s place during the Consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Stop right there!!! The priest is not turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood. This is what Trent defined as transubstantiation. And that’s not what is happening. If we examine the substance of the consecrated hosts and wine we will still find bread and wine.

These are basically unsubstantiated statements. You offer no referece that backs up this statement.

Wrong. Go ask your priest this weekend this very question. Ask him if the cup still contains wine. If he says no then ask if an alcoholic is safe to drink from it. I guarantee he will caution you there is still the substance of wine in the glass. If that’s the case then transubstantiation does not take place and the teaching is wrong. My case is well supported. It’s the same objections the Roman Catholic Scholars drew upon in the early 20th century. They re-defined the Eucharist to a more symbolic observance and Paul VI decided to retain the original dogma of Mysterium Fidei. I have plenty of support for my case.

I will take you at your word, in that you have no problem if the Consecrated Bread is ACTUALLY (not symbolically) the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Thank you.

From my appreciation of your statement, you may be ‘familiar’ but you need to work on some depth here. The crux of the issue is in distinguishing Essence from Accident. Anything that appeals to the senses is an Accident.

Correct but accident is not substance. Substance is the actual matter that makes up the entity. The substance of red wine is grapes, alcohol, sugar, stems, etc. etc. The accidents are the outward things your senses pick up on. So the color purple, the smell of grapes, the taste of wine. But if the substance is not wine then you are not ingesting literal wine. You only ingest what the actual substance is. You don’t ingest the accidents. If the substance changes then the accidents have to. But according to Aquinas the accidents of bread and wine remain by a miracle even though you are literally eating flesh and blood.

Someone with an allergy to wine or wheat can not become a Priest! Why?

Wrong wrong wrong!!! You don’t have an allergic reaction to the accidents. That’s impossible. You can only react to the substance. Let me ask you this. If you take an antibiotic for an infection but Jesus changes the substance of the antibiotic to sugar will the antibiotic still heal the infection?? NO!. Why? Because you are ingesting the substance of sugar. Obviously the RC needs to learn basic physics. This is absolutely preposterous.

My essence is unchanged if I were to lose an arm, both arms, a leg, both legs, hearing, seeing, etc.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Losing an arm or leg has no impact on the substance that makes you a human being. Your substance is still intact. If Christ changes your substance to a dog then your accidents would change also to reflect that of a dog. This is an invalid statement and just demonstrates your lack of knowledge of physics.

The essence of common bread and wine no long exist once they are consecrated by the Priest - only the Accidents (all of them) remain.

Yes absolutely. This is called transubstantiation. You just contradicted yourself.

Transubstantiation says the whole substance changes to flesh and blood. That means it’s impossible to be eating bread and drinking wine. But that’s exactly what you are doing. A priest will flat out admit that there is wine in the cup and bread in the host. Why don’t you see this is not transubstantiation as the church defines it :banghead: Wow this is amazing.

The real question: what is making you unhappy to have authorative response to your questions on the CC’s teaching about the Eucharist?

God bless

Making me unhappy? Nothing!!! But don’t tell me something authoritatively that’s not true. Clear up your teaching first to be accurate then I have no problem.

Let me ask you this. If the church started teaching 2+2=6 would you say well it’s by a miracle because the church says so? Do you just submit blindly to authority without discernment? NO!!

GOD Bless you too

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Yes. We all should take communion together. But scripture does not state the Bishop or overseer as scripture calls it has to preside over communion. This developed much later and was not practice of the early church.

 

[JonNC]

As I was scouting around I came across this thread and “saw” some familiar “faces”

The subject interests me and I copied this page on my desktop to read later when I have the time.

I noticed someone who was on another thread and who is Lutheran and believes in the “Real Presence”. I was pleased about that but have a comment to make.

I once met a Lutheran Minister and he said to me that they believe in the Real Presence only at the moment the communicant receives the bread. They use ordinary bread and what is left over they feed to the birds. At the time I was in another person’s home and didn’t want to start a discussion which might get a little “enthusiastic” so I left it.

We might let go on the threads because we are all anonymous but in society be behave ourselves! LOL.

Would anyone like to comment?

Blessings
Cinette

Yes, Cinette, I’ll comment. What the minister told you is in contradiction of the scripture and the Lutheran Confession. It is called receptionism.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

They, the body and blood of Christ, are truly tendered (distributed). In other words, they are already the body and blood of Christ when received, because they became the body and blood of Christ when His words are spoken, “When he had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body…” He didn’t say “This will become my body…”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Realcatholicgk;4735909]QUOTE=

Protestants should not care what Catholics believe about them. And Catholics should never accept the false teachings of any Protestant group, or care what they believe about our faith. There should be acceptance that Catholics follow the real teachings of Jesus and Protestants decided within the past 500 years not to do that. They want to worship their bibles and insult Jesus’ real church while they pretend to be the real church. Through their false practices, they only give more power to the Devil!

gk,
Your tone is as harsh and uncharitible any I have seen on CAF, Catholic or otherwise. And I don’t believe it reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church. You wish to site what Pope Benedict XVI believes, but I would challenge you to find this kind of bile in his writings anywhere.

40 years or dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics - in large measure begun by John XXIII and following - indictate that we do care about each other, and seek to understand the teachings we share, and how to bridge the differences we have.

Finally, I challenge you to find a single writing I have made here that indicates that I worship my Bible, or have insulted the Catholic Church. I have not done so, and would not do so. I would, however, admit I would be tempted to do so if I thought for a moment that your writings here were representative of her.

Some thing to thnk about: If Lutherans actually believed in the real presence they wouldn’t throw their left overs in the trash like aborted babies in an abortion clinic!

This is worthy of Jack Chick.

How envious Protestants must be of our church to attempt to imitate it. I pray for the souls of all our Protestant brothers and sisters that they may become real Christians and true followers of Jesus and His correct teachings rather than their phony groups and false beliefs. God, in the name of Jesus I pray, hear my prayer!

I am only envious for Christ’s call for unity. It is amazing that you call us brothers and sisters. I would never talk about my brothers and sisters this way.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC

I must confess, you caught me by surprise on this one … and, I didn’t even catch it.

Yes, I do think the tone harsh and, in truth, needlessly so.

Your comment about Jack Chick was stinging - at least it stung me… mainly because I really did not pay that much attention to it. I guess I dismissed it as mere hyperbole and let it go at that.

Let me sincerely apologize for my insensitivity in this matter. :console:

The hymn we sing that we may all gather together as one is true - the is the Will of God (John 17: 6-19). This needs to be the foucs and charity our path to get there.

In no way are our differences to be a cause for a break in charity… but, we can certainly talk about our differences…

God bless

gk,
Your tone is as harsh and uncharitible any I have seen on CAF, Catholic or otherwise. And I don’t believe it reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church. You wish to site what Pope Benedict XVI believes, but I would challenge you to find this kind of bile in his writings anywhere.

40 years or dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics - in large measure begun by John XXIII and following - indictate that we do care about each other, and seek to understand the teachings we share, and how to bridge the differences we have.

Finally, I challenge you to find a single writing I have made here that indicates that I worship my Bible, or have insulted the Catholic Church. I have not done so, and would not do so. I would, however, admit I would be tempted to do so if I thought for a moment that your writings here were representative of her.

This is worthy of Jack Chick.

I am only envious for Christ’s call for unity. It is amazing that you call us brothers and sisters. I would never talk about my brothers and sisters this way.

Jon

 

[Zooey]

Nancy,
I would first respond by asking rhetorically, “why would one not want to receive it every week, or more often?” But rhetoric aside, Christ states we should take of it often. My need for forgiveness of sins is constant and ongoing as I am a sinner. I also go to hear His word, confess and receive absolution, etc. every week. As part of my sanctification, I seek our the means of Grace He so generously provides for me.

Jon

:yup:

 

[LutheranDK]

**
I don’t think we explored the subject of the true presense in the Bread and Wine enough bacause for some strange reason Protestants and others still can not see the truth as Jesus taught in the Scriptures. **

Correction: SOME “protestants”.
Realcatholicgk;4733804:

So my question is: Protestants: Doesn’t the Bible support the the presense?

What do you think?

Indeed it does.
Moving on to the next subject…

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC

I must confess, you caught me by surprise on this one … and, I didn’t even catch it.

Yes, I do think the tone harsh and, in truth, needlessly so.

Your comment about Jack Chick was stinging - at least it stung me… mainly because I really did not pay that much attention to it. I guess I dismissed it as mere hyperbole and let it go at that.

Let me sincerely apologize for my insensitivity in this matter. :console:

The hymn we sing that we may all gather together as one is true - the is the Will of God (John 17: 6-19). This needs to be the foucs and charity our path to get there.

In no way are our differences to be a cause for a break in charity… but, we can certainly talk about our differences…

God bless

Tom,
I never meant to sting you. You have not, to my view, been in any way insensitive. I, personally, was floored by Cr. Ratzinger’s statement as well, but I view it as an opening for continued dialogue with the guidance of the HS.
One thing I have learned here is how much Catholics love the Lord, praise Him, and teach so much truth. It has been so much a blessing to me that my prayers for unity are that much stronger.

Jon

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Nancy sure I’ll explain. At the Council of Trent it was declared that the whole substance of the bread and wine upon consecration ceased to exist and became literally the flesh and blood of Christ. This was referred to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is borrowed from Greek Philosophy more specifically Aristotelian physics. Aristotle explained that material consisted of 2 things. Substance which is what it’s actually made out of and the accidents which is what the outward appearance is. Things that your senses pick up on. So for instance if we look at wine the substance is grapes, alcohol, sugar, tannins etc. etc. The accidents would be the color red for the appearance, the smell of grapes, the taste of wine etc. etc.
…
Now here is the problem. If the substance really changes then someone who has an alcohol dependency should not have to worry about drinking the wine because they are not drinking wine. They are drinking blood. The same with the bread. If someone had a deadly allergy to wheat and ate the bread they would not have to worry because they are eating flesh. Well the church has refuted this and maintains that the elements or substance of the bread and wine remain. This is a direct contradiction to what the Council of Trent taught and what Thomas Aquinas argued. If the elements of the bread and wine remain then the church is not teaching transubstantiation and all you are left with is physical bread and wine. To take it a step further if the church affirms that Christ is in the bread along with the bread and HIS blood is in the wine along with the wine then you have what Martin Luther taught which is called consubstantiation. Although I don’t believe the word consubstantiation is in the Augsberg confession of Faith. But the description is.

Well now this presents a major problem for the church that for some reason Roman Catholics are just not getting. I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way but the church practices adoration of the bread because they see it as the physical body of Christ when it isn’t. They store it in the tabernacle and genuflect to it. etc. etc. But the bottom line is the church admits it’s bread.

One last point, in the early 20th century some Roman Scholars interpreted Communion slightly different than transubstantiation. They maintained that we need to focus on the “meaning” of the supper and not so much the change in elements. Defining that when you partake in the supper what is the “meaning” of it. This represented a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist. Well in 1965, Paul the VI decided to retain the original dogma issuing the Mysterium Fidei or mystery of faith. He claimed there was no reason to change the deposit of faith on this matter.

The church does have its hands full with this doctrine though. A poll of Roman Catholics revealed that only 30% believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The remaining saw it as symbolic. Sacred but symbolic.\

**
Hi NDfan,

I knew all of what you said. Much isn’t true As of right now 44% of “Catholics” believe in the real presence. many “Protestant polluted” Catholics who even think just believing in God will provide eternal salvation,. What amazes me is that Protestants who claim Sola Scriptura Ignore Jesus and His teachings. You attempt to use science to explain the unexplainable. I believe through Faith in Jesus and His teachings being true. You do not believe because to do so would “force” you to stop following Satan and accepting the Catholic church as the one holy and apostolic church. Your Pride and the Devil stops that. I understand. Jesus could have made it easy. That wasn’t His point He wants you to believe without proof. That is called FAITH! “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths” — Proverbs 3:5-6 I believe because it is absurd and Jesus tells us to believe. The priest doesn’t change the bread nor command Jesus. Jesus uses the priest as His instrument to change the Host and Wine, into His Body and Blood.

I find it interesting that outsiders think they know more about Jesus’ teachings and beliefs then His followers who have remained faithful for 2,000 years.You can;‘t even stop the corruption and the division and multiplication of the 61,000 Protestant groups yet you worry about jesus’ real followers? Don’t worry we are doing better. The Body of Christ is well! Jesus is our head! His body and Blood nurishes and fills our souls with the grace needed to obtain eternal life, just like He told us in the real holy scriptures.

You aren’t expected to see the truth. That is OK. Sometimes the Devil wins! HopefullyJesus will continue to win more .You are in my prayers!

God Bless**

 

[NDfan]

NDfan;4738447:

I think this was the practice of the early Church.

Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. **Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. **

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Chester I’m familiar with these. If I’m not mistaken they came from Ignatius. The reason he wanted the Bishop to preside over the sacraments was due to the heresy of the gnostics he was battling in his area. The gnostics as you know were preaching a weird theology that Christ was not a real man, that all matter was evil etc. etc. Marcion started to re-write portions of scriputure including Luke and some of the Pauline letters. He rejected everything else and started to circulate it to churches where Ignatius was located. That’s why Ignatius initially pushed for a real firm list of canonized works. He wanted to be able to tell the churches that if you don’t read these you are reading a false Gospel.

Ignatius wanted the Bishops handle all the sacraments so that he could keep the gnostics out. That’s why he started using the phrase Apostolic succession. Ignatius said we need people like us to lead the churches. People that are familiar with Apostolic teachings. This would give the best chance for the true Gospel to be spread. But you have to remember this was the case only in major metropolitan areas. Many churches existed out in the countryside that had no Apostolic appointees. It was very common for them to worship in their houses and partake in the Lord’s supper in very small groups. It was unrealistic for many people to get to the local metropolitan church and case in point the church often gets criticized for not reaching out to these people.

What’s interesting is that we see nothing from Rome at this time to support Ignatius desire to have the Bishop perform this service. Clement writes nothing about this.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Correction: SOME “protestants”.

**Hi Lutheran,

It includes you my friend. As a Lutheran You believe that Jesus is in the host during the sevive and leaves after wards correct? I am not sure about the “old world” Lutherans beliefs.Most of our phoney Lutherans here are less than 100 years of history. Yours is 500 years old. I do know that what you believe doesn’t matter. If it isn’t what the Catholic church teaches it is wrong. I do know that the closer to the original breakage from the real church the more close are the teachings. Except for the things Luther had to change in order not to remain a member of Jesus’ real church. If you could actually believe in Transubstantiation. You could be a real follower of Christ because then you would be forced to become a Catholic.** .

Indeed it does.
Moving on to the next subject…

The obvious subject: Becoming a real christian and being able to receive the real Communion spoken about in the bible!

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Are you serious? I mean, really, are you serious?

**
Hi Hajnalcsillag,

Short answer: YES. My question didn’t I sound serious? I hope so! I am attempting to save souls from Satan.Has he distorting your understanding of the truth and making it seem like I am not serious? I know you don’t even believe Jesus when He said to “Eat His Body and Drink His Blood”, otherwise you would be with the correct church. The one that He actually told that to 2,000 years ago rather then with one of the “new” imporoved" counterfeited versions of His church.

God Bless . **

 

[LutheranDK]

It includes you my friend.

No, it does not

Realcatholicgk:
As a Lutheran You believe that Jesus is in the host during the sevive and leaves after wards correct?

Not correct. As Jon pointed out - that kind of thinking is unscriptural, first and foremost, as well as not in accordance with orthodox Lutheran teachings.
I do know that what you believe doesn’t matter. If it isn’t what the Catholic church teaches it is wrong.

LOL - would you care to back that up with some reasoning?

Realcatholicgk:
If you could actually believe in Transubstantiation. You could be a real follower of Christ because then you would be forced to become a Catholic.

The obvious subject: Becoming a real christian and being able to receive the real Communion spoken about in the bible!

sighs
I should have followed my gut instinct that told me this was a troll post and not a sincere one…
I am a “real follower of Christ”. Ask me to recite Apostolicum and NIcaenum, and I will - believing the truth contained therein.
Even the RC church has recognized in Vatican II that even if one is not RC, one can still be a Christian (= a follower of Christ).

Secondly, I do not believe in Transsubstantiation, because it is unscriptural. I believe in Consubstantiation, because it is scriptural.
To say that the elements only maintain the outward appearence, smell and taste of bread and wine, but are in fact no longer bread and wine at all, is not a reasonable assumption, and it does not follow from Jesus’ words (“This is my body…”)

If it LOOKS like bread and wine, FEELS like bread and wine, and TASTES like bread and wine - it IS bread and wine. The difference is, that it is ALSO the body and blood of Christ. It is both at the same time.

Oh, and just to give you something else to throw a fit over:
I HAVE recieved Holy Communion. Not only in Lutheran churches, but also in an RC context*

• = The bishop of the diocese had given his permission for non-RCs to parttake in Holy Communion. I would never have taken part in RC Communion without such an dispensation - out of respect for my RC brothers and sisters in Christ.
  And no, I’m not going to tell you where it was…

 

[NDfan]

Hi NDfan,

I knew all of what you said. Much isn’t true As of right now 44% of “Catholics” believe in the real presence.

Let’s see your source please.

many “Protestant polluted” Catholics who even think just believing in God will provide eternal salvation,. What amazes me is that Protestants who claim Sola Scriptura Ignore Jesus and His teachings. You attempt to use science to explain the unexplainable. I believe through Faith in Jesus and His teachings being true. You do not believe because to do so would “force” you to stop following Satan and accepting the Catholic church as the one holy and apostolic church.

I don’t use science to explain anything. The Roman Catholic church used science to explain the Lord’s supper and made a big mistake. I was happy to just leave it a mystery. And I certainly don’t follow Satan but perhaps you do as no one from Jesus’ church would ever speak to people as you do.

Your Pride and the Devil stops that. I understand. Jesus could have made it easy. That wasn’t His point He wants you to believe without proof. That is called FAITH! “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths” — Proverbs 3:5-6 I believe because it is absurd and Jesus tells us to believe.

:juggle: I have FAITH and I trust in the Lord. Now why do you think HE led me away from the Roman Catholic Church??

The priest doesn’t change the bread nor command Jesus. Jesus uses the priest as His instrument to change the Host and Wine, into His Body and Blood.

Where in scripture does it show Jesus using the Apostles to transubstantiate the bread and wine. Or anyone for that matter?

Jesus HIMSELF calls the consecrated wine fruit of the vine. Jesus states I will not drink again this fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in MY Father’s Kingdom. Fruit of the vine is wine not blood. So Jesus is telling us HE is going to drink wine in Heaven. Yet the RC tells us we drink literal blood. Somebody is wrong and it ain’t Jesus. :nope:

Why don’t you take a consecrated host and cup of wine and have them analyzed. It will show the substance to be bread and wine. But that would make Jesus a liar then wouldn’t it? But of course we know Jesus is no liar so then it must be the Roman Catholic church that doesn’t understand the teaching.

I’ll tell you what brother or sister. Whichever it is. If you can show me consecrated hosts and wine that are really changed into flesh and blood substantially, then I’ll return to the Roman Catholic church and never ever question anyone here or in the church again.

I find it interesting that outsiders think they know more about Jesus’ teachings and beliefs then His followers who have remained faithful for 2,000 years.You can;‘t even stop the corruption and the division and multiplication of the 61,000 Protestant groups yet you worry about jesus’ real followers?

I only worry about people that follow a bad teaching.

Don’t worry we are doing better. The Body of Christ is well! Jesus is our head! His body and Blood nurishes and fills our souls with the grace needed to obtain eternal life, just like He told us in the real holy scriptures.

Yes Jesus told us that believing brings eternal life. Jesus also said that if we come to HIM we will never go hungry and that if we believe we never thirst. So yes I believe.

You aren’t expected to see the truth. That is OK. Sometimes the Devil wins! HopefullyJesus will continue to win more .You are in my prayers!

God Bless

Jesus has already won my heart but I appreciate your prayers. Ditto.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Sighs. Tom no disrespect brother but again not to beat a dead horse, I spent over 40 years in the Catholic church so please don’t throw the new advent link at me.

I understand completely what the teaching is.

**

Hi NDfan,

I actually doubt that or you would still be a Catholic Unless you violated one of the dogmas that are required to be a real follower of Christ. What did happen to cause you to turn your back and walk away from Jesus? Can you share what could possibly force you to leave your real Lord and Savior? Notice I didn’t say loss faith. People of faith never leave Jesus! . **

I never said it was rendered null and void. The council at Trent defined the dogma of the Lord’s supper as the following:
The Council of Trent defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the** whole** substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”,

This is taken right from the thirteenth session of the council.

So the council admits that only the species remains. Species is also the accidents. The outward elements that the senses pick up on. But the underlying substance is changed. So you no longer have bread you have flesh, and you no longer have wine you have blood.

NDfan If the “Word can become man” Why can’t Bread and EWine Become Jesus? Is God so powerless in your personal belief system?

Aquinas cleared up the objections to this because those that were knowledgeable of physics objected that the species could not be that of bread and wine if the substance changes. The accidents have to inhere to something. Aquinas responded by saying it was a miracle. I have no problem with this at all.

What I have a problem with is the church admits that the substance of bread and wine are still intact. Point in fact if you tell a Priest that you have an alcohol dependency and wine is a trigger for you he would say do not partake in the cup. The RC flat out admits that there is still wine in the glass. If that’s the case then it’s not transubstantiation so the church might as well just admit to it.

**Did your leaving have to do with alcohol dependency?You keep mentioning it. Does your new group use grape juice? If so, tell then that Orieos taste better than bread with Grape Juice! Yum, Yum! I am a non-drinking Alcoholic I stopped drinking on 14 November 1976. I go to communion several times a week more often if possible. I drink the blood of my savior It has never made me want to rush out and buy a bottle of any alcohol, I drank my Saviors Blood not drink wine to get drunk! Please use another example you are making me thirsty! **

It’s not 60% it’s like 70% that don’t believe. And don’t confuse real presence with transubstantiation. They’re not the same. I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation. I’ll try to find the source for you. It was a religious poll conducted.

**

NDfan, My foolish foolish friend. That lie is almost as old as "Jesus really didn’t mean it was his body: A new study (by the National Catholic Reporter folks, of all people), conducted by.Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes:

" 81 percent say that “belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith. Keep in mind that the survey is of a cross section of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S. (although Latinos are greatly under represented). Among the more highly committed Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that belief in the Real Presence is considerably higher than 81 percent. This is worth keeping in mind because some years ago a clumsily worded question in a survey came up with the conclusion that only one third of Catholics believed in the Real Presence, and that “finding” still crops up in discussions on the state of Catholicism.** Among active Catholics, belief in the Real Presence, as also in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus, edges up toward unanimity."

Only the truth shall set you free from Satan. And you should know that If only One Catholic believed, Jesus loves mankind so much He would have still died for him!

You are in my prayers!

GOD Bless

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4738469:

Chester I’m familiar with these. If I’m not mistaken they came from Ignatius. The reason he wanted the Bishop to preside over the sacraments was due to the heresy of the gnostics he was battling in his area. The gnostics as you know were preaching a weird theology that Christ was not a real man, that all matter was evil etc. etc.

One of the etc,'s is that they denied the real presence in the eucharist.

Marcion started to re-write portions of scriputure including Luke and some of the Pauline letters. He rejected everything else and started to circulate it to churches where Ignatius was located. That’s why Ignatius initially pushed for a real firm list of canonized works. He wanted to be able to tell the churches that if you don’t read these you are reading a false Gospel.

Yet more evidence that a hierarchical church is necessary for unity.

Ignatius wanted the Bishops handle all the sacraments so that he could keep the gnostics out. That’s why he started using the phrase Apostolic succession. Ignatius said we need people like us to lead the churches. People that are familiar with Apostolic teachings. This would give the best chance for the true Gospel to be spread. But you have to remember this was the case only in major metropolitan areas. Many churches existed out in the countryside that had no Apostolic appointees. It was very common for them to worship in their houses and partake in the Lord’s supper in very small groups. It was unrealistic for many people to get to the local metropolitan church and case in point the church often gets criticized for not reaching out to these people.

That’s why it is important to teach the truth everywhere.

What’s interesting is that we see nothing from Rome at this time to support Ignatius desire to have the Bishop perform this service. Clement writes nothing about this.

The role of the bishop of Rome evolved as the Church become more structured, but the principles didn’t change.

Keep in mind, we don’t have most of the writings of the early fathers.