Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[GaryTaylor]

Luke

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.

Why can’t I ask Mary who is highly favored by God and blessed among all women and Mother of Lord to help me find Her Son which She did and like She did?

Didn’t Marys prayer to the Lord intercede for all of us? Why would that not occur any more?

The Lord is still with Her? She still highly favored or no? If She’s highly favored by God why shouldn’t She be highly favored with all of us? Isn’t that why all generations will call her Blessed?

 

[adrift]

how about purgatory? do you believe in that?

Welcome to the forum. I am glad you are here to straighten out your misconceptions. We won’t agree but at least you will come to understand our beliefs.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Except the same source lists over 200 Catholic denominations. So, if your going to use that, include all of it, not just what suits you.

Do a google search.

10,000

Denominations and independent non denominational churches can be found in Southern California alone.

 

[drblank1]

Dr., then you are left to explain why Christianity has taught for 2,000 years the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This includes Catholic East, West and Orthodox. The belief in the Real Presence existed both before and after the Canon of scripture was established. I should add, the Canon was set in part to have a universal set of readings at Mass throughout the world.

You thus contend that Jesus was speaking symbolically but The Church Christ established somehow developed a practice, the Sacrifice of the Mass, that was opposed to Scripture, with Scripture itself written by for and about the very Church that didn’t understand it?

Sorry Dr, please provide evidence of a Church, any Church believing in a symbolic meal prior to the reformation. Would be really great if you could provide evidence of one around the time of the apostles or even prior to 382 ad. If John 6 is to be taken symbolically as you content, this should be easy enough to do.

PnP

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent”.

 

[adrift]

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent”.

I am not sure why you posted this. Instead of assuming why perhaps you will elaborate?

 

[SteveVH]

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent”.

The Church had no reason to make a definitive statement before the “Reformers” challenged the belief held from the beginning. Not sure what your reference is suppose to prove.

 

[Jon_S_1]

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent”.

Are you suggesting this is the first time the doctrine appeared???

There are literally thousands of pieces of evidence prior to Trent.

Here are some of the earliest (besides the Bible) from Ignatius of Antioch

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. 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.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“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.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you suggesting this is the first time the doctrine appeared???

That would be like saying no one believed in the Trinity until it was formally defined at the Council of Nicea. So for 4 centuries no one believed in One God in 3 Persons.

Is that what you believe, drblank?

 

[Porknpie]

In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, “By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent”.

Dr., copying and pasting from websites without giving credit to them as a source is against forum rules. Trent reiterated a number of Church teachings including the fact that the Written Word of God has 73 books, held as true by The Church since 382 at the Council of Rome.

The article here speaks more to the history of the term transubstantiation.

Have you watched the youtube video by Brand Pitre titled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist? Jewish converts to Christianity all readily believed in the Real Presence. The video explains why. The Church later described the metaphysical process and called it transubstantiation which means at its root, change in substance.

 

[Samedi]

What is the most problematic “single issue” that keeps you from coming into full communion With Rome?

• Peace in Christ

I would single out Dogmas.
Reasons:
Based from history, humans can err eg. Adam ate the forbidden fruit, Moses hit the rock he was told to speak to, King Saul failed to obey God, King Solomon married many wives, Peter denied Jesus 3 times, Judas betrayed Jesus etc.
If a Dogma origin from human error, it can lead to a serious heresy.

 

[drblank1]

I am not sure why you posted this. Instead of assuming why perhaps you will elaborate?

Sorry, that was a quick post. I am very busy now and want to continue in our discourse but am running low on time now that the new year is here.

PR asked to show any evidence that early church leaders considered that John 6 was metaphor. I should have stated as we all know, this did not become dogma of the Catholic church until the 1200’s. Up until that time, it was a point of contention within the Catholic church, especially from 800-1200 AD.

Then the statement of transubstantiation was added in response to the pressure from the Protestant reformers challenging the validity of concept.

But for PR, just real quick proof, the early church leaders were not in agreement with the literal interpretation of John 6. For instance:

Clement’s writings from Paedagogus:

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”

This is where most Catholics stop. If you continue reading:

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

You can the complete writing and what I have pasted here at:
documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0150-0207,_Clemens_Alexandrinus,Paedagogus[Schaff],_EN.pdf

PR, there other examples of early church leader writings that don’t agree with the literal interpretation of John 6 but I’m sorry I just don’t have the time to go into them. I suggest that you read the entire document I provided and more writing of the early church leaders and not just canned snippets.

With all love in Christ.

 

[Porknpie]

Clement’s writings from Paedagogus:

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”

This is where most Catholics stop. If you continue reading:

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”t.

Dr,

You can read Clements writings here. His words below from the (Paedagogus) Instructor Book two, chapter two are clear. I’m not sure where you are getting the quotes above. Nonetheless, they are consistent with Clements words below, emphasis mine. Key words here include TWOFOLD and AND.

Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape— that is, the Word— desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. **For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. **And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

By the way Dr., this is exactly what happens at Mass today:

“as wine is blended with water”

Just as the first Catholic Christians did some 2,000 years ago.

There is nothing about St Clements writings that describe a symbolic belief in the Lords Supper. Quite the opposite…

 

[PRmerger]

There is nothing about St Clements writings that describe a symbolic belief in the Lords Supper. Quite the opposite…

Egg-zactly.

And even if he did describe the Eucharist as symbolic, a symbolic belief in the Eucharist is not excluded in Catholicism.

It is where that ever-pesky “ALONE” is added that Catholicism says, “Whoa!” We don’t believe in a a symbolic-ALONE Eucharist.

I have heard it said that almost all errors in theology (and, indeed, in philosophy) begin with an “ALONE” mentality.

That is:
Scripture ALONE (why exclude the other channel of God’s Word, Sacred Tradition).
Faith ALONE (why exclude Reason).
Science ALONE (why exclude Faith)
Praying to Jesus ALONE (why exclude all the saints in heaven)
A symbolic ALONE Eucharist (don’t forget he really said we had to eat His flesh!)

Really, the only ALONE Catholicism professes is that we are saved by Jesus ALONE and His Body, the Catholic Church.

 

[drblank1]

Dr,

You can read Clements writings here. His words below from the (Paedagogus) Instructor Book two, chapter two are clear. I’m not sure where you are getting the quotes above. Nonetheless, they are consistent with Clements words below, emphasis mine. Key words here include TWOFOLD and AND.

Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape— that is, the Word— desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

By the way Dr., this is exactly what happens at Mass today:

“as wine is blended with water”

Just as the first Catholic Christians did some 2,000 years ago.

There is nothing about St Clements writings that describe a symbolic belief in the Lords Supper. Quite the opposite…

Please read the full book of “The Instructor” before you make such claims.

The book can be downloaded for free from the Documenta Catholica Omnia, a Catholic library of public domain document from the early church.

The link didn’t copy in correctly. The editor can’t process the ULR I provided so I had to remove the “www.”. Please copy the link below and add “www.” to the beginning when you paste it into your browser. See page 347.

This is the complete version of his 3 writings, “The Instructor”. As you will see on page 347, he DOES in fact say it is figurative. Further, if you read his writings in their entirety, you would see that he writes OFTEN of Jesus’ figurative speech throughout the entire work of “The Instructor”.

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0150-0207,_Clemens_Alexandrinus,Paedagogus[Schaff],_EN.pdf

 

[Jon_S_1]

Please read the full book of “The Instructor” before you make such claims.

The book can be downloaded for free from the Documenta Catholica Omnia, a Catholic library of public domain document from the early church.

The link didn’t copy in correctly. The editor can’t process the ULR I provided so I had to remove the “www.”. Please copy the link below and add “www.” to the beginning when you paste it into your browser. See page 347.

This is the complete version of his 3 writings, “The Instructor”. As you will see on page 347, he DOES in fact say it is figurative. Further, if you read his writings in their entirety, you would see that he writes OFTEN of Jesus’ figurative speech throughout the entire work of “The Instructor”.

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0150-0207,_Clemens_Alexandrinus,Paedagogus[Schaff],_EN.pdf

The problem you have is it is not ONLY figurative or symbolic. This is the Fundamentalist problem. Why can something not be both a symbol and literal? It can and it does.

You dismiss a ton of what he says by saying it’s only figurative. He clearly states otherwise and adds a figurative element to it.

Further , your statement that this was not part of Catholicism until the 1200’s or even 800 is patently false.

I showed you evidence from the first century and there are countless other sources from the first 500 years.

Many can be read here : therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.)

It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18)

St. Ephraim (c. 306 - 373 A.D.)

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.” But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.

After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)

St. Athanasius (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

St. Augustine (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

 

[JonNC]

Egg-zactly.

And even if he did describe the Eucharist as symbolic, a symbolic belief in the Eucharist is not excluded in Catholicism.

It is where that ever-pesky “ALONE” is added that Catholicism says, “Whoa!” We don’t believe in a a symbolic-ALONE Eucharist.

I have heard it said that almost all errors in theology (and, indeed, in philosophy) begin with an “ALONE” mentality.

That is:
Scripture ALONE (why exclude the other channel of God’s Word, Sacred Tradition).
Faith ALONE (why exclude Reason).
Science ALONE (why exclude Faith)
Praying to Jesus ALONE (why exclude all the saints in heaven)
A symbolic ALONE Eucharist (don’t forget he really said we had to eat His flesh!)

Really, the only ALONE Catholicism professes is that we are saved by Jesus ALONE and His Body, the Catholic Church.

While on your side regarding the real presence, a couple of comments:
Scripture ALONE (why exclude the other channel of God’s Word, Sacred Tradition).
Scripture alone does not exclude Sacred Tradition. The alone only refers to scripture being the final norm.
Faith ALONE (why exclude Reason).
Unless you can show me where scripture or Tradition indicates one can access justification through reason, I’m not sure of the point. The alone here simply identifies the singular way we come to justification.
Praying to Jesus ALONE (why exclude all the saints in heaven)
Because there is no command, example (except the dream in Macc.) or promise attached to invocation of the saints. Then again, one can pray to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[drblank1]

The problem you have is it is not ONLY figurative or symbolic. This is the Fundamentalist problem. Why can something not be both a symbol and literal? It can and it does.

You dismiss a ton of what he says by saying it’s only figurative. He clearly states otherwise and adds a figurative element to it.

Further , your statement that this was not part of Catholicism until the 1200’s or even 800 is patently false.

I showed you evidence from the first century and there are countless other sources from the first 500 years.

Many can be read here : therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.)

It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18)

St. Ephraim (c. 306 - 373 A.D.)

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.” But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.

After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)

St. Athanasius (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

St. Augustine (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

He wasn’t saying it was both. He was taking it one step further to explain in a way to be understood better. Clement did this because he was writing to believers. Jesus didn’t do this because he knew those disciples who left him were not with him from the beginning.

My point again. Please just don’t refer to canned snippets that support your point as that website provides. Read the entire writings of the early church leaders and then decide.

You can also read writings from Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others but I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to bring them all to your attention. Read their works in completely and then decide.

I must move on from this. God bless you and keep studying the Bible and praying for the Holy Spirits guidance.

“Those with ears, let them hear.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

While on your side regarding the real presence, a couple of comments:
Scripture ALONE (why exclude the other channel of God’s Word, Sacred Tradition).
Scripture alone does not exclude Sacred Tradition. The alone only refers to scripture being the final norm.
Faith ALONE (why exclude Reason).
Unless you can show me where scripture or Tradition indicates one can access justification through reason, I’m not sure of the point. The alone here simply identifies the singular way we come to justification.
Praying to Jesus ALONE (why exclude all the saints in heaven)
Because there is no command, example (except the dream in Macc.) or promise attached to invocation of the saints. Then again, one can pray to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jon

In your tradition Scripture Alone includes Tradition. But in Fundamentalist circles and many other Protestant circles it does truly mean scripture alone and sacred tradition is completely rejected.

 

[Jon_S_1]

He wasn’t saying it was both. He was taking it one step further to explain in a way to be understood better. Clement did this because he was writing to believers. Jesus didn’t do this because he knew those disciples who left him were not with him from the beginning.

My point again. Please just don’t refer to canned snippets that support your point as that website provides. Read the entire writings of the early church leaders and then decide.

You can also read writings from Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others but I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to bring them all to your attention. Read their works in completely and then decide.

I must move on from this. God bless you and keep studying the Bible and praying for the Holy Spirits guidance.

“Those with ears, let them hear.”

It’s interesting you recommend Justin Martyr. It was me reading THE ENTIRETY of Justin Martyrs books along with the ENTIRETY of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Augustine, Polycarp and the Didache among others that prompted my conversion from a lifelong Evangelical to Catholic.

There is no denying the real presence in the Eucharist as a historical fact.

Your one sentence that you quote will not suffice to show a different opinion nor a support of some huge controversy over the doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

While on your side regarding the real presence, a couple of comments:
Scripture ALONE (why exclude the other channel of God’s Word, Sacred Tradition).
Scripture alone does not exclude Sacred Tradition. The alone only refers to scripture being the final norm.

As long as you don’t exclude Tradition as a channel of God’s Word, then

Faith ALONE (why exclude Reason).
Unless you can show me where scripture or Tradition indicates one can access justification through reason, I’m not sure of the point. The alone here simply identifies the singular way we come to justification.

The CC rejects Fideism.

Praying to Jesus ALONE (why exclude all the saints in heaven)
Because there is no command, example (except the dream in Macc.) or promise attached to invocation of the saints. Then again, one can pray to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jon

It is an error to believe that one must pray to Jesus ALONE–there is no command that we do this.