I think (forgive me for presuming) that EvangelCatholic was noting on some of the odder practices of the church at the time of the reformation : Some devout people would immediately leave the Mass (Divine Service) after the elevation of the Body and Blood and run to the next town for the next Mass to witness the elevation again. Some would keep the Body on their person rather than eat it as a talisman against evil.If Jesus is Really Present, then how do you excessively adore the Eucharist?
Wouldn’t you say in the same way some of the first disciples fell away–because the saying was too hard??? That’s the way it is even with a lot of Catholics today… Sorry to say…The question I have, is how did Christians fall away from the belief in the Real Presence? Perhaps a theological discussion on how Calvin, Zwingli, Knox came to understand the sacraments would help.
It is during Mass that Christ offers forgiveness/ eternal life. Those who believe in the Real Presence generally kneel at some point during the service. Reverence to the Reserved Sacrament is highly appropriate but the gifts that come from Christ are received when we eat/ drink the holy Body and Blood.If Jesus is Really Present, then how do you excessively adore the Eucharist?
Unless the Real Presence is only understood in like a metaphysical sense…
As Apostle Paul was teaching the Church at Corinth concerning the Lord’s table, he cited this:In our desire, as Catholics, to come together in a True Presence Eucharist (the flesh and blood of Jesus), we are constantly challenged by a “purely symbolic” interpretation of Communion. I have listened to faithfull Christians testify to the good aspects of this interpretation, which I don’t see as apostasy from the True faith. For our Christian brothers and sisters who Commune with a purely symbolic interpretation, can you provide for us some early Church apologetics which clearly convey this belief?
Sincerely,
Michael
(ref the evangelical “Doritos and Coke communion.”)I wonder where?!
My suspicion is that Luther unintentionally unleashed a sort of neo-Manichean attitude in following protestants in which his denigration of “works” came to be a denigration of the value of anything physically manifested (rather than a repudiation of the idea that works of the Mosaic Law had salvific effects as St. Paul actually intended). It morphed into a worldview in which only the spiritual mattered and the physical was irrelevant at best, evil at worst. Note that I’m not saying that Luther himself went so far down that road, but he introduced the philosophical foundation upon which others built that faulty house.The question I have, is how did Christians fall away from the belief in the Real Presence? Perhaps a theological discussion on how Calvin, Zwingli, Knox came to understand the sacraments would help.
Perhaps Luther opened the door [and actually posted on the door of the Castle Church] concern over abuses taking place in the holy Catholic Church. Private masses, relic worship, communion in only one kind and laity hesitant to take holy Communion may have created a strong reaction from other Reformers who then denied the Real Presence and sacraments, in general.My suspicion is that Luther unintentionally unleashed a sort of neo-Manichean attitude in following protestants in which his denigration of “works” came to be a denigration of the value of anything physically manifested (rather than a repudiation of the idea that works of the Mosaic Law had salvific effects as St. Paul actually intended). It morphed into a worldview in which only the spiritual mattered and the physical was irrelevant at best, evil at worst. Note that I’m not saying that Luther himself went so far down that road, but he introduced the philosophical foundation upon which others built that faulty house.
In response to PROTECTOR further above, your objection implies that God is limited by the constraints of time. Bad reasoning. Time is part of creation, thus God exists outside of time. The fact that the last supper occurred before the Passion does not remotely pose an obstacle to it being the physical body and blood offered at the cross. The fact that Christ himself shared in that meal is no more shocking than that Christ himself shared in our humanity (which is, admittedly, pretty shocking when you ponder it).
Perhaps to a point, but not largely. Zwingli and Calvin rejected a local, sacramental presence based largely on philosophical and/or erroneous Christological presuppositions.Perhaps Luther opened the door [and actually posted on the door of the Castle Church] concern over abuses taking place in the holy Catholic Church. Private masses, relic worship, communion in only one kind and laity hesitant to take holy Communion may have created a strong reaction from other Reformers who then denied the Real Presence and sacraments, in general.
I’d still maintain that Calvin and Company merely exaggerated Luther’s misunderstanding about St. Paul’s admonitions about reliance on works of the Mosaic Law. Luther interpreted these warnings to essentially constitute a divorce between one’s actions and the state of one’s soul in a way that St. Paul simply never intended. I’ll concede that Luther never veered as far in practical implications based on that misunderstanding, but a tangent doesn’t look much different from the curve at the point of tangency. It’s only further away from the point of tangency that divergence becomes significant.Perhaps to a point, but not largely. Zwingli and Calvin rejected a local, sacramental presence based largely on philosophical and/or erroneous Christological presuppositions.
Manualman,=manualman;11799379]My suspicion is that Luther unintentionally unleashed a sort of neo-Manichean attitude in following protestants in which** his denigration of “works” came to be a denigration of the value of anything physically manifested **(rather than a repudiation of the idea that works of the Mosaic Law had salvific effects as St. Paul actually intended). It morphed into a worldview in which only the spiritual mattered and the physical was irrelevant at best, evil at worst. Note that I’m not saying that Luther himself went so far down that road, but he introduced the philosophical foundation upon which others built that faulty house.
Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.
You’d have to clarify exactly what you mean by Calvin went further than Luther. Went further than Luther on what, exactly?Oh yes, I tried to be clear that Luther himself didn’t really himself go terribly off the tracks in terms of following the implications of some of his writings. But fair and balanced quotes like the one you cite here, aren’t his most well known quotes. Maybe that’s not his fault or maybe he was rather unbalanced in his emphases, it’s rather hard to tell from this distance (and who among us has the time to read everything the man wrote. Did he EVER put the pen down?).
All that said, is it truly unfair of me to point out the lengths to which Luther preached on the futility of works? Is it truly invalid to wonder if Calvin and others merely went further on a tangent that Luther started? I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut as well and would value your opinion of such a hypothesis.
It seems really obvious to me that the answer to this question is best handled by St Augustine and his notion of the divine fiat. Namely that whatsoever The Lord speaks he also creates. So when Jesus says, “if any believes and is baptized he will be saved,” his word also creates the faith to believe, and creates the forgiving grace of baptism. When Jesus says, “if any man would be saved let him take up his cross and follow me,” that word likewise creates the faith to do just that in the hearts of the saved. So also when The Lord said, “let there be light!” There was light.Please explain to me how Jesus was able to make the following statement while still alive,
" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; **For this is my blood **of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
Also, why does our Lord indicate that He had just eaten His own body, and drank His own blood, and would do so again with the Apostles in His Father’s kingdom?
It only makes sense if we are dealing with the plain elements of bread and fruit of the vine.
biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html
Protector.
Where Calvin went further than Luther was in that he completely denied the presence of God of in the Sacrament. To say God is present spiritually for the believer who lift themselves up to heaven where Jesus is to partake of his body there is to deify man and commit the heresy of Nestorianism. Specifically that the two persons and natures of Christ were so separate that they could not ever touch each other. So when Christ hungered or slept or died that was his humanity, and when Christ walked on water, raised the dead, and saved men from their sins then he was being God.You’d have to clarify exactly what you mean by Calvin went further than Luther. Went further than Luther on what, exactly?
Thanks for the historic clarity! Is Calvinism taught today as an evolving theology? Some Lutherans invite Methodist/ Presbyterian to holy Communion to share what they may not understand or accept.Where Calvin went further than Luther was in that he completely denied the presence of God of in the Sacrament. To say God is present spiritually for the believer who lift themselves up to heaven where Jesus is to partake of his body there is to deify man and commit the heresy of Nestorianism. Specifically that the two persons and natures of Christ were so separate that they could not ever touch each other. So when Christ hungered or slept or died that was his humanity, and when Christ walked on water, raised the dead, and saved men from their sins then he was being God.
The Church condemned this as heresy and Calvin indoctrinated it as orthodoxy. To this day you will hear those that follow in his footsteps (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc) all speaking of a paradox of Christ by saying this was, “touching his humanity.” This is heresy from a long time gone but no one calls anyone else on it today because it sounds scholarly or something.
Furthermore Calvin denied the salvation of baptism, the forgiveness of priests, the means of grace, any icons in the Churches changed the wording of the Ten Commandments disbanded the priesthood and taught double predestination as the means of salvation declaring the holiness of God to be greater than any other attribute including love, mercy, grace, knowledge or forgiveness. In doing this he set aside the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas who taught that no single attribute of God could ever be higher than any other because to do so was to create idols.
I think that’s enough.
God Bless
It has been my experience that Lutheran Churches will not commune with Calvinist Churches. Although “Lutheran” is a pretty big tent so it cannot be said the rule of one is all.Thanks for the historic clarity! Is Calvinism taught today as an evolving theology? Some Lutherans invite Methodist/ Presbyterian to holy Communion to share what they may not understand or accept.
There are actual Lutheran-Presbyterian parishes; I found this on Internet: tlpc.org/services/It has been my experience that Lutheran Churches will not commune with Calvinist Churches. Although “Lutheran” is a pretty big tent so it cannot be said the rule of one is all.
God Bless
found another one:There are actual Lutheran-Presbyterian parishes; I found this on Internet: tlpc.org/services/