F
Faithdancer
Guest
I don’t have a backyard.
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
lol And if we agreed on that as well, we wouldn’t be having this convo, but you know that already!That’s why He left a teaching authority (Matthew 28) with His Church.
Truly, I always enjoy our conversations; grace and peace!
K
Kliska
Guest
No, it is a representation of the serious difference the RCC teaches between receiving Christ in a special way in the sacrament of the eucharist, and the way one interacts with Him in other ways and circumstances. Again, my point is about truth; we can’t both be right and the truth brings us closer to the Lord because we have a correct understanding. That’s why conversations and figuring out the truth are extraordinarily important.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Catholic Church has no need to cherry-pick verses from Scripture. It existed and flourished for nearly 400 years before we even had a Bible. Your statement that "In the Body of Christ there are no denominational separations whether RCC, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, what-have-you. There are only believers, and Christ’s Church includes all who believe in Him" seems to me to be nonsensical. Yes, all denominations have believers, but then so do Satanist cults. What matters is what we believe, not that we simply believe.
There are those who believe that the Holy Eucharist is simply a symbol. Jesus said that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life in us. Sounds kind of important. So does what we believe matter? If those of us who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist are wrong then we are guilty of idolatry. If those who believe that it is simply symbolic are wrong then they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and call down judgment upon themselves. Does it matter what we believe? I think it does.
K
Kliska
Guest
I don’t care about argument from majority, I only care what God actually taught. At most you can say that a majority belief may point to truth, but it cannot prove it. And, to represent Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans to have a monolith of belief when it comes to the teachings of the Real Presence isn’t accurate. I can come a lot closer to going along with the phrasing used by Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox than I can the RCC’s more technical definition of transubstantiation.
Because from my perspective it isn’t true, and if it is not true, it is damaging in that sense alone. That isn’t meant to be insulting, just me clarifying.
My position is in no way a Gnostic one; I also believe in our union with Christ and in the very real fact that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there. I also know He never leaves nor forsakes me. Ever. There is never a time when He is not really and literally with me. The fact of the indwelling of the Spirit is permanent, and that is God literally within us. That is not a Gnostic concept. I don’t need any “feelings” to validate anything, I have His promise.
Perhaps from you POV I am, obviously I disagree.
Please go back and read my first main posts in this thread; I don’t need any of it explained. Luther had a particular way of answering Zwingli at their debate on the RP. It is that bit of info I’d like addressed by the Lutherans because to a Lutheran, Luther is a Church Father and it addresses the Last Supper specifically. “This is my body” “This is your brain” I’d like Lutheran insight on how Luther would explain why the first phrase cannot match the second.
What I am saying is that each author, prior to the NT, was serving a purpose in writing their particular book. Those separate books were, at one time, self contained, and we need to remember that when interpreting and applying their writings. God is the divine author and the authority “behind” the scriptures; I can assure you as one that believes in Sola Scriptura, I’m well aware of that and heartily believe it.
I’m not going to argue with you (haha), but in an appeal to authority I just “retired” from teaching logic, and logical fallacies to bunches of college students, as the philosophy prof at a college in my town. A straw man isn’t considered to be ad hominem because it twists the argument itself, it does not “take it to the man.”
M
Mystical_Poet
Guest
Good point about truth. But look at it this way. Neither you nor any Christian interacts with Christ in the same way as they do with mere humans. This is true for two reasons: 1, Christ is not with us in the same way as other humans (deeper and better, yes, but not the same), and 2, He is God as well as man. Therefore, to elevate the “normal” ways we relate to Christ above the Sacramental way does not make sense: for you are defining “normal” by human standards.
To maintain that reading the Bible, talking to God, and singing songs is a better way to relate to Christ than in the Eucharist diminishes both who Christ is and what the Eucharist is. A reverential, adoring partaking of the Eucharist does not take away from the so called “normal” ways of worshiping Christ, for it includes all of them! Personal devotions and private prayer are essential and actually complement the Sacraments, but the Liturgy and the Eucharist are really the **normal **ways of approaching and knowing Christ!
Remember, the normal human relationship includes physical contact, and the Eucharist is the only thing that is called “the Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ”.
He is the Infinite God, the Sinless Man, and the Heavenly Advocate, and He created the Sacraments as the Normal Way of loving Him.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
It’s not an argument from majority. Your argument is that God taught something about communion in Scripture, and for 1500 years no one that we know of understood what Christ or His apostles was talking about, until a few Reformation-piggy-backing Swiss and German wackadoodles in the 16th century figured it out.
The technicalities are different, yes. The RCC chooses to explain the presence with Aristotelian philosophical categories. However, at the base, the belief is the same in as much as what is received by the Christian when he partakes.
It is absolutely gnostic, inasmuch as it is a denial that Christ can communicate Himself through material means, but is instead present in some phantom way that is “spiritual.” In that respect, you split the natures of Christ in the process of denying that our union with Christ takes place through the material means of His body and blood, death burial and resurrection (the Lord’s Supper and Baptism).
S
SteveVH
Guest
Kliska, I’m just curious as to what you think you would have done if you lived, say, in the second century and did not have a Bible, and most likely would not even know how to read? How would a Christian rely on the Scriptures when there was no New Testament for them to read?
Thanks.
K
Kliska
Guest
Let me try to explain in a different way, in a over simplification. What the RCC relegates to the moment of partaking of the wafer which is believed to be Jesus, that connection, that idea, that grace, I believe is actually available to believers outside of that situation and in fact is available to us in a real way all the time. The sacrament, then, from my POV, would be limiting, not freeing. In short, if we tie grace into actions and physical things and that is not true, then we are limiting grace and limiting the presence of Jesus. Instead, grace flows through faith, not sacraments. Conversely if the RCC is right and I’m wrong, then I’m barred from grace because I don’t believe and do not partake of the sacraments.
This further takes us off track, but the idea of Jesus’ physical presence doesn’t jive with His Second Coming and His physical location at the right hand of the Father; only at His second coming will He physically touch the earth. This is one reason why I could agree more with the way some Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox talk about the RP, instead of the idea of transubstantiation, because I know what that means from the original teachings of Plato and Aristotle. I know all the arguments against what I’m saying, I just don’t see 'em in scripture, which are the earliest church documents and writings.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I beg to differ, we are to interact with Christ in all aspects of our lives:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
*1691 "Christian, recognize your dignity and, now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return to your former base condition by sinning. Remember who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God."1
1692 The Symbol of the faith confesses the greatness of God’s gifts to man in his work of creation, and even more in redemption and sanctification. What faith confesses, the sacraments communicate: by the sacraments of rebirth, Christians have become "children of God,"2 "partakers of the divine nature."3 Coming to see in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead henceforth a life "worthy of the gospel of Christ."4 They are made capable of doing so by the grace of Christ and the gifts of his Spirit, which they receive through the sacraments and through prayer.
1693 Christ Jesus always did what was pleasing to the Father,5 and always lived in perfect communion with him. Likewise Christ’s disciples are invited to live in the sight of the Father "who sees in secret,"6 in order to become "perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."7
1694 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord.8 Following Christ and united with him,9 Christians can strive to be "imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love"10 by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the "mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus,"11 and by following his example.12
1695 "Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God,"13 "sanctified . . . [and] called to be saints,"14 Christians have become the temple of the Holy Spirit.15 This “Spirit of the Son” teaches them to pray to the Father16 and, having become their life, prompts them to act so as to bear "the fruit of the Spirit"17 by charity in action. Healing the wounds of sin, the Holy Spirit renews us interiorly through a spiritual transformation.18 He enlightens and strengthens us to live as “children of light” through "all that is good and right and true."19
1696 The way of Christ “leads to life”; a contrary way “leads to destruction.” The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: "There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference."21
1697 Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ.22 Catechesis for the "newness of life"23 in him should be:
- a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;
- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;
- a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;
- a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;
- a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;
- a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;
- a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;
- an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of “spiritual goods” in the “communion of saints” that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.
I ask you to consider that our Lord Jesus Christ is your true head, and that you are one of his members. He belongs to you as the head belongs to its members; all that is his is yours: his spirit, his heart, his body and soul, and all his faculties. You must make use of all these as of your own, to serve, praise, love, and glorify God. You belong to him, as members belong to their head. And so he longs for you to use all that is in you, as if it were his own, for the service and glory of the Father.25
**For to me, to live is Christ.*26
K
Kliska
Guest
By using percentages, that is arguing the majority; as to your last remark and ad hominem, I don’t think any answer I give you would be acceptable to you.
Actually I don’t, as I don’t deny the physicality of Christ or our physicality, I do deny in the specific instance of the eucharist that the bread literally becomes His flesh.
In essence, the point is to rely on the Spirit, Who is God. Plus, we are only held to account for the things we know of, not what we don’t. The ignorant are not punished for their ignorance, but we are held accountable to what we do know. The OT scriptures were used by the Jews, and taught to the new believers, and the letters that would make up the NT were also spread through the churches. Those with the truth are held accountable for teaching correctly. No one denies that the Gospel was spread orally at the beginning of the church age… you and I would just probably differ on what we believe that Gospel was, and how God chose to preserve it, or not.
K
Kliska
Guest
If the RCC teaches that the way that Jesus interacts with you in the eucharist is no different than at other times, then there would be no need for the eucharist, or the mass, etc…
In short, I think you are misunderstanding my point.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yep, and Jesus repeats throughout the Gospels, plainly and in parables, that we are saved by faith. Not to mention that His sacrifice which allowed us to receive God’s grace by redeeming us from sin was a one time thing. We cannot sacrifice Christ again and again and again. 'Nuff said.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
No, it isn’t. An argument from majority would argue that it is true because the majority believes it. I would argue the majority believes it because it is true. God is effective in communicating His truth.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
St. Ignatius of Antioch is not impressed!
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I am. I need to you point out the teaching we have that you are specifically talking about.If the RCC teaches that the way that Jesus interacts with you in the eucharist is no different than at other times, then there would be no need for the eucharist, or the mass, etc…
S
SteveVH
Guest
Kliska, you know as well as I that every denomination claims to rely on the Spirit for its beliefs, while at the same time disagreeing with each of the other denominations and the Catholic Church as to what the Holy Spirit has imparted. The Holy Spirit is not the only spirit trying to influence us. This is why Christ founded his own Church, which Paul refers to as the “pillar and foundation of truth”. So that we would have a living, breathing teacher upon which we can rely for truth. It is why he promised the Holy Spirit to lead his Church into all truth and gave it unimaginable authority; in fact, His own authority.
As for the texts that make up the New Testament, we have no evidence whatsoever that the epistles were circulated to all the “churches”. While this would be an understandable position of one embracing sola scriptura it is nothing more than an wishful presumption. The task of hand copying each of them and disseminating them to the known world at the time, by donkey mail, in itself was prohibitive, not to mention the widespread illiteracy among the majority of the population. The Gospel was taught by the Church from the beginning. The Bible is the supporting document for those teachings, not the source of those teachings. The source is Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Its purpose was to be used in the Church’s liturgies, not as a complete compendium of the Christian faith.
The Gospel is Jesus Christ. He is the “Good News”. And he founded a Church and promised that he would never leave it. It is this Church, with Christ as its head, who brings us this “Good News”.
M
Mystical_Poet
Guest
I understand what you are saying in your first paragraph, but it just doesn’t line up with Scripture. Read 1 Cor. 10:16-21, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”
Notice here how Paul speaks of the Eucharist, then Jewish Sacrifices, then Gentile Sacrifices, than the Eucharist again. Paul wasn’t stupid: the Eucharist is a real Sacrifice. 1 Cor. 5:7-8, “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Remember that in the Jewish Passover, the Lamb is not just remembered, he is actually eaten: so in the Christian Passover.
And finally consider the Greek word ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis). It is used 4 times in the NT, and translated “remembrance” each time. Three of the times it is used in reference to Holy Communion, but the fourth time is Hebrews 10:3, “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.” Let us analyze this verse.
We all know that the OT Jewish sacrifices could not actually take away sin: they just temporarily covered it. So, that means that every year at the time of Yom Kippur, the guilt of past sin resurfaced and became real again. As John Wesley said of Hebrews 10:3, “There is a public commemoration of the sins both of the last and of all the preceding years; a clear proof that the guilt thereof is not perfectly purged away.” So anamnēsis here means a real presence of the Jews sins in relation to guilt. As theologian Dr. Frank C. Senn writes, “Anamnesis means making present an object or person from the past. Sometimes the term ‘reactualization’ has been used to indicate the force of anamnesis.”
This is true because, obviously, the Jews of the OT didn’t just mentally recollect their past sins every year at the Sacrifice; instead, the guilt and stain of their sins was actually made present again. So, I must ask the question: if, in the OT atonement system, the blood “covering” was removed every year and the Jews’ sins were anamnēsis (“re-actualized”), then how can we speak as if the Eucharist was just a mental symbol? Paul and the Gospel writers use the very same word to describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and we know that The Sacrifice of Christ transcends both time and our minuscule understanding:
Rev. 13:8, “…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
That’s why I believe that Christ’s timeless, once and for all, perfect sacrifice, both Body and Blood, is really present, spiritually and mystically in Holy Communion. And where His sacrifice is, there is His Grace.
He has chosen to medium of the physical Sacraments to convey what C.S. Lewis called “the Christ Life”, and therefore I accept His way.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
If I were a Lutheran pastor, I would so want to sheep steal you
K
Kliska
Guest
I disagree, but it won’t matter how I explain it, you’ll still disagree with me, so I’ll say, “have a good evening!” and :curtsey:
I’ll try to find the CCC or another RC apologist resource, but will probably PM you, as I think I have aided in going off topic. lol
And truth isn’t a what, it’s a Who. It is also why He lead certain people to write down His word, not just speak it orally, because oral transmission is notoriously hinky and people can form straw men more easily from what is said and not written to double check against. The church, as a communal whole has a job; to preach Christ and Him crucified (and raised). There were those early in the church, taught by the Apostles that were flat out wrong and teaching heresy. Further, Jesus Himself asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returned. We are warned again and again and again that false teaching is not only possible, but actual and that Paul himself could teach error and if he did, let him be accursed. You and I see the church and what God promised us very differently.
To the thread in general; I’m bowing out. I was seeking very specific (name removed by moderator)ut and did in no way want to go back into an argument (in the formal sense) of ground that has been covered already from every angle. I was, in essence, asking for a specific take on a specific piece of the puzzle that I’m studying and seeking God’s guidance on, to check myself and my beliefs. I apologize for going off-topic for the sake of my own seeking and this isn’t the thread for it I don’t think. Love y’all and love the conversation. God guide and keep us,
K
- Status