Real Presence outside of RC Church

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

it’s simple… to have Christ present, you must believe that
Christ is present, most protestants don’t believe that, if some do,
then He is present…

that’s my opinion, anyway…

You cannot yourself perform the Miracle of the Mass. Only a properly-ordained priest or bishop can do that.

So a protestant can believe all he likes – the Real Presence is not there.

 

[jimmy]

Contarini:

Jimmy,

I don’t believe that the Real Presence is dependent on right theology or on correct ordination. It’s dependent on the promise of Christ, period. And as I read it, this promise was to all believers. Rightly ordered, we ought all to be led by duly elected bishops in apostolic succession and in full communion with Rome. (And I agree that the first of these is less important than the others–I throw it in just to point out that you guys don’t imitate early Christian polity either, not fully.) But I don’t think Jesus refuses to show up if we don’t have all the lines of succession right. I know this seems wishy-washy and liberal to orthodox Catholics. But that’s how I see it.

A Baptist who receives crackers and grape juice in memory of Christ is receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus. That means that ironically you think Baptists are right (in what they believe about what they are receiving), while I don’t!

Edwin

So, that baptist is recieving condemnation, as Paul says, due to the fact that he recieves without discerning the body of Christ?

What is rightly ordered? How is it not wrongly ordered to reject the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Can atheists have the Eucharist if they just decide to have a mock Liturgy? Is the satanist rightly ordered since he believes it to actually be the body of Christ? How is it not wrongly ordered to reject the bishops that were established by the apostles? The early Church firmly believed in apostolic succession of bishops and the sacraments were recieved in union with the bishop, as Ignatius shows. Irenaeus says similar in Against Heresies 3.3-.3.4.

In in 3.3 he says, “All churches should agree with this church [Rome] on account of its pre-eminent authority.” Immediately after that he gives the succession of bishops of Rome, up to the 13th I think it is. So actually, we are in agreement with the early church very much.

If someone is going to reform the Church, as Luther did, he must show, by some proof that can been seen, that he has authority from God to trump the Church. The authority was given to the bishops to decide issues. If there are some differences now from the first century, it is due to the fact that bishops were called to make decisions concerning various heresies. They made decisions, therefore the Church may be a little more developed in some areas. It is still the same teachings though. Protestantism completely did away with first century doctrines like apostolic succession.

It’s not a matter of Jesus deciding not to show up, it is a matter of who he has given authority to to celebrate the Liturgy. He gave authority to specific men. He disires unity among all His people. People come to the Church to recieve Communion(the word is very important because that is what we recieve). You are sending mixed signals to Christ; on one hand you want unity with Him through the sacrament, but you do not want unity with Him through His Church.

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

You cannot yourself perform the Miracle of the Mass. Only a properly-ordained priest or bishop can do that.

So a protestant can believe all he likes – the Real Presence is not there.

only God can do it, and i don’t pretend to be able to tell him what
he can and cannot do…

 

[jimmy]

vern humphrey:

The Orthodox do not hold any heretical positions and maintain the Apostolic Succession. Their only difference with the Catholic Church is their refusal to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

That is actually false, they do disagree on the matter of the filioque. They believe that the procession of the Spirit from the Son is only temporal and is not part of the Trinity.

I do not understand why they accept the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox. It’s not a matter of dogma though that the Orthodox maintain the sacraments.

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

only God can do it, and i don’t pretend to be able to tell him what
he can and cannot do…

But that’s exactly what you’re trying to do – tell God that He must permit anyone to perform His miracles.

 

[johnshelby]

jimmy:

So, that baptist is recieving condemnation, as Paul says, due to the fact that he recieves without discerning the body of Christ?

What is rightly ordered? How is it not wrongly ordered to reject the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Can atheists have the Eucharist if they just decide to have a mock Liturgy? Is the satanist rightly ordered since he believes it to actually be the body of Christ? How is it not wrongly ordered to reject the bishops that were established by the apostles? The early Church firmly believed in apostolic succession of bishops and the sacraments were recieved in union with the bishop, as Ignatius shows. Irenaeus says similar in Against Heresies 3.3-.3.4.

In in 3.3 he says, “All churches should agree with this church [Rome] on account of its pre-eminent authority.” Immediately after that he gives the succession of bishops of Rome, up to the 13th I think it is. So actually, we are in agreement with the early church very much.

If someone is going to reform the Church, as Luther did, he must show, by some proof that can been seen, that he has authority from God to trump the Church. The authority was given to the bishops to decide issues. If there are some differences now from the first century, it is due to the fact that bishops were called to make decisions concerning various heresies. They made decisions, therefore the Church may be a little more developed in some areas. It is still the same teachings though. Protestantism completely did away with first century doctrines like apostolic succession.

It’s not a matter of Jesus deciding not to show up, it is a matter of who he has given authority to to celebrate the Liturgy. He gave authority to specific men. He disires unity among all His people. People come to the Church to recieve Communion(the word is very important because that is what we recieve). You are sending mixed signals to Christ; on one hand you want unity with Him through the sacrament, but you do not want unity with Him through His Church.

i don’t think Luther had in mind to “trump” the church, Luther
did however, have in mind reforms, reforms that have been made
in the church since his time, and i also belive that he was firmly
against splitting the church, for any reason… which i wish could
have been avoided…

the “95 Thesis” is almost entirely concerning the practice of
selling indulgences… a practice that has been reformed…

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

But that’s exactly what you’re trying to do – tell God that He must permit anyone to perform His miracles.

lol… i must need to brush up on my english…

 

[vern_humphrey]

jimmy:

That is actually false, they do disagree on the matter of the filioque. They believe that the procession of the Spirit from the Son is only temporal and is not part of the Trinity.

The Church has specifically said that acceptance of the filoque is not a requirement for re-union with the Orthodox Churches.

jimmy:

I do not understand why they accept the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox. It’s not a matter of dogma though that the Orthodox maintain the sacraments.

The Orthodox maintain the Apostilic Succession, and there is no doctrinal or dogmatic barrier to them re-joining the Catholic Church.

 

[Todd_Easton]

This might help…

Jimmy Akin’s article, Why can only priests consecrate the Eucharist?

Jimmy Akin’s article, The Priesthood Debate.

Jimmy Akin’s article, The Office of New Testament Priest.

 

[vern_humphrey]

On the issue of Orthodox versus Catholic:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

From Catholic Information Network

http://www.cin.org/stockfil.html

Filioque and Other Issues Between Catholics and the Orthodox

by Fr. Hal Stockert

There is no significant separating difference between Catholics and Orthodox any longer on the Filioque.

There IS a difference in emphasis (as there is in so many different issues…but none in terms of content) in that the West tends to see the unitary aspect of the Trinity first, and the Triune aspect secondarily, where the East sees the Triune nature primarily and the unitary secondarily.

 

[Contarini]

jimmy:

So, that baptist is recieving condemnation, as Paul says, due to the fact that he recieves without discerning the body of Christ?

In context it does not appear that that is what Paul is talking about at all. He is talking about people who receive the Eucharist without proper preparation. Most NT scholars seem to believe that he’s specifically talking about people who treated the Eucharist as a banquet and thus ignored poorer Christians. That hardly applies to Baptists. But even if he’s talking more generally about not receiving in a state of sin, this would not refer to having the right theory.

Being wrong always has consequences. Baptists miss out on a lot. But I’m not convinced that they miss out on the sacramental presence of Jesus.

What is rightly ordered?

I thought I said that. A rightly ordered Eucharist would be a gathering of all the Christians in a given place, presided over by a duly elected bishop in apostolic succession in communion with the Universal Church, most especially with the See of Rome. You guys are a lot closer to that than most of the rest of us. My point is precisely that your Eucharist is far more rightly ordered than ours, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus is not present with us as well.

How is it not wrongly ordered to reject the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

It absolutely is. Sorry that I expressed myself unclearly.

Can atheists have the Eucharist if they just decide to have a mock Liturgy? Is the satanist rightly ordered since he believes it to actually be the body of Christ?

Atheists and satanists do not believe in Jesus. Baptists do. That’s rather important, don’t you think? And to repeat: I don’t think Baptists are rightly ordered. I don’t even think we Anglicans are, though we’re stronger on those points than Baptists by a long shot.

How is it not wrongly ordered to reject the bishops that were established by the apostles? The early Church firmly believed in apostolic succession of bishops and the sacraments were recieved in union with the bishop, as Ignatius shows.

I don’t recall Ignatius speaking of apostolic succession. The bishop of whom he speaks is (in terms of what he asserts explicitly–I’m not denying that he may have believed in apostolic succession but not spoken of it) the duly chosen local pastor of the Church in a certain city.

Irenaeus says similar in Against Heresies 3.3-.3.4.

Irenaeus does speak of apostolic succession, yes. I’m not denying that it is highly desirable. (Although the apostolic succession of which he speaks seems to refer to apostolic sees only: to “bottoms-on-seats” rather than just to “hands-on-heads.” (Note that he doesn’t claim apostolic succession himself–he claims to be in communion with bishops in apostolic succession.)

If someone is going to reform the Church, as Luther did, he must show, by some proof that can been seen, that he has authority from God to trump the Church.

By what authority did Gregory VII trump the Church and essentially invent a brand new canon law to support his claims? Luther claimed to be (in part) rolling back mistaken “reforms” of the high and late Middle Ages.

At any rate, I’m not claiming that Luther was right. I’m claiming that we Protestants are still Christians, however mistaken we may be.

You are sending mixed signals to Christ; on one hand you want unity with Him through the sacrament, but you do not want unity with Him through His Church.

You’re begging the question, of course, by defining the Church only in terms of the Roman Communion. That is your claim; it is not self-evident. I don’t deny that communion with Rome is valuable, and to despise it is a serious error. I don’t despise it. I don’t accept its absolute authority. I don’t choose not to be in communion with Rome. I choose not to accept the terms Rome requires for communion. This is something quite different.

Edwin

 

[johnshelby]

i know that i’m not an expert on theology, but i believe that
the Real Presence is totally dependent on the belief of the
person receiving the host… no, Muslims and Hindus don’t
have the Real Presence, because they don’t believe… just as
a majority of Protestants don’t believe…

if a person goes to mass, and believes they are getting
a wafer and some wine, that’s what they are gonna get, and
i know cradle catholics who have told me that they
believe just that… so, to say that
everyone who receives communion in a Catholic Church is
receiving the body and blood of Christ is, in my opinion, wrong…
it would be just like receiving communion without confessing to
a motal sin, it profanes, removes the body and blood, from the
host…

and as for what i’ve said being telling God what to do, no…
it’s begging God to grant me the gift of his body and blood,
and believing he will…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

johnshelby:

i know that i’m not an expert on theology, but i believe that
the Real Presence is totally dependent on the belief of the
person receiving the host… no, Muslims and Hindus don’t
have the Real Presence, because they don’t believe… just as
a majority of Protestants don’t believe…

if a person goes to mass, and believes they are getting
a wafer and some wine, that’s what they are gonna get, and
i know cradle catholics who have told me that they
believe just that… so, to say that
everyone who receives communion in a Catholic Church is
receiving the body and blood of Christ is, in my opinion, wrong…
it would be just like receiving communion without confessing to
a motal sin, it profanes, removes the body and blood, from the
host…

and as for what i’ve said being telling God what to do, no…
it’s begging God to grant me the gift of his body and blood,
and believing he will…

That is incorrect. A Muslim or Hindu who receives a valid Catholic Communion receives the Real and true Body and Blood of Christ. It is of no spiritual value to them but they do in fact receive the Real Presence.

 

[johnshelby]

Br. Rich SFO:

That is incorrect. A Muslim or Hindu who receives a valid Catholic Communion receives the Real and true Body and Blood of Christ. It is of no spiritual value to them but they do in fact receive the Real Presence.

it doesn’t profane the host? then why are non-catholics not supposed to take communion ?

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

i know that i’m not an expert on theology, but i believe that
the Real Presence is totally dependent on the belief of the
person receiving the host… no, Muslims and Hindus don’t
have the Real Presence, because they don’t believe… just as
a majority of Protestants don’t believe…

If that were true, anyone could perform the Miracle of the Mass – we wouldn’t need a priest, as long as the people taking communion believed.

And we know that isn’t the case. The Miracle of the Mass can be performed only by a properly-ordained priest or bishop.

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

If that were true, anyone could perform the Miracle of the Mass – we wouldn’t need a priest, as long as the people taking communion believed.

And we know that isn’t the case. The Miracle of the Mass can be performed only by a properly-ordained priest or bishop.

for us, the Catholic church, that is true… but a minister in another
church might have the same ability… i believe that would be
dependent on his belief, and the belief of the person receiving
communion… Jesus said, where ever 3 or more are gathered
in my name, there I will be also… so, if they truly believe in
their hearts, He is there as the Holy Spirit, and as the True
Presence…

do you believe that being offered the Body and Blood by a priest
automatically means, no matter what you believe, or have done,
it is the Body and Blood you receive? or do you believe that
your belief’s and the state of grace you are in can effect what it
is you receive from the priest?

again, i’m a newbie Catholic… i’m learning…

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

for us, the Catholic church, that is true… but a minister in another
church might have the same ability…

How would he get that ability? As I said before, if a Protestant minister can perform the Miracle of the Mass, so can a Muslim or a Hindu.

johnshelby:

i believe that would be
dependent on his belief, and the belief of the person receiving
communion…

So if a Hindu or Muslim convinces himself and two or three other Hindus or Muslims that he can produce the Body and Blood of Christ, he can?

johnshelby:

Jesus said, where ever 3 or more are gathered
in my name, there I will be also… so, if they truly believe in
their hearts, He is there as the Holy Spirit, and as the True
Presence…

But he did not say they could perform the Miracle of the Mass without His commission.

johnshelby:

do you believe that being offered the Body and Blood by a priest
automatically means, no matter what you believe, or have done,
it is the Body and Blood you receive? or do you believe that
your belief’s and the state of grace you are in can effect what it
is you receive from the priest?

I believe a Priest can perform the Miracle of the Mass. I believe in the True Presence. I believe that if I take communion while unworthy to do so, I have committed a serious sin.

The approach you’re taking is close to a heresy called “Syncretism.” Modern Syncretism is the false belief that all religions are equal.

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

How would he get that ability? As I said before, if a Protestant minister can perform the Miracle of the Mass, so can a Muslim or a Hindu.

So if a Hindu or Muslim convinces himself and two or three other Hindus or Muslims that he can produce the Body and Blood of Christ, he can?

But he did not say they could perform the Miracle of the Mass without His commission.

I believe a Priest can perform the Miracle of the Mass. I believe in the True Presence. I believe that if I take communion while unworthy to do so, I have committed a serious sin.

The approach you’re taking is close to a heresy called “Syncretism.” Modern Syncretism is the false belief that all religions are equal.

convinces himself and 2 or 3 other Hindus?? lol

if they are Hindus, they don’t believe, if they are Muslims, they
don’t believe, belief would make the Christians, not Hindus or
Muslims…

you are the one who keeps equating Protestant Christians with
Muslims and Hindus… so, you are saying that only the Catholic
Church is Christian?

 

[vern_humphrey]

johnshelby:

convinces himself and 2 or 3 other Hindus?? lol

if they are Hindus, they don’t believe, if they are Muslims, they
don’t believe, belief would make the Christians, not Hindus or
Muslims…

how do you know that?

In fact there are Hindu sects which have some Christian beliefs. There were Nestorian Christians in India and even China more than a thousand years ago. Many of their ideas were incorporated into Hindu and other beliefs.

There are offshoots of Hinduism – like Sikhs, Ba Hai, Cao Dai, and so on which would astonish you.

Muslims consider Jesus to be a real prophet. They have a tradition of Jesus, and accounts of miracles he supposedly performed.

johnshelby:

you are the one who keeps equating Protestant Christians with
Muslims and Hindus… so, you are saying that only the Catholic
Church is Christian?

Only the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox) maintain the Apostolic Succession. Only Catholic (and Orthodox) priests and bishops can perform the Miracle of the Mass.

 

[johnshelby]

vern humphrey:

how do you know that?

In fact there are Hindu sects which have some Christian beliefs. There were Nestorian Christians in India and even China more than a thousand years ago. Many of their ideas were incorporated into Hindu and other beliefs.

There are offshoots of Hinduism – like Sikhs, Ba Hai, Cao Dai, and so on which would astonish you.

Muslims consider Jesus to be a real prophet. They have a tradition of Jesus, and accounts of miracles he supposedly performed.

Only the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox) maintain the Apostolic Succession. Only Catholic (and Orthodox) priests and bishops can perform the Miracle of the Mass.

no, it doesn’t astonish me, but if they are Christians, they aren’t
Hindus… they are Indians, but not Hindus…

and believing Jesus was a prophet doesn’t make them Christians
either… they are still Muslims, unless they believe Jesus is God,
then they aren’t Muslims anymore, they are Christians…