The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[jlhargus]

1. My oldest and dearest friend is a good Catholic fellow who complains that twice a year (at Christmas and Easter) he has a hard time finding a seat at his church because the twice-a-year-Catholics (2YCs) show up and fill up the place. It seems to me that if the real bodily presence of the Lord (RBP) caused people who participated unworthily to get sick (as you seem to claim), and if the Catholic Eucharist actually involves a RBP (as you claim), then the emergency rooms should see a serious spike in attendees at Christmas and Easter (exactly b/c of those 2YCs…yes, some would get their acts together, but a good percentage would be unworthily participating). It would be very easy to empirically test this hypothesis and I can only wonder (with all the studies that have been done trying to improve our health care system) why such a pronounced spike hasn’t been spotted. I kinda suspect that it is b/c such a spike doesn’t exist (b/c a RBP also doesn’t exist). As a result, people are falling over at the Catholic Church to the same extent as they do at the waffle house.

JL: Conversly the same would be true, with the twice a year Protestants who receive unworthily, even if commuion was only symbolic.

 

[jam070406]

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

St. Clement of Alexandria -“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.

 

[Mickey]

if you want to see what else I have had to say, then search my posts for “real bodily presence”…

I have seen what you have to say. It is weak and unconvincing.

what obsession? I mentioned it once (with an abbreviated title) and the fellow couldn’t figure out what I was referring to .

Huh? You continue to bring it up with your odd analogies.

again, I am less interested in your opinion that I am in the opinions of scholars…

Ah…yes…the scholars. Who might they be?

There are no better scholars on the subject than the Holy Fathers of the Church.

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

In 2011 I have bought and read Exploring the Origins of the Bible (Evans and Tov) and The Canon Debate (McDonald and Sanders)…do you have anything else that you would recommend?

The Holy Fathers of the Church.

It was not an eruption, it was a gradual development…like the Canon, it didn’t burst on the scene in one fell swoop. Instead, it gradually came together.

You are sadly mistaken. It is the “symbolic only” heresy that started gradually and then took root after the reformation.

 

[Mickey]

this is all dealt with here at posts 42-45

Weak.

 

[Newsy]

Seriously? I have seen you use this logic before on these forums, it is a very weak argument. You seem hung up on the idea that lack of physical illness proves anything. Looking at our society as a whole, I see plenty of sick people, but that’s another topic.

The writer of Hebrews is referring to the blood covenant. Christ was the only one who could fulfill the blood covenant, the Mosaic Covenant is the blood covenant. The writer is saying that if we keep on sinning, we are rejecting the fulfillment of the old covenant. They would be rejecting the new covenant in Jesus blood, and rejecting this idea of grace in favor of the old ways. The introduction in my Ignatius Study Bible explains the purpose of the letter as being written to Jewish converts , who through persecution, were tempted to return to Judaism and Temple worship. This passage in Hebrews has nothing to do with the RP in the Eucharist.

You said “you are right, but what percentage of Catholics believe in a real bodily presence? Do the math and you’ll find that majority.” Please give your sources.

 

[Radical]

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
St Augustine

yep, this is from sermon 272…I have dealt with it many times here (and the scholars I referenced have read it too.). search it if you are so inclined.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by Radical
so, understanding “I am the true vine” in a figurative manner would be a “dismissal of Christ’s words”?

JL: How many thought Christ was speaking literally when he said I am the true vine, door, etc.? How may said these are hard sayings and followed him no more?

 

[jam070406]

“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”

St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D

 

[jam070406]

“Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D

 

[jlhargus]

1. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 is more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

JL: [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.] There is only a difference if you don’t read it all.

 

[Radical]

How many thought Christ was speaking literally when he said I am the true vine, door, etc.?

exactly the same number as thought he was speaking literally with “I am the bread of life” and “this bread is my flesh”…zip, zilch…IMHO it took Greek philosophy (Platonism), with its subordination of the world known to the senses to be mixed with Christian doctrine to come up with a non-figurative understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Radical]

JL: [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.] There is only a difference if you don’t read it all.

or, if you read it all (including verse 32) you’ll see the difference.

 

[Mickey]

yep, this is from sermon 272…I have dealt with it many times here (and the scholars I referenced have read it too.). search it if you are so inclined.

Yep…and it shows that St Augustine did not have the modern day symbolic-only innovative theology of the modern day reformed baptist .

 

[Mickey]

IMHO it took Greek philosophy (Platonism), with its subordination of the world known to the senses to be mixed with Christian doctrine to come up with a non-figurative understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

1. That is not a humble opinion.
2. Now you are using Platonism as an apologetic to argue against the Real Presence?

 

[pablope]

hmmm**…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence and that a substantial portion of that majority holds to a symbolic view,** you may wish to consider the possibility that the problem lies with your ability to comprehend and not with the reasoning capacity of the millions and millions that do see sense in that position.

Hmmm…quite the opposite…count among the Catholics and Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Episcopalians/Anglicans…will count as a supermajority…and the protestants reduced a super minority. So I think you should be the one to reconsider.

 

[rtu25]

It is you who do not get the point.

The connection to today’s Liturgical Apostolic Church is completely obvious when reading St Ignatius’ Letters. And the Holy Fathers that follow him continue this stream of succession and teaching which holds true to this very day. But it is understandable that you must skew his teachings and the witness of the Holy Fathers in an effort to justify your reformed “doctrine.”

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
St Ignatius of Antioch

If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
Jn 6:52

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth **my flesh,**and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Jn 6:54-55

 

[Radical]

Hmmm…quite the opposite…count among the Catholics and Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Episcopalians/Anglicans…will count as a supermajority.

yep…but you need to count only those Catholics and Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Episcopalians/Anglicans who actually believe in a real bodily presence…and then tell me what happens to your supermajority.

 

[Mickey]

yep…but you need to count only those Catholics and Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Episcopalians/Anglicans who actually believe in a real bodily presence…

Now you are saying that you read the hearts of about 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox worldwide.

Please attempt to cease maikng a fool of yourself.

 

[pablope]

yep…but you need to count only those Catholics and Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Episcopalians/Anglicans who actually believe in a real bodily presence…and then tell me what happens to your supermajority.

Ooopps…actually forgot the Methodists…so it makes it much more a super duper majority.

 

[Newsy]

Ooopps…actually forgot the Methodists…so it makes it much more a super duper majority.

Not that it’s open for a vote.