The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajk19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But you arent and for obvious reason. The church was the interpreter of scripture for more than 1700 years!

Look JA, please please pray about this. You are letting your anger against an organisation of man cloud the truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ…

Please pray about this, Christianity is so much more than the bible…
 
Rolltide said:
I’ve addressed some of your questions in an earlier response that I wrote back in posts 179-187 (particularly your question #2, the context). Please note that the vast, vast majority of Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence, and they did so all the way back to the Apostolic era.
Click to expand...
Would you not agree then that the church has not always believed the samething on this through the centuries? They all did not believe in the Real Presence as taught by Rome today.
 
revelations said:
But you arent and for obvious reason.

Look JA, please please pray about this. You are letting your anger against an organisation of man cloud the truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ…

Please pray about this, Christianity is so much more than the bible…
Click to expand...
🤷 :confused:
 
What i mean is pray about it. Go to church and pray, and ask Jesus to show you.

JA please, just ask him. Don’t be afraid of what he says, that you might end up a catholic! That was my fear for the longest time but then i just gave it all up and let Jesus point the way.

Please, just go with an open mind and ask him yourself.
 
justasking4 said:
I’m not that well versed in the fathers as a whole. Perhaps you are. Have you read the entire works of the fathers or just quotes?

Secondly what are the contexts for these quotes? What are the particular issues these fathers are addressing?

Thirdly, do the fathers speak for the entire church of time?
If so who appointed them?
Click to expand...
The Fathers do not trump the Magisterium. They are individuals, and they speak as individuals. They are personally authoritative but not definitive. Their value in a case like this is to demonstrate the overwhelming consensus on the subject, going back as far as the Church herself.
Are there not fathers who did not believe as Rome teaches on various doctrines including this Pope Gelasius?
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.
Click to expand...
As you suggest above, context might be important here, since the discussion is against two important players in the controversies over the hypostatic union. Moreover, at this period of history, the terminology used to describe the mystical transformation (substance, nature) had not yet been refined and locked up as it would be when Transubstatiation was definitively promulgated at the Council of Florence in 1215 A.D.
 
justasking4 said:
Not sure what you are referring to here. Can you clarify?
Click to expand...
Goto a church, sneak in the back no one will bother you, and find the blessed sacrament, and with your whole heart pray to God. Ask him to show you the truth. Do this for 1 week.

Then come back. I will pray for you as well 😃
 
mercygate;3105262]
Click to expand...
Quote:justasking4
To do what you say here a person would have to assume the catholic church has always interpreted correctly the scriptures.
mercygate
In this case, the ONLY teaching and interpretation we are discussing is the Real Presence in the Eucharist. With an unbroken line of sacred Tradition on this – a teaching fully upheld in the East, echoed to some extent among many Protestant bodies today, a teaching unchallenged until the middle ages, the real burden lies with those who claim that “scripture does not teach this.” Such an idea is a complete novelty in Christian belief, and unsupported except by fringe heretics until the Reformation.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true i.e. “With an unbroken line of sacred Tradition on this” (Real Presence) then what am to make of this from a pope:
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

This goes against what you are claiming here and against what the church teaches today.
 
revelations said:
Goto a church, sneak in the back no one will bother you, and find the blessed sacrament, and with your whole heart pray to God. Ask him to show you the truth. Do this for 1 week.

Then come back. I will pray for you as well 😃
Click to expand...
Mormons tell me the same kind of thing in regards to the truth of mormonism. They tell me that the “burning in the bosom” will tell me that mormonism is true. In fact many mormons claim this was the way they became mormons.
If this doctrine is true, then the scriptures will back it up. If not, it is to be rejected.
 
mercygate said:
The Fathers do not trump the Magisterium. They are individuals, and they speak as individuals. They are personally authoritative but not definitive. Their value in a case like this is to demonstrate the overwhelming consensus on the subject, going back as far as the Church herself.

As you suggest above, context might be important here, since the discussion is against two important players in the controversies over the hypostatic union. Moreover, at this period of history, the terminology used to describe the mystical transformation (substance, nature) had not yet been refined and locked up as it would be when Transubstatiation was definitively promulgated at the Council of Florence in 1215 A.D.
Click to expand...
i want to commend you for insights. We may not agree on a number of issues but you are one of the few that has helped me learn. Its refreshing and challenging.
 
justasking4 said:
Again go back to the supper accounts and see if there is any promise of eternal life. A quick read will answer this question in the negative.

Trying to combine John 6 with the supper accounts won’t work since in context it has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. Jesus is teaching something far different in John 6 than the eucharist.
Click to expand...
No. He’s pretty much saying the same thing in both.
I’m sorry you can’t see that.:yup:
 
edward_george said:
This sounds like you hold it as a foregone conclusion that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that you use that assumption as your measuring stick for gauging the veracity of doctrines.

-ACEGC
Click to expand...
I use the inspired-inerrant Scriptures as my measuring stick. All who consider themselves Christians should do so as not to be decieved. I’m not just claiming the church is wrong about this but demonstrating it by showing that the Scriptures don’t fully support the church.
 
justasking4 said:
Mormons tell me the same kind of thing in regards to the truth of mormonism. They tell me that the “burning in the bosom” will tell me that mormonism is true. In fact many mormons claim this was the way they became mormons.
If this doctrine is true, then the scriptures will back it up. If not, it is to be rejected.
Click to expand...
Are you scared you might find out how wrong you are. Perish the thought. :hmmm:
 
justasking4 said:
I use the inspired-inerrant Scriptures as my measuring stick. All who consider themselves Christians should do so as not to be decieved. I’m not just claiming the church is wrong about this but demonstrating it by showing that the Scriptures don’t fully support the church.
Click to expand...
No, you use your interpretation of the inspired-inerrant Scriptures as a measuring stick. Don’t be decieved by the difference.
 
pete_29 said:
No, you use your interpretation of the inspired-inerrant Scriptures as a measuring stick. Don’t be decieved by the difference.
Click to expand...
Huh? What do you do when you read the Scriptures and you want to know what a particular verse means? To whom do you go to since your church has interpreted so few?
 
pete 29;3106284]
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If i’m wrong then show me from Scripture. Can you do that?
pete 29
I’d say there is plenty of proof among the post of this thread
Click to expand...
That may be. Why don’t you yourself show me the errors of my thinking. Maybe you can help me see what others have failed to demonstrate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top