R
Radical
Guest
are you referring to those who deny the reality of what their senses detect?
- Status
S
simspt
Guest
N
Nicea325
Guest
Bravo! Great rivisionism of history Rad! Good thing I do not buy a word you say and neither does the early church history! By the way,care to show us a symbolic lamb at the Passover?
E
elvisman
Guest
Radical - this is a HUGE stretch, even for the most virulent anti-Catholic. I’m not implying that you are - I’m simply saying that even for those that are this is a stretch.
Ignatius was going to his death in Rome when he wrote these 7 letters. He neither had the time nor the motive to wax poetic. These letters are written as pleas to the faithful to remain just that - FAITHFUL to the beliefs and practices of the Church. He wasn’t sitting at a desk in an office somewhere. He was on the road to his martyrdom.**
Protestants must do some pretty complicated acrobatics to arrive at the denial of the Real Presence - not only with the Scriptures, but with the writings of the Fathers of the Historical Christian faith.
E
elvisman
Guest
Rad - if all you can depend on is your physical senses, I feel sorry for you because you are living in the FLESH instead of the Spirit…**
J
joe370
Guest
What was the heterodox opinion which Ignatius was addressing, regarding the Eucharist? When I asked a friend of mine (agnostic) - who simply did not care one way or the other, he said the context demands that they refused to confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of the Savior Jesus Christ. If that is the case then Ignatius must have confessed that the Eucharist was indeed the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.
If Ignatius was merely using dramatic language and hyberbole to illustrate his metaphorical explication regarding the Eucharist, to the Gnostics, then why, according to Ignatius, were the opinions of the Gnostics, considered heterodox? If you are right then they were both in agreement and therefore the Gnostic’s would not have been guilty of heresy, which begs the question: why did Ignatius write the following?
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because** they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,** flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
If Ignatius was merely using dramatic language and hyberbole to illustrate his metaphorical explication regarding the Eucharist, to the Gnostics, then why, according to Ignatius, were the opinions of the Gnostics, considered heterodox? If you are right then they were both in agreement and therefore the Gnostic’s would not have been guilty of heresy, which begs the question: why did Ignatius write the following?
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because** they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,** flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
R
Radical
Guest
you should note that, specifically, he said that they held heretical views WRT the grace of Jesus.
agreed…but was it the flesh symbolically or transubstantially or otherwise?
b/c they denied that Christ came in the flesh
not even close…
so, why did the heretics abstain from prayer?..why would one need to hold that the bread had been “substantially” changed into the very flesh of Christ in order to be motivated to pray? There are gaps in what Ignatius wrote…he doesn’t explain his full meaning and you (IMHO) fill in the gaps with your own preconceptions. At the start there is no need to explain that the bread is a symbol…any one with eyes to see and a mouth to taste and feel can tell, in an instant, that the bread remains bread…Before the time when pious imagination had managed to construct a mystical edifice, no one would have thought it necessary to explain something so patently obvious.
D
DavidY
Guest
Hi everybody, I’m new as of today, but I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic. I am one who would like to reconcile the RCC with the Protestant church, and perhaps this comes out in this next question:
Can someone tell me the distinction between our believing that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus in a sacramental, co-substantiated, or even unknown manner, and performed to proclaim His death until He comes as the Lord commands…
…and the literal presence of His body and blood as transubtantiated by a special priestly caste?
Is this a vital distinction? Is it soul-hinging stuff???
In my view, I think Jesus accepted His disciples lack of full understanding, although He did not explain things too much further in John 6 (beyond the cryptic "not flesh but spirit…the flesh profits nothing’ line), neither does He make a point to explain that He has just changed the bread and wine into His literal body and blood. He doesn’t do this at the last supper either, yet refers to the wine as the ‘fruit of the vine.’
Also, it is important to note that most of John 6 was spoken in the temple, and Jesus often spoke hard sayings in order for those who did not have ears to not hear.
So should those who believe otherwise really be excommunicate, when it is clear that Peter himself did not seem to fully understand? He simply responded as I tend to…“where shall I go, you have the words of eternal life!”
Though I admit that I do not think of the Lord’s Supper as a literal transubstantiation, as I think the Lord wanted us to trust our sensory perceptions, or else He would not have appeared to the disciples in the flesh and shown His wounds.
Some final questions, for those who have time:
In what other sacrament to we NOT trust our sensory perceptions, and equate the form with the matter?
We certainly do not think of the water of baptism as the Holy Spirit Himself, for instance.
But let’s say we disagree. I consider it to be representative of His body and blood, you consider it to be His literal body and blood.
Am I really not fulfilling something that Jesus commanded because I am not imagining the right thing???
P.S. Does not the RCC teach that the sacraments work ex opere operato, such that my thoughts (not disposition, of course) on the subject are unimportant, as long as the sacrament is performed?
Thanks for your time and consideration, sorry for all of the questions, they just kind of flew out!
Can someone tell me the distinction between our believing that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus in a sacramental, co-substantiated, or even unknown manner, and performed to proclaim His death until He comes as the Lord commands…
…and the literal presence of His body and blood as transubtantiated by a special priestly caste?
Is this a vital distinction? Is it soul-hinging stuff???
In my view, I think Jesus accepted His disciples lack of full understanding, although He did not explain things too much further in John 6 (beyond the cryptic "not flesh but spirit…the flesh profits nothing’ line), neither does He make a point to explain that He has just changed the bread and wine into His literal body and blood. He doesn’t do this at the last supper either, yet refers to the wine as the ‘fruit of the vine.’
Also, it is important to note that most of John 6 was spoken in the temple, and Jesus often spoke hard sayings in order for those who did not have ears to not hear.
So should those who believe otherwise really be excommunicate, when it is clear that Peter himself did not seem to fully understand? He simply responded as I tend to…“where shall I go, you have the words of eternal life!”
Though I admit that I do not think of the Lord’s Supper as a literal transubstantiation, as I think the Lord wanted us to trust our sensory perceptions, or else He would not have appeared to the disciples in the flesh and shown His wounds.
Some final questions, for those who have time:
In what other sacrament to we NOT trust our sensory perceptions, and equate the form with the matter?
We certainly do not think of the water of baptism as the Holy Spirit Himself, for instance.
But let’s say we disagree. I consider it to be representative of His body and blood, you consider it to be His literal body and blood.
Am I really not fulfilling something that Jesus commanded because I am not imagining the right thing???
P.S. Does not the RCC teach that the sacraments work ex opere operato, such that my thoughts (not disposition, of course) on the subject are unimportant, as long as the sacrament is performed?
Thanks for your time and consideration, sorry for all of the questions, they just kind of flew out!
R
Radical
Guest
yep, it is either that I am living too much in the flesh (and not enough in the spirit) or that you are the victim of self-delusion (and only think you are living in the spirit)…but at least we can agree on what can be sensed. In a way your view possesses a claim that is similar to a Gnostic claim:
one says, be spiritual and don’t trust what your senses tell you about the material world, it only appears that Christ came in the flesh. The other says, be spiritual and don’t trust what your senses tell you about the material world, it only appears to still be bread
D
DavidY
Guest
One more point to ponder…
I read a lot of the comparison between the eating of the Passover Lamb and the eating of the flesh of Jesus. We literally eat the lamb, thus we must literally eat Jesus’ flesh.
This seems to be not the best analogy.
What does the Paschal lamb represent? Passover, an event. We are not literally eating the death of Pharoah’s firstborn. Nor are we eating the same lamb that was sacrificed and which blood was smeared on the door posts. It’s a remembrance…
I would argue the same for the Lord’s Supper, and per the Lord’s command. However, the Lord gave us common things to eat in order to represent Him and proclaim His sacrifice.
I read a lot of the comparison between the eating of the Passover Lamb and the eating of the flesh of Jesus. We literally eat the lamb, thus we must literally eat Jesus’ flesh.
This seems to be not the best analogy.
What does the Paschal lamb represent? Passover, an event. We are not literally eating the death of Pharoah’s firstborn. Nor are we eating the same lamb that was sacrificed and which blood was smeared on the door posts. It’s a remembrance…
I would argue the same for the Lord’s Supper, and per the Lord’s command. However, the Lord gave us common things to eat in order to represent Him and proclaim His sacrifice.
E
elvisman
Guest
And this attitude is precisely whay Augustine wrote:
"What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272)."
We live in the flesh and in the spirit but we belong to Christ. He paid the price for us.
E
elvisman
Guest
When your Lord and Savior tells you that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood - you have NO life within you - yes, that is “soul-hinging stuff”.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Rad, I am truly trying to understand your position:
But he did, and he was a contemporary to John, so I believe and confess that the Eucharist** is the flesh of our Saviour** Jesus. It’s straightforward and logical and grammatically correct. It is either Jesus’ flesh or it isn’t; I see no need to add to scripture the word symbol; if I did that my protestant friends would have a field day. 
So, leading up to chapter 7, the focus is: they were not confessing that Jesus was [truly] possessed of a body. Then in chapter 7, 8 and 9, we see Ignatius changing the subject to prayer and the Eucharist and honor and reverence to the bishop… Letting nothing be done without the bishop etc:
*Ch.7 - 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.
*
We see a shift from those folks not confessing that Jesus was [truly] possessed of a body, to those same folks not confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Two different issues, three if we include the abstaining from prayer.
Why bring up the Eucharistic bread if the topic is still their denial that Jesus possessed a body??? Somehow by proving that the Eucharistic bread is a mere symbol, Ignatius will have better luck at proving that Jesus had an actual body???
Ch. 8 - See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,** there is the Catholic Church.
**
Because they were abstaining from both the Eucharist and from prayer, according to ch.7.
I have not filled in gaps; I am simply giving you a direct quote from Ignatius regarding the Eucharist. Unlike you, I renounced all of my former non-Catholic preconceptions and deferred exclusively to the ECF’s which led me to the CC. I think that is so important to do, otherwise we bring to the table the teachings of the church to which we belong. I came to my conclusions based on nothing but my understanding of the ECF’s, in this case, regarding the Eucharist; I was not influenced by my former non-Catholic church or the CC at the time, so I don’t know what you are talking about regarding my supposed preconceptions or gap filling.
You are now creating your own gaps for this letter and the NT is silent regarding the bread being a mere symbol. There is no reason for me to believe, without proof, that the Eucharistic bread is a mere symbol. That would be like me asking you to assume, without proof, that Ignatius said the following, even if he didn’t: “confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” I wouldn’t expect you to do that so why expect me to do that?
But he did, and he was a contemporary to John, so I believe and confess that the Eucharist** is the flesh of our Saviour** Jesus. It’s straightforward and logical and grammatically correct. It is either Jesus’ flesh or it isn’t; I see no need to add to scripture the word symbol; if I did that my protestant friends would have a field day. This seems to be a shot the Catholic church leadership. To each their own, I guess. You seem to be saying that the CC and the EOC (the only 2 churches that existed until the 16th century reformation) - from the 1st century until the reformation, botched a teaching that is so patently obvious to protestants now, at best, 1500 years removed from Pentecost? Rad, that’s 1500 years, Christianity had to wait, until a few of the men that spearheaded the protestant reformation finally came along and set Jesus’ church back on track regarding the symbolical interpretation of the Eucharist, which was supposedly taught by the apostles and passed on to their successors, such as Ignatius. Is that what you are suggesting?
So, leading up to chapter 7, the focus is: they were not confessing that Jesus was [truly] possessed of a body. Then in chapter 7, 8 and 9, we see Ignatius changing the subject to prayer and the Eucharist and honor and reverence to the bishop… Letting nothing be done without the bishop etc:
*Ch.7 - 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.
*
We see a shift from those folks not confessing that Jesus was [truly] possessed of a body, to those same folks not confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Two different issues, three if we include the abstaining from prayer.
Why bring up the Eucharistic bread if the topic is still their denial that Jesus possessed a body??? Somehow by proving that the Eucharistic bread is a mere symbol, Ignatius will have better luck at proving that Jesus had an actual body???
Ch. 8 - See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,** there is the Catholic Church.
**
J
joe370
Guest
Elvis, I found so many ECF quotes like that, as a former non-Catholic, and only a couple by Clement, to support the notion that the Eucharist was a sign, but Clement must have meant something else by using that word because he believed the Eucharist to be a genuine sacrifice; I was utterly stunned!!! My faith as a non-Catholic, and what I was taught by men almost 2000 years removed from the time of the ECF’s, was shattered.
S
steveb1
Guest
But that doesn’t address the scriptural teaching that Jesus is specially present in the Eucharist.
The assumption is that Jesus is already present in the congregation, through faith, through the indwelling of his Spirit. That’s a given. But Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist refers to an external medium of his presence in addition to his internal “in-soul” presence. If the elements do not really convey his real presence in some way, then the final part of John Chapter Six makes no sense. Those who turn away from Jesus’ Bread from Heaven discourse turn away because they object to his insistence that his flesh is real food. Their objection is not primarily against his nature as spiritual food, i.e., that he and his word are living manna from heaven. It is the “elemental” part to which they object, and which Jesus insists upon is part of his authentic Bread from Heaven teaching.
E
elvisman
Guest
Yup - the evidence is overwhelming to those who love the truth.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt . . .**
D
DavidY
Guest
I respect your position, it is one of respect for our Lord and His will. The problem is that there is no difference between eating His ‘flesh’ in a Methodist Church or in a Catholic one, other than the belief of the person eating it or consecrating it.
You may say that ‘we eat His actual body and blood’ but it seems an awful lot like His symbolic body and blood. If one cannot show an actual difference other than the belief of the practitioners, then they are logically the same, I think. You can’t argue for the belief from the belief.
Secondly, Protestants believe that this sacrament ‘represents’ Jesus’ body and blood. Catholic believe that it IS His body and blood under the ‘accidents’ of bread and wine. To have a particular ‘accidents’ is to appear a certain way.
Is this so different an interpretation?
But it is certainly a ‘hard saying,’ no matter which side you come down upon it.
J
joe370
Guest
Dave, if an actual animal was the old covenant passover lamb which was to be eaten as part of the commemoration of the story of the exodus, in which the ancient Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Jesus is the new covenant passover Lamb, as per the NT, which is also to be eaten as part of the commemoration of the story of the exodus, in which both Jew and Gentile were/are freed from the slavery of sin? That certainly seems to make sense of what Jesus said, when He said: my flesh is real food, my blood is real drink, maybe? Real is the opposite of symbol.
Remember what Paul said:
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
Jesus is clearly fulfilling and completing the old covenant system because He institutes His new covenant system during the old covenant passover, and we know He is the new covenant passover lamb, as per scripture, and we see Jesus, while instituting His new passover system, saying to His apostles: "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
What did they do with bread that Jesus, the new passover Lamb* (“This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.”* - called His body and blood ? They ate it. They ate the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Remember what Paul said:
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
Jesus is clearly fulfilling and completing the old covenant system because He institutes His new covenant system during the old covenant passover, and we know He is the new covenant passover lamb, as per scripture, and we see Jesus, while instituting His new passover system, saying to His apostles: "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
What did they do with bread that Jesus, the new passover Lamb* (“This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.”* - called His body and blood ? They ate it. They ate the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
E
elvisman
Guest
**When Jesus’ followers were mumbling among themselves, he asked them a question in John 6:61 - *“Does this shock *you”, he asked. when they finally walked away from him a few verses later in John 6:66, what did he do? Did he explain to them that he was speaking symbolically or metaphorically and that it had some other meaning? **I respect your position, it is one of respect for our Lord and His will. The problem is that there is no difference between eating His ‘flesh’ in a Methodist Church or in a Catholic one, other than the belief of the person eating it or consecrating it.
You may say that ‘we eat His actual body and blood’ but it seems an awful lot like His symbolic body and blood. If one cannot show an actual difference other than the belief of the practitioners, then they are logically the same, I think. You can’t argue for the belief from the belief.
But it is certainly a ‘hard saying,’ no matter which side you come down upon it.
**NO. **
He turned to the Apostles and asked them, "Do you also want to leave?"
Jesus meant what he said and his followers simply could not handle it.
Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus tells his Apostles, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood." He never says, “This represents my body” or “This symbolizes my blood.” He even goes so far as to tell them that is is the cup of his blood - the blood of the New Covenant which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. . There is NO mention of the “New Covenant” in the Bible from the Book of Jeremiah to this point.
In 1 Cor. 11:27, Paul is telling the Corinthians about the reality of the Real Presence and warns of abuses against it when he tells them, Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer fort he body and blood of the Lord.
In verse 29, he says "For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."
These are radically harsh words - if this were only a symbol. The Bible is crystal CLEAR that the Real Presence is a REALITY.
G
GKC
Guest
Greetings, here, David.Hi everybody, I’m new as of today, but I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic. I am one who would like to reconcile the RCC with the Protestant church, and perhaps this comes out in this next question:
Can someone tell me the distinction between our believing that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus in a sacramental, co-substantiated, or even unknown manner, and performed to proclaim His death until He comes as the Lord commands…
…and the literal presence of His body and blood as transubtantiated by a special priestly caste?
Is this a vital distinction? Is it soul-hinging stuff???
In my view, I think Jesus accepted His disciples lack of full understanding, although He did not explain things too much further in John 6 (beyond the cryptic "not flesh but spirit…the flesh profits nothing’ line), neither does He make a point to explain that He has just changed the bread and wine into His literal body and blood. He doesn’t do this at the last supper either, yet refers to the wine as the ‘fruit of the vine.’
Also, it is important to note that most of John 6 was spoken in the temple, and Jesus often spoke hard sayings in order for those who did not have ears to not hear.
So should those who believe otherwise really be excommunicate, when it is clear that Peter himself did not seem to fully understand? He simply responded as I tend to…“where shall I go, you have the words of eternal life!”
Though I admit that I do not think of the Lord’s Supper as a literal transubstantiation, as I think the Lord wanted us to trust our sensory perceptions, or else He would not have appeared to the disciples in the flesh and shown His wounds.
Some final questions, for those who have time:
In what other sacrament to we NOT trust our sensory perceptions, and equate the form with the matter?
We certainly do not think of the water of baptism as the Holy Spirit Himself, for instance.
But let’s say we disagree. I consider it to be representative of His body and blood, you consider it to be His literal body and blood.
Am I really not fulfilling something that Jesus commanded because I am not imagining the right thing???
P.S. Does not the RCC teach that the sacraments work ex opere operato, such that my thoughts (not disposition, of course) on the subject are unimportant, as long as the sacrament is performed?
Thanks for your time and consideration, sorry for all of the questions, they just kind of flew out!
GKC
- Status