The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[Radical]

And that alone proves Augustine denied the real presence? Pure conjecture!

It was a simple question Nicea325…it read:

Why is it then that:

a) in Sermon 272, when Augustine asks “how can the bread be his body”, Augustine makes no mention of anything that approaches a real somatic presence? (please keep in mind that this is a sermon in which he is instructing a congregation)

b) in OCD when he is telling how we (his audience, himself and us today) should understand Christ’s command to eat his flesh, Augustine makes no mention anything that approaches a real somatic presence? He merely stated that we are to dismiss the cannibalistic interpretation and opt for the figurative interpretation. Why didn’t he mention that third option, the real somatic presence interpretation? Would you not indicate the Eucharist (and its real somatic presence) as the way in which his flesh is eaten if you were to explain how that command is to be obeyed?

c) in his works on John and in his sermons on the Eucharist, Augustine never described a change in the nature of the elements from bread/wine to flesh/blood as Ambrose had earlier done?

Why was Augustine silent WRT his alleged belief in a real bodily presence when he came upon a critical and ideal opportunity to assert it? Your post is rather non-responsive…should I list you in the “I don’t have the slightest clue” column?

 

[elvisman]

and I guess that you have forgotten that love amongst the brothers and sisters in Christ is still around today…but in its case, pious imagination hasn’t made it into something more than a spiritual thing

nope…it is exactly the same quality of evidence that you want to rely upon:

accusation of cannibalism => evidence for eating “real flesh”

accusation of incest => (by your reasoning) evidence for “real” sexual activity between Christian brothers and sisters.

…but carry on with relying upon ridiculous accusations to support your claim…we can add that to “denial of senses” as an act of the desparate

Roman pagans accused the Early Christians of cannibalism because they didn’t understand the SACRAMENTAL nature of the eating of Christ’s flesh. They accused these “brothers and sisters in Christ” of incest because they greeted each other with a holy kiss, as Paul told them to (1 Cor. 16:20).

**It is astonishing to me that a 21st century person who claims to be a Christian would make the same igorant blunders and the pagans of the 1st century. **

So much for enlightenment . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Roman pagans accused the Early Christians of cannibalism because they didn’t understand the SACRAMENTAL nature of the eating of Christ’s flesh. They accused these “brothers and sisters in Christ” of incest because they greeted each other with a holy kiss, as Paul told them to (1 Cor. 16:20).

It is astonishing to me that a 21st century person who claims to be a Christian would make the same igorant blunders and the pagans of the 1st century.

So much for enlightenment . . .

Because it is clear some 21st century folks never have studied the customs and beliefs of ancient people.

 

[Nicea325]

It was a simple question Nicea325…it read:

Why is it then that:

a) in Sermon 272, when Augustine asks “how can the bread be his body”, Augustine makes no mention of anything that approaches a real somatic presence? (please keep in mind that this is a sermon in which he is instructing a congregation)

b) in OCD when he is telling how we (his audience, himself and us today) should understand Christ’s command to eat his flesh, Augustine makes no mention anything that approaches a real somatic presence? He merely stated that we are to dismiss the cannibalistic interpretation and opt for the figurative interpretation. Why didn’t he mention that third option, the real somatic presence interpretation? Would you not indicate the Eucharist (and its real somatic presence) as the way in which his flesh is eaten if you were to explain how that command is to be obeyed?

c) in his works on John and in his sermons on the Eucharist, Augustine never described a change in the nature of the elements from bread/wine to flesh/blood as Ambrose had earlier done?

Why was Augustine silent WRT his alleged belief in a real bodily presence when he came upon a critical and ideal opportunity to assert it? Your post is rather non-responsive…should I list you in the “I don’t have the slightest clue” column?

LOL! Again,because he fails to mention it debunks the RP? Wow! Your entire argument and belief is absurd. Augustine was a Protestant? Which Protestant church did he belong to?

It is you who the slighest idea what you are babbling about. And your argument should read:

I am revising history to say WHAT I WANT IT TO SAY! Typical Protestant! Going to great extremes to make the ECF’s appear Protestant. Save it Radical. Your position is absurd and a fairy-tale. Your argument is weak. Care to show me where ONE Apostle explains the three distinct persons of the Trinity? Does it render the doctrine of the Trinity false?

Now should I add you to:

“I don’t have the slightest clue” column? OUCH!

 

[Curious_Seed]

**By your resistance, smugness, it is glaringly **apparent that the truth of the Real Presence has not been revealed to you from above. Until you can turn from your spiritual pride – it may never be revealed to you . . .

Your expletives toward me do not contribute to the discussion; however, they do contribute to revealing your “real presence.”

 

[Nicea325]

right, and that accusation of incest was evidence of the very same quality that the Early Christians truly enjoyed incestuous orgies - a “fact” that the pagans found extremely difficult to grasp

This is the best you can muster?

 

[Radical]

Radical, would it be a safe bet, (regarding the real presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood in the Eucharist, as taught by the Catholic Church) - to say that no one here at CAF is ever going to change your mind?

I think that is fair expectation…and I surely don’t expect that any one here will ever change their minds from a real bodily presence to my view…the most I think that we could possibly hope for is:

a) that each camp gains a better understanding of the reasoning of the opposing camp. (each side holds hundreds of millions of Christians and (IMHO) it is the height of ill-informed arrogance to assert that the opposing camp can’t possibly support its view in a sound fashion from scripture and in a sound fashion from history…it is kinda like claiming that all those 100’s of millions of Christians on the other side must all be bona fide idiots); and

b) that the truly bad arguments be recognized and then discarded

 

[DavidY]

It is not false at all,it is rather correct and logical. In fact you proved my point because you said: A lamb died and we ate it… So you admitted the Jews in fact ate an actual tangible lamb NOT a symbol. And yes Jesus died and we must eat Him as He said:

(Jonh 6,NIV) 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you** eat the flesh **of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever **eats my flesh **and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Pretty clear and obvious we must eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood.

Hmm…maybe we should review our SAT/GRE analogies.

Lamb is to Passover (event), as body and blood are to…body and blood. (cough, cough)…

The lamb IS a symbol, a commemoration of the event. It is not the event itself. The RCC says that the Eucharist is the event itself. False analogy, if you’re going to use Passover anyway.

Secondly, as I said before, a priest according to Melchizedek (repeated ad nauseum in Hebrews) PREDATES the passover, and needs to offer no animal sacrifice or bloody sacrifice.

Exactly! A sacrificial meal just like the Mass. The perfect sacrifice: The Lamb of God (Jesus)

Almost. Except you’re saying it’s the same sacrifice, not a commemoration.

Whoever eats my flesh and **drinks my blood **has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56

If it IS real food and drink then it IS not flesh and blood. Easy.

He doesn’t say that my flesh appears to be food. Or has the ‘accidents’ of food. Of course, He wouldn’t say that, but you get my point.

Also, flesh and blood are not the entire body, yet this passage is somehow equated with the Lord’s Supper in Matthew and Luke. Jesus does not, at the Last Supper say, “This is my flesh.”

Wrong! Apparently you are not familiar with OT types.

You’re saying that the Passover is a type. That is what we are debating. Oi vey.

Come again?

The Council of Chalcedon defined the two natures of Christ as completely God, completely man, united in one, and the two natures without division or CONFUSION.

How does an omnipresent body not confuse the two natures?

And the ‘confines’ remark was a bad attempt at humor, as in ‘confines under the species of bread.’

Well you cannot because there is none. Nope! You are wrong on both, papal infallibility and the RP.

How about Origen?

Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew XI: 14, states: "The food which is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, as respects its material part, goes into the stomach; but as regards prayer which is added to it, according to the proportion of faith, profits. It enlightens the mind which beholds that which is profitable. Nor is it the matter of the bread but the words spoken over it which profit men who do not eat unworthily. And these things** I speak of the typical and symbolical body **No worthless person is able to eat it. For if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him Who became flesh, Who was the Word and the living bread - it would not have been written that `*every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever’ *[John 6:51 ].

And we can tell what Clement believed by reading what he wrote. We can’t say that Clement believed one thing, yet wrote about it in another way. Unless we are simply not worried about the science of history…

The whole point here is not to make anyone go crazy over whether Jesus is physically present or not. He is spirtually present anyway! One can still enjoy the sacrament of the Eucharist, I just think the RCC should redefine it’s position, perhaps ‘cosubstantiation’ as advocated by Luther, or a spiritual presence.

 

[DavidY]

And where do you get the idea Paul was challenging Peter’s authroity? Where in the above passage is authority the matter in question?

Peter was teaching one thing and Paul called him on it. Authority is all over the place.

 

[Nicea325]

Peter was teaching one thing and Paul called him on it. Authority is all over the place.

If my boss makes an error and I correct him/her,I am challenging his/her authority? That is going out on a limb my friend.

 

[DavidY]

Jesus singled out Peter in this passage because THAT was who he picked to be the leader way back in Matt. 16.

Ah yes, in that totally unambiguous set of verses.

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for **this **was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18And I tell you that you are Peter,c and on **this **rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesd will not overcome it.e
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bef bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven.”

What is ‘this?’ Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah. His faith.

Doesn’t that fit the greater gospel message? That Jesus’ church was built on confession of faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus gives the same powers to all of the disciples in Matthew 18. The church itself.

Jesus built the Church upon Human beings. Peter was a human being. Whether or not a human Pope makes a mistake has **nothing **to do with infallibility.

Right, I understand unless they are speaking ‘ex cathedra.’ On matters of faith and morals. With the entire council behind them.

An incredibly ad hoc position, and susceptible to many ‘true scotsman’ fallacies.

For instance, the Peter example was certainly an issue of faith and morals. But because he didn’t teach it as a matter for the universal church (which wasn’t possible at that point anyway) he is given a pass. That’s okay, let’s leave the infalliblity thing for another thread.

I just slightly distrust it because it was started ~100 years ago by a man who, in response to a dissenting council member asking him, “What about tradition” he responds, " I am the church. I AM tradition." So there’s that…

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2118
elvisman;7660202:

When Jesus guaranteed the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth – he

didn’t** mean in everything and in all** cases. It is in matters of faith and morals. Otherwise, every bookie and odds-maker in the world would simply go to the Pope for betting** information . . .
**

Haha. True.
**These are communities of the **ONE Church established by Christ. They are the same Church in various LOCATIONS. It is the same today. A Parish in Los Angeles and one in New York are part of the SAME Catholic Church. THIS is what is spoken of in Revelation – NOT different Churches.

Well, now we are equivocating on ‘church’ again. The word is the same in the NT.

And the Lord Jesus, in Revelations, seems to suspiciously avoid simply saying what any RC would say today. 'Just follow Rome!"

Do me a favor. Define ‘church.’

elvisman:
NOBODY** is saying that works save – by themselves. James 2:24** CLEARLY states:
See how a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone. This renders the false Protestant pillar of Sola Scriptura null and void.

You mean ‘Sola Fide,’ I assume.

The thing is, you continue to ‘proof text’ to back your pre-existing beliefs. By this rationale I could argue that ‘Judas hung himself,’ so ‘Go and do likewise.’

The whole purpose of that chapter is to tell the church how to identify authentic FAITH. This fits the Protestant formula.

And it is line with ultimate statements like Paul’s to the Romans “NOT of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:9

 

[elvisman]

Your expletives toward me do not contribute to the discussion; however, they do contribute to revealing your “real presence.”

Nice dance.
I do find it amusing that you have trouble answering my posts when I prove you wrong, but you really should be honest about it. If you can’t address the posts or the questions I pose, just say so . . .**

 

[Nicea325]

Hmm…maybe we should review our SAT/GRE analogies.

Lamb is to Passover (event), as body and blood are to…body and blood. (cough, cough)…

The lamb IS a symbol, a commemoration of the event. It is not the event itself. The RCC says that the Eucharist is the event itself. False analogy, if you’re going to use Passover anyway.

False analogy? Just as in the Old Passover, Israelites were commanded to eat of the sacrificial lamb, so we are commanded by Jesus to consume the flesh of the New Passover lamb of the New Covenant in the New Exodus!

Secondly, as I said before, a priest according to Melchizedek (repeated ad nauseum in Hebrews) PREDATES the passover, and needs to offer no animal sacrifice or bloody sacrifice.

Okay…and? How does that negate the Passover?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Exactly! A sacrificial meal just like the Mass. The perfect sacrifice: The Lamb of God (Jesus)

Almost. Except you’re saying it’s the same sacrifice, not a commemoration.

Nope! We look closely at the Gospel accounts of the Passover and discover that Jesus the Passover meal unfinished with his apostles to go out to the Mount of Olives, for he had not yet partaken of the final cup, the 4th cup of wine, which is the cup of consummation. It isn’t until the moment before Jesus gives up his spirit from upon the cross that Jesus partakes of wine. John tells us that Jesus said, “I thirst” from upon the Cross and partook of wine given to him from upon a reed; then, Jesus said, “It is finished,” indicating that the Passover meal concluded with his death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56

If it IS real food and drink then it IS not flesh and blood. Easy.

According to you,not Jesus! I’ll take Jesus’ words over yours anyday.

He doesn’t say that my flesh appears to be food. Or has the ‘accidents’ of food. Of course, He wouldn’t say that, but you get my point.

And He also does not say: This bread IS ONLY a symbol of my flesh-does he? Or this bead ONLY REPRESENTS my body-does? But you get my point?

Also, flesh and blood are not the entire body, yet this passage is somehow equated with the Lord’s Supper in Matthew and Luke. Jesus does not, at the Last Supper say, “This is my flesh.”

And show me where God says: I am going to “INCARNATE” into man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wrong! Apparently you are not familiar with OT types.

You’re saying that the Passover is a type. That is what we are debating. Oi vey.

Is it not a foreshadowing of better things to come?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Come again?

The Council of Chalcedon defined the two natures of Christ as completely God, completely man, united in one, and the two natures without division or CONFUSION.

How does an omnipresent body not confuse the two natures?

Yes that is what the Council of Chalcedon declared-and? How does Christ two natures confuse His omnipresence?

And the ‘confines’ remark was a bad attempt at humor, as in ‘confines under the species of bread.’

So in other words,Christ cannot be present at the Holy Eucharist? Is that what you are stating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Well you cannot because there is none. Nope! You are wrong on both, papal infallibility and the RP.

How about Origen?

What about him?

Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew XI: 14, states: "The food which is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, as respects its material part, goes into the stomach; but as regards prayer which is added to it, according to the proportion of faith, profits. It enlightens the mind which beholds that which is profitable. Nor is it the matter of the bread but the words spoken over it which profit men who do not eat unworthily. And these things I speak of the typical and symbolical body No worthless person is able to eat it. For if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him Who became flesh, Who was the Word and the living bread - it would not have been written that `every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever’ [John 6:51 ].

Hmmmm? So Origen was confused?

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence.

“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the **consecrated **gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Harsh words for merely A SYMBOL?

And we can tell what Clement believed by reading what he wrote. We can’t say that Clement believed one thing, yet wrote about it in another way. Unless we are simply not worried about the science of history…

Exactly! So that is what you are implying about Origen?

The whole point here is not to make anyone go crazy over whether Jesus is physically present or not. He is spirtually present anyway! One can still enjoy the sacrament of the Eucharist, I just think the RCC should redefine it’s position, perhaps ‘cosubstantiation’ as advocated by Luther, or a spiritual presence.

Trust me,I do not go crazy because I accept Jesus’ words at face value. I do not add my carnal beliefs into the equation. Nothing is impossible for God…nothing.

 

[DavidY]

David,

The second point that you mentioned was that is was difficult for you to think about eating the real body of Christ because it was distasteful, being corrupted by bodily fluids.
That is a good observation because other Catholics have expressed that same idea before they understood how it is not unbeautiful but actually very beautiful.

Our Heavenly Father made all things good. And when he made man He said that man was made to his image and likeness. This I would assume means the totallity of man, both spiritual and materially,and all parts thereof. All of these indivdual parts are made a certain way for the good of the whole. And all of the functions of these parts would also be good. So the function of the stomach is good in the eye of God ,in fact I would say it was beautiful because it in some way reflects the Maker who is all Good. So tho we may see things differently, isn’t it better to see all things as He sees them? This holds not only for this situation, but all situations where, humanly speaking, we find them unbeautiful.

But beside the above, I find it absolutely stunning that only our Sweet Jesus could think of a most intimate and dear way to be one with us, that close.

In addition, I believe you have some understanding of “accidents” and “substance”. Now substance is the body of Christ. Accidents are of the bread before it was changed. Accidents are the color, texture, feel, and the like, of the bread, or namely what you see and feel. And this is where the mystery enters. How is all of this possible? Thru Christ’s command “do this”. I bring this up so that you may understand that He is not touched by our body, only the accidents. But nevertheless, He is present body,blood,soul,divinity in the Eucharist.

Tomorrow, I’ll get back with you again.​

“…love everyone,especially the brethern.” Saul the murderer, Paul the convert.

Thanks Fred, I agree that on it’s face it is a nice idea. But Jesus Himself also said two things: “The flesh profits nothing” and “what goes into the mouth goes out of the body.”

So the idea of a physical presence is abhorrent to me. I’ll pray about it, of course.

The funny thing is, I am perfectly willing to accept a ‘spiritual presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist. And this seems to fit better our lack of perceiving Him with our senses, etc.

I think Christ wanted us to trust our senses somewhat, otherwise He wouldn’t have performed miracles, nor had a BODILY resurrection, allowed His disciples to TOUCH His wounds, etc.

This sounds like gnosticism to me, not much like good doctrine. But I appreciate your candor and your viewpoint on it.

 

[DavidY]

If my boss makes an error and I correct him/her,I am challenging his/her authority? That is going out on a limb my friend.

I don’t know, if I am questioning the notion of transubstantiation am I challenging authority or correcting an error?

Seems like the former, otherwise I wouldn’t have received about a thousand “we are the true church, you just can’t understand” announcements in response.

Also, Peter had led others down that same path, which means it was an issue of authority.
More like your boss showing a group how to do something, then you come into the board meeting and publicly oppose him.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think that is fair expectation…and I surely don’t expect that any one here will ever change their minds from a real bodily presence to my view…the most I think that we could possibly hope for is:

a) that each camp gains a better understanding of the reasoning of the opposing camp. (each side holds hundreds of millions of Christians and (IMHO) it is the height of ill-informed arrogance to assert that the opposing camp can’t possibly support its view in a sound fashion from scripture and in a sound fashion from history…it is kinda like claiming that all those 100’s of millions of Christians on the other side must all be bona fide idiots); and

b) that the truly bad arguments be recognized and then discarded

The problem here is that you see us as individuals who believe what we want to believe
and teach. It is not so. you are here arguing against the Church Jesus built and instructed 2000 yrs ago. you have no clue what was tought by Jesus 2000 yrs ago but the Church does. So, you are arguing against the Saints and the Church.

 

[DavidY]

False analogy? Just as in the Old Passover, Israelites were commanded to eat of the sacrificial lamb, so we are commanded by Jesus to consume the flesh of the New Passover lamb of the New Covenant in the New Exodus!

Okay, obviously this just isn’t going to happen. It’s like a broken record.

Okay…and? How does that negate the Passover?

I am talking about the nature of Christ’s high priestly sacrifice. It makes sense that bread and wine are consumed, that is what Melchizedek offered.

Nope! We look closely at the Gospel accounts of the Passover and discover that Jesus the Passover meal unfinished with his apostles to go out to the Mount of Olives, for he had not yet partaken of the final cup, the 4th cup of wine, which is the cup of consummation. It isn’t until the moment before Jesus gives up his spirit from upon the cross that Jesus partakes of wine. John tells us that Jesus said, “I thirst” from upon the Cross and partook of wine given to him from upon a reed; then, Jesus said, “It is finished,” indicating that the Passover meal concluded with his death.

Wow, just…wow.

Citation for ‘unfinished Passover?’ For the number of cups of wine He drank?

And this whole thing is almost a non-sequitir, we are discussing commemoration vs. sacrifice of literal body.

According to you,not Jesus! I’ll take Jesus’ words over yours anyday.

Okay, let’s use Jesus’ words

John 6
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

And He also does not say: This bread IS ONLY a symbol of my flesh-does he? Or this bead ONLY REPRESENTS my body-does? But you get my point?

Yes, but He’s HOLDING the bread and wine. In the context of the Passover. The disciples could see that it was a symbol. He didn’t hack off his skin.

The Jews, I think, were familiar with symbolism.

And show me where God says: I am going to “INCARNATE” into man?

Not sure how that’s relevant. We’re supposed to take all of this literally, remember? Yet Jesus calls the bread His ‘flesh.’ Not His body.

Is it not a foreshadowing of better things to come?

Sure. I think Jesus fulfilled that on the cross. Doesn’t mean we have to keep eating His literal body all the time.

Yes that is what the Council of Chalcedon declared-and? How does Christ two natures confuse His omnipresence?

How does an omnipresent physical body not confuse the two natures?

So in other words,Christ cannot be present at the Holy Eucharist? Is that what you are stating?

He can be where He wants. The question is where can his physical body, His flesh be?

Hmmmm? So Origen was confused?

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence.

“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the **consecrated **gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Harsh words for merely A SYMBOL?

Sure, I respect the Lord’s Supper too. This is not an argument for transubstantiation.

Exactly! So that is what you are implying about Origen?

Read the passage, and then you can tell me what it means.

Trust me,I do not go crazy because I accept Jesus’ words at face value. I do not add my carnal beliefs into the equation. Nothing is impossible for God…nothing.

God cannot perform logical impossibilities. He is the foundation of truth. That is what we are trying to ascertain, does this doctrine make logical sense or should it be revised?

 

[elvisman]

Ah yes, in that totally unambiguous set of verses.

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for **this **was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18And I tell you that you are Peter,c and on **this **rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesd will not overcome it.e
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bef bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven.”

What is ‘this?’ Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah. His faith.

Doesn’t that fit the greater gospel message? That Jesus’ church was built on confession of faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus gives the same powers to all of the disciples in Matthew 18. The church itself.
**Ummm . . . read it again. “This” refers to the truth that Peter spoke – the fact that Jesus is ****the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He is not speaking of Pater’s **confession of faith about it.
**“… this *(truth, fact, reality) ***was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in heaven.”

---

As for the other - Jesus gives tham ALL like powers. However, he Singles Peter out when he gave the powers to him FIRST.

DavidY:
**Right, I understand unless they are speaking ‘ex cathedra.’ On matters of faith and morals. With the entire council behind them.

An incredibly ad hoc position, and susceptible to many ‘true scotsman’ fallacies.

For instance, the Peter example was certainly an issue of faith and morals. But because he didn’t teach it as a matter for the universal church (which wasn’t possible at that point anyway) he is given a pass. That’s okay, let’s leave the infalliblity thing for another thread.

I just slightly distrust it because it was started ~100 years ago by a man who, in response to a dissenting council member asking him, “What about tradition” he responds, " I am the church. I AM tradition." So there’s that…**** **
WRONG**. Pius IX didn’t “start” the tradition of Papal Infallibility – it was declared dogma during his time. However, this was already a centuries-old belief in the Church. To say that it was he who made it up displays an abject**** ignorance**** of Church history and a wanton desire to propagate deceit.**

 

[elvisman]

**Well, now we are equivocating on ‘church’ again. The word is the same in the NT.

And the Lord Jesus, in Revelations, seems to suspiciously avoid simply saying what any RC would say today. 'Just follow Rome!"

Do me a favor. Define ‘church.’****
In its most rudimentary definition, Church means an “assembly” or “called out ones.”**
However, Christ’s Church – as defined in Scripture are those** who profess faith in Christ and are baptized in the Trinitarian formula – and are obedient to its Authority. BUT, Jesus only established ONE Church - and it pains me to say that not all Christians are part of it. **

---

The Church is ONE, just as Christ fervently prayed for it to remain ONE on the night before he died. He asked God to keep it ONE as he and the Father are ONE.

DavidY:
You mean ‘Sola Fide,’ I assume.

The thing is, you continue to ‘proof text’ to back your pre-existing beliefs. By this rationale I could argue that ‘Judas hung himself,’ so ‘Go and do likewise.’

The whole purpose of that chapter is to tell the church how to identify authentic FAITH. This fits the Protestant formula.

And it is line with ultimate statements like Paul’s to the Romans “NOT of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:9
And by perverting a few of Paul’s writings - as Peter WARNED against (2 Pet. 3:16) - you come to this conclusion.

---

Remember, friend – ALL Scripture MUST harmonize with itself – otherwise it’s all a lie. You cannot harmonize the falsehood that is Sola Fide with other verses such as Rom. 1:5, 16:26, Mark 1:24, James 2:14-26, Matt. 31-46, 1 Cor. 13:13, to name just a few.

 

[Nicea325]

Thanks Fred, I agree that on it’s face it is a nice idea. But Jesus Himself also said two things: “The flesh profits nothing” and “what goes into the mouth goes out of the body.”

So the idea of a physical presence is abhorrent to me. I’ll pray about it, of course.

The funny thing is, I am perfectly willing to accept a ‘spiritual presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist. And this seems to fit better our lack of perceiving Him with our senses, etc.

I think Christ wanted us to trust our senses somewhat, otherwise He wouldn’t have performed miracles, nor had a BODILY resurrection, allowed His disciples to TOUCH His wounds, etc.

This sounds like gnosticism to me, not much like good doctrine. But I appreciate your candor and your viewpoint on it.

But Jesus did not say: MY flesh profits nothing. Why would Jesus say to eat His flesh and later say the flesh profits nothing? Likewise, his incarnation and resurrection would be meaningless if His flesh profits nothing.Is Jesus contradicting himsefl?