The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[elvisman]

This doesn’t address my longer, previous post, but let’s save time…

I have read all about the doctrine of the real presence, and the Aristotlean notion of substance of and accidents but Jesus called it ‘the fruit of the vine.’ To tell the truth is to tell things as they are in reality. Not what they appear to be…

Are you really saying making the following two claims as evidence for the real presence?

1. Jesus’ calling the bread and wine His body (NOT as they appeared) at the Last Supper, demonstrates it.
2. Jesus’ calling the wine the fruit of the vine (AS it appeared) demonstrates it?

Talk about ad hoc, selective exegesis.

Regarding John’s lack of mention of the Last Supper, I agree that the gospels harmonize. I’d just expect John to include that most important of events since He was actually present. Instead He includes the event but only the foot washing.

Finally, I stand corrected on the foot washing. I was not aware of that, and I applaud the Catholic Church for doing that!

**John only includes the foot-washing at the Last Supper? His narrative oif the Last supper goes on for FIVE chapters (13-17). In these chapters, he talks in great detail about:
1. Peter as Chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of the Church
2. His promise to the Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL truth.
3. Enduring to the end through faith and works.
4. And, at the end of his narrative, Jesus prays fervently to the Father that his Church remaining ONE - as he and the Father are ONE.

**As I said before - the foot-washing was only a small part of the bigger message: That we love and serve one another.

**As far as your point about Jesus calling the cup the “fruit of the vine” - this can be taken TWO ways, given John’s narrative. Sometimes more than one meaning is attached to a statement or prophecy. This is what is known as *polyvalent *symbolism. **

First of all - as I explained before about the elements - it WAS fruit of the vine (wine). Secondly, earlier in the evening in John 15, he speaks about himself being the vine, whereas we are the branches. The wine is the Blood of the True Vine - Jesus.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is going to be long, but this type of comment just sets me off a bit, forgive me for being long winded brother or sister.

The problem is, there is nothing to accept or reject. It’s not even a logically coherent notion. It’s like saying, “Do you accept that the thares fly blue on the moonlight?” If not, you must be outside the Church

Once you examine it, it really becomes odd and, no offense, almost idolatrous. What if is NOT Christ’s body up there, would the RCC be guilty of idolatry for bowing to bread and wine? If it is, how can it be known to be so other than (literally) blind faith?

See, as a Christian I’m all about faith. But I like C.S. Lewis’ definition, with regard to trusting in things that we know to be true even amidst doubt.

And if someone is going to tell me that a priest has the power to call down Jesus’ **singular body **and blood under the species of bread and wine **all over the world **every day, or call us up (however you want to look at it) because Jesus put forth a hard teaching that may only to show that:

John 6
" 65 “**This is why **I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

…then I get a little worried.

And when the entire gospel message is based on trusting our sensory perceptions and logic about Jesus (that He is Lord, that He is risen), and then a Church tells me to throw these out the window and ‘just have faith,’ then I get a little worried again.

I don’t think that’s evidence of being outside of the ‘church,’ but very much inside of it. We are all one body, let’s stop making fine, exclusionary distinctions based on absurdities.

…

You are outside the Church according to St Paul. Based on St Paul description of the Church, you cannot be one with us for you are against us. The Church teaches one thing but you say it is not, therefore you are not with us but against us. hopefully you see this one.
Think about very hard. your religion wants to desprove and evangelize others agains the CC. how can you even think that you belong to the Church that you are against?
some history for you not to believe.

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/o3NT89Km9X8

 

[DavidY]

**John *only ***includes the foot-washing at the Last Supper? His narrative oif the Last supper goes on for FIVE chapters (13-17). In these chapters, he talks in great detail about:
1. Peter as Chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of the Church
2. His promise to the Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL truth.
3. Enduring to the end through faith and works.
4. And, at the end of his narrative, Jesus prays fervently to the Father that his Church remaining ONE - as he and the Father are ONE.

**As I said before - the foot-washing was only a small part of the *bigger ***message: That we love and serve one another.

As far as your point about Jesus calling the cup the “fruit of the vine” - this can be taken TWO ways, given John’s narrative. Sometimes more than one meaning is attached to a statement or prophecy. This is what is known as *polyvalent *symbolism.

First of all - as I explained before about the elements - it WAS fruit of the vine (wine). Secondly, earlier in the evening in John 15, he speaks about himself being the vine, whereas we are the branches. The wine is the Blood of the True Vine - Jesus.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was talking about the only sacrament John mentions, not the only THING John mentions. Not the bread and cup.

Scriptural citation for #1? Peter as chief apostle?
Citation for faith and works for justification? I hope it’s not ‘if you love me, keep my commandments.’

And I think that Christians ARE one, if we’d drop the prideful distinctions between denominations, and in my opinion false notions of ‘true’ churches, whatever the heck that means. God does not give us a theology exam to get into heaven, despite the fun of discussing these issues…'Did you believe the right thing about bread!!!"

I agree that the message was to love and serve.

Amazing how this ‘polyvalent symbolism’ is only at play at opportune times, in order to defend a doctrine.

It IS not the fruit of the vine. Jesus’ blood is not produced by vines. The substance is what it IS. The ‘accidents’ is what it looks like, tastes like, etc.

That last statement regarding the vine is a terrific example of reading into the text. Jesus also calls Himself the water of life. The human body is 65% water. So we should drink water at the Eucharist.

 

[DavidY]

You are outside the Church according to St Paul. Based on St Paul description of the Church, you cannot be one with us for you are against us. The Church teaches one thing but you say it is not, therefore you are not with us but against us. hopefully you see this one.
Think about very hard. your religion wants to desprove and evangelize others agains the CC. how can you even think that you belong to the Church that you are against?
some history for you not to believe.

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/o3NT89Km9X8

y

I came here to debate, most of my family is Catholic and I am willing to be convinced…

That being said…Eh? Can’t the Mormons say the same thing? “You are not for us, so you are against the true church.” We’re trying to establish HOW you can be the true church with such warped beliefs, in my opinion. ‘By your fruit shall you know them,’ not by dogmatic assertion.

And I could certainly be a part of the church, haven’t you heard your own doctrine of baptism by desire, or votum ecclesiae implicito?

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

I want to be a part of the true church. I just don’t think you’re in it.

 

[Windfish]

I want to be a part of the true church. I just don’t think you’re in it.

Look to history. It’s either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

 

[panevino]

…

1. When confronted with the Levitical laws about not ingesting blood, suddenly we don’t want to play Passover/OT anymore.
   …

This is actually a strong argument for the Catholic view of the Wine/blood

Lev17: 11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood…14 For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Deu 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood:** for the blood [is] the life**; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

The life found in the flesh in the OT passover lamb is a little different to that of the NT lamb of God

John 6:… 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last…

 

[panevino]

…

Scriptural citation for #1? Peter as chief apostle?

I like these
Angels address in Mark16: 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
&
Luke22:31-32 the shifts between singular to plural in greek are compelling

That last statement regarding the vine is a terrific example of reading into the text. Jesus also calls Himself the water of life. The human body is 65% water. So we should drink water at the Eucharist.

we do! A drop in the cup

 

[joe370]

Radical, please read the following and if you still deny that Augustine believed what he said below, then I won’t bother you anymore on the matter:

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

“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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person?** In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day**; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)

“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)

“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

“Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain?” It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

From this evidence surely you and I can clearly see the following regarding what Augustine believed about the Eucharistic sacrament:

(1) The bread having been sanctified “IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.”

(2) The wine having been sanctified “IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.”

(3) We know Christ in the breaking of the bread; and not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ “BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.”

(4) When Christ said “THIS IS MY BODY” He carried “HIS OWN BODY” in “HIS OWN HANDS.”

(5) Christ is “IMMOLATED” (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or “making present” before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice).

(6) Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him.

(7) All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ’s Sacrifice in Holy Communion.

(8) The souls of the dead in Christ find relief through the Sacrifice of the Mediator OFFERED for them and through the prayers of the living Body of Christ on earth.

(9) The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers – the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died “in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ” so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins.

(10) Christ gave us His own flesh “to be eaten unto salvation” and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation.

 

[joe370]

Radical, you give me F. van der Meer, G. Wills and Edward Kilmartin to support your beliefs and I cannot find anything on them. I can do the same with non-Catholic scholars, and you can find plenty on them, but this gets us nowhere fast. You defer to certain catholic scholars and I defer to another group of non-Catholic scholars and we are still without any sure way to know if I am right or you are right, so what next? How can I know, with certainty, that I am emphatically wrong and that you are emphatically right? I say the answer is the church founded by God.

 

[joe370]

Dave, was the Mormon church around in the 1st 2nd, 3rd…15th 16th 17th century? It certainly can claim to be the reformed church of Christ, (just as I could start my own church and call it the reformed church) - if in fact one believes that God could not maintain doctrinal truth in the church He founded. Do you believe that God could not maintain doctrinal truth in His church, in spite of weeds mixed in with the wheat, in His church?

Didn’t Jesus say, let both grow together until the harvest:

The servants of the householder came and said to him,
‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field?
Where did this darnel come from?’
"He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’

"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them up?’

“But he said, ‘No, lest perhaps while you gather up the darnel,
you root up the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest,
and in the harvest time I will tell the reapers, “First, gather up the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”

Bad folks (wolves in sheep’s clothing and there have been plenty in every century) - in Jesus’ church won’t go unpunished.

y

I came here to debate, most of my family is Catholic and I am willing to be convinced…

That being said…Eh? Can’t the Mormons say the same thing? “You are not for us, so you are against the true church.” We’re trying to establish HOW you can be the true church with such warped beliefs, in my opinion. ‘By your fruit shall you know them,’ not by dogmatic assertion.

And I could certainly be a part of the church, haven’t you heard your own doctrine of baptism by desire, or votum ecclesiae implicito?

The Catholic Teaching on the Baptism of Desire

I want to be a part of the true church. I just don’t think you’re in it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

y

I came here to debate, most of my family is Catholic and I am willing to be convinced…

That being said…Eh? Can’t the Mormons say the same thing? “You are not for us, so you are against the true church.” We’re trying to establish HOW you can be the true church with such warped beliefs, in my opinion. ‘By your fruit shall you know them,’ not by dogmatic assertion.

And I could certainly be a part of the church, haven’t you heard your own doctrine of baptism by desire, or votum ecclesiae implicito?

The Catholic Teaching on the Baptism of Desire

I want to be a part of the true church. I just don’t think you’re in it.

The baptism of desire to enter the Holy Catholic Church and not come against her.

One must humble himself and accept what the Church teaches to be part of her and not fight her.
Let me tell you what our Mighty Savior has done for His people. He came when His people was under the dominion of the roman empire. He chose 12 men and send them out to conquer under His Command. These men went out converted many whom they passed on the Command of Christ. The Church grows and conquers the roman empire and our Lord builds His Kingdom, the Catholic Church right in Rome. They conquered not with weapons or wars but with the Word of God. He rules since then through His Holy Church. If you are not for her, you are against her. So far you are against her.

Here is one who testifies of the Holy Catholic Church.

Tertullian

In the third century, "If we desire indeed to act the part of open enemies, not merely of secret offenders, would there be any lacking of strength, whether of numbers or resources? “We are but of yesterday and we have already filled every place among you – cities, islands, fortresses, towns, marketplaces, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate and forum. We have left nothing for you but the temples of your idols, for now it is the immense number of Christians which make your enemies so few, almost all the inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Dave, was the Mormon church around in the 1st 2nd, 3rd…15th 16th 17th century? It certainly can claim to be the reformed church of Christ, (just as I could start my own church and call it the reformed church) - if in fact one believes that God could not maintain doctrinal truth in the church He founded. Do you believe that God could not maintain doctrinal truth in His church, in spite of weeds mixed in with the wheat, in His church?

Didn’t Jesus say, let both grow together until the harvest:

The servants of the householder came and said to him,
‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field?
Where did this darnel come from?’
"He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’

"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them up?’

“But he said, ‘No, lest perhaps while you gather up the darnel,
you root up the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest,
and in the harvest time I will tell the reapers, “First, gather up the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”

Bad folks (wolves in sheep’s clothing and there have been plenty in every century) - in Jesus’ church won’t go unpunished.

If God could not keep the One Church He found and moved on to another, how can we trust God with another? we couldnt. He would just be moving on from one to another and we wouldnt have any guarantee that the one would work either. Such a believe does nothing but try to discredit what God has done. God forbid us from such a desbelief.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And I think that Christians ARE one, if we’d drop the prideful distinctions between denominations, and in my opinion false notions of ‘true’ churches, whatever the heck that means. God does not give us a theology exam to get into heaven, despite the fun of discussing these issues…'Did you believe the right thing about bread!!!

Not pride at all solid facts with 2000-years of history to stand behind it. By your same measure we should just consider any Christian Church that decides to start “effective today” just as relevant? Thats your logic?

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidY

And I think that Christians ARE one, if we’d drop the prideful distinctions between denominations, and in my opinion false notions of ‘true’ churches, whatever the heck that means. God does not give us a theology exam to get into heaven, despite the fun of discussing these issues…'Did you believe the right thing about bread!!! **

You think? thank God we dont depend of your thinking. We have the Church to rely on to teach us. We are called into obedience and not into rebellion. the ideology that you follow goes back to one man called martin luther. Do you see, we dont follow one man but follow a Church built on the Rock. Do you hear the holy father, the pope talking and teaching the whole world? do you see the authority of Christ in Him? I do.

 

[DavidY]

This is actually a strong argument for the Catholic view of the Wine/blood

Lev17: 11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood…14 For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Deu 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood:** for the blood [is] the life**; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

The life found in the flesh in the OT passover lamb is a little different to that of the NT lamb of God

John 6:… 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last…

That’s an interesting point about the life being in the blood…

So do you think God simply contradicted Himself?

 

[elvisman]

Scriptural citation for #1? Peter as chief apostle? Actually,** more**** is said of his office as Chief Apostle and Shepherd in Luke’s Last Supper narrative (22:31-32). Although, John 13:37-38 goes hand-in-hand quite beautifully as precursor to John 21:15-19, where Jesus reiterates that he (Peter) is the Chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of the Church.**

DavidY:

Citation for faith and works for justification? I hope it’s not ‘if you love me, keep my commandments.’

John 15:1-11

 

[DavidY]

Dave, was the Mormon church around in the 1st 2nd, 3rd…15th 16th 17th century? It certainly can claim to be the reformed church of Christ, (just as I could start my own church and call it the reformed church) - if in fact one believes that God could not maintain doctrinal truth in the church He founded. Do you believe that God could not maintain doctrinal truth in His church, in spite of weeds mixed in with the wheat, in His church?

Didn’t Jesus say, let both grow together until the harvest:

The servants of the householder came and said to him,
‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field?
Where did this darnel come from?’
"He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’

"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them up?’

“But he said, ‘No, lest perhaps while you gather up the darnel,
you root up the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest,
and in the harvest time I will tell the reapers, “First, gather up the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”

Bad folks (wolves in sheep’s clothing and there have been plenty in every century) - in Jesus’ church won’t go unpunished.

I agree with this. My point was that anyone can argue that, because someone disagrees they are not a part of the true church.

I believe that God inspired His disciples and apostles to record His doctrinal truth in Scripture. That is the standard by which we measure everything, including tradition from that point on, in my view.

And, let’s be serious, the Catholic Church as it is today was not around in the 1st century. Many doctrines have been added, and that’s not necessarily bad. Unless you define Church as ‘group of believers in Jesus Christ.’ In that case I’m a member.

The problem is that I hear a lot of equivocation when it comes to the word church. Church can mean group of believers in Jesus, those confessing His name in the early days, then a couple of hundred years later it is ONLY those who accept this pope or that pope (eastern or western), a few hundred after that it is ONLY those who accept justification by penance and baptism…then papal infallibility…and so forth.

No one was anathemetized for these things in the early church. They were judged by their fruit.

Also, since Paul did a majority of the Gentile church-planting after Christ and Peter focused on the Jews, were Paul’s churches ‘true’ churches? Was Paul under Peter, with passages such as those found in Galatians 2:11?

I’m sure you’ve read ‘Mere Christianity.’ It is that Christianity under which I think we all must unite. Just my view based on years of study and in the (or ‘a’)church.

 

[elvisman]

And I think that Christians ARE one, if we’d drop the prideful distinctions between denominations, and in my opinion false notions of ‘true’ churches, whatever the heck that means. God does not give us a theology exam to get into heaven, despite the fun of discussing these issues…'Did you believe the right thing about bread!!!"

Christians are NOT ONE. They are absolutely divided and only a spiritually blind person would not be able to admit that. The Protestant Rebellion splintered the Church into so many factions, the Apostles would be spinning in their graves.

Christ is not splintered and neither can his Church be. Tell me something – if the denominations are not splintered, why is it that you all have so many** different**** views on essential beliefs? Since most of you believe that the Scriptures are the final authority and that you are all led by the Holy Spirit to interpret them – HOW is it that you can all have different beliefs and STILL claim to be right?**
**Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in the ****total depravity ****of man, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in the Holy Trinity, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, *while others do not.
***Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined ****will make it to heaven, *while others do not.
*****Some believe that some were predestined for hell, *while others do not.
*****Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, *while others do not.
*****Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, *while others do not.
*****Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

---

Don’t sit there with a straight face and try to tell me that the Body of Christ has not been splintered by the rebellion and pride of men who estranged themselves from the Body.

 

[elvisman]

Amazing how this ‘polyvalent symbolism’ is only at play at opportune times, in order to defend a doctrine.

The Scriptures are** filled**** with polyvalent symbolisms in prophecy, types and fulfillments. Pity you don’t know that. For example – Protestant scholars say that the Woman in Rev. 12:1 represents both Israel AND the Church. Catholics see the fuller polyvalent symbolism and also see Mary, but that is a debate for another day. The point is that just because you may be ignorant of polyvalent symbolisms doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.**

It IS not the fruit of the vine. Jesus’ blood is not produced by vines. The substance is what it IS. The ‘accidents’ is what it looks like, tastes like, etc.

That last statement regarding the vine is a terrific example of reading into the text. Jesus also calls Himself the water of life. The human body is 65% water. So we should drink water at the Eucharist.
It’s amazing how something can be explained to you in great detail, yet you respond as though you have no idea about what was explained to you. As I already explained to you – JESUS is the vine. Read the Last Supper narrative in John’s Gospel. Maybe it’ll stick this time . . .

 

[DavidY]

Actually,** more**** is said of his office as Chief Apostle and Shepherd in Luke’s Last Supper narrative (22:31-32). Although, John 13:37-38 goes hand-in-hand quite beautifully as precursor to John 21:15-19, where Jesus reiterates that he (Peter) is the Chief Apostle and earthly Shepherd of the Church.**
John 15:1-11

1. So, because he is told to strengthen his brothers, he is chief apostle. Jesus also calls Peter ‘Satan,’ but I guess we don’t take that as any kind of divine imperative. And because Jesus re-establishes Peter after he denies even knowing him he is the head of the church?

Don’t get me wrong, Peter was instrumental, a highly important disciple. But I could also make similar arguments for Paul.

Acts 22
14“Then he said: ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.
15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.

Do you see what you and I are doing? Exactly what Paul asked that we not do:

1 Cor 3

3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?
4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.
7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.

And

21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours,
22whether Paul or Apollos or **Cephas **or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God

Wow…pretty telling. That’s pretty much an arrow through the heart of this notion of ‘we are of the TRUE church of Peter.’ Unless I misunderstand, which is quite possible.

1. Regarding John and salvation by works. Eh? The first part of that passage is about abiding in the vine. If one is in the vine then one will produce fruit. If you love me you will keep my commandments. Sounds a lot more like sola fide.