F
fbl9
Guest
Then i would make you lick it clean.
How can one profane something by eating it?don’t tell us what comes to your sickened mind.
- Status
How can one profane something by eating it?don’t tell us what comes to your sickened mind.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Paul is saying that treating the breaking of bread like an all you can eat buffet instead of in serious contemplation profanes.
I don’t see how that requires Real Presence in the Catholic sense or even in Codebilly’s Shekhinah sense.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
My “arbitrary line” question referrenced your decision that if the doctrine of the Real Presence was not clearly stated in writing at the time of the drafting of scripture it cannot be considered a binding doctrine of the Church. The hypostatic union was not clearly stated either, but you have no problem declaring that as christian doctrine. Similarly, the doctrine of the trinity was not clearly stated, yet I’m assuming that you would concur that such a belief is a non-negotiable article of the christian faith. It seems there is a double standard. Those doctrines we (protestants and catholics) agree on are okay even if not expressly stated in the scriptures or appearing as clearly established universally accepted doctrines by the death of the last apostle. However, where a “unique” catholic doctrine is at issue - suddenly there is insufficient support for the doctrine. So, I ask again… why the arbitrary line? Please answer honestly.
Bubba Switzler:
The Church thought highly enough of Ignatius to make him a saint and proclaim him a early church father. His writings should be given the weight they deserve and not dismissed as “out of hand” as you attempt here.
Bubba Switzler:
He’s stating the doctrine as the belief of the universal Church. One can presume that he’s not foisting novel doctrine on anyone, but defending the orthodox position from the heretical denial of the real presence. Do you really need such a pedantic exposition before you acknowledge at least some weight should be given to the statement by Ignatius as a declaration of orthodox catholic doctrine as it existed in 107 A.D.?
Bubba Switzler:
OK. So, lets assume for the sake of argument that the NT was established oral tradition for a period of time before they were committed to writing in 70-90 A.D. Assuming that the Church existed from roughly 32 A.D. onward… and immediately began proclaiming the fullness of the gospel, that leaves only about 75 years for there to be a complete suppression of the “true” doctrine regarding the eucharist among the faithful, and its replacement by “false” real presence doctrine, so that by 107 A.D. St. Ignatius could declare the “real presence” as orthodox belief in his defense of the faith against heretics. Even in today’s world, such a universal suppression of doctrine would be unworkable IMO.
Bubba Switzler:
I’m not presenting a false dichotomy. I’m saying that you accept the authority of the CC when it comes to the canon of the NT, which contradicts your assumption when approaching the NT as the final authority on doctrine. Your assumption is not only not taught by the bible, but the scriptures depend on outside authority for their constitution. If “reasonableness” alone is the basis for accepting the books of the NT, then certainly one who reasonably disagrees with your NT canon (like Martin Luther, perhaps) can expunge or dismiss certain books from their personal canon. And, if reasonably disposed, one could choose to add the writings of St. Ignatius to their NT canon. What authority forbids such action? Only the Church that you reject as an authority, but otherwise think did a passable job at promulgating your personal authoritative writings.
Bubba Switzler:
So, what you seem to be saying is that the doctrine of the Real Presence may or may not be true, but you’re not compelled to accept it as a matter of doctrine because, pursuant to your own arbitrary standard, you think the early Church did not teach the Real Presence.
If that’s the case, then there’s also no reason to accept the trinity as a matter of doctrine, or the hypostatic union, or the divinity of Christ.
Peace,
Robert
F
fbl9
Guest
Just what would be the problem with eating one’s fill
Your interpitation leads one to think that the breaking of the bread was a simple meal offered to the people,
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Something like that actually did happen. It was an art exhibit in Brooklyn, New York.
mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html
“The Holy Virgin Mary,” by Chris Ofili–who used elephant dung as a medium in this and other works as a symbol of Africa, fertility and the earth.
Stephen168
New member
What do you mean by ‘prophetic statement?’
J
jmcrae
Guest
If it were intended to be a fellowship meal, then there would be even less wrong with eating one’s fill, and the blame would go to those who did not provide enough bread and wine for everyone in the gathering to receive their fill, rather than to those who were treating the Body and Blood as if it were ordinary bread and ordinary wine, by eating and drinking their fill of it.Just what would be the problem with eating one’s fill
Your interpitation leads one to think that the breaking of the bread was a simple meal offered to the people,
R
ron77nyc
Guest
The Catholic Church is the church Christ started but the early church was not Roman Catholic. They had no Roman Catholic doctrine. Nothing about purgatory, communion of saints, eucharist or the trinity They were believers in the resurrected Christ.That’s all you had to confess to get baptised and that’s all you had to confess to be a candidate for persecution. It is still a requirement today for those who have been chosen by God to be His own. There will never be 100% doctrinal agreement. The Pope now agrees with Luther on salvation by faith alone.
M
mercygate
Guest
Of course it was prophetic
. As a flesh-and-blood man, he could not give his Body and Blood so that men could eat it “for the salvation of the world at that time.” But it is also “literal” in the sense that after the Resurrection, he CAN give His Body, truly, on all the altars of the world until the end of time for the salvation of the world.Don’tcha LOVE it?.
M
mercygate
Guest
No he doesn’t. If you read what the Pope says, he hedges the term (which he acknowledges is useful) on every side with the plenitude of Catholic meaning.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I never said that. I don’t think I even implied it.
What I said was that the Catholic Church, itself, made a distinction between the wiring of Paul (Word of God) and the writings of Ignatius (not).
Severaltimes now I have made the simple distinction between rejecting Church teaching authority and rejecting Church teaching. I know there is a long list of Catholic teaching that Protestants accept, for example.
As I’ve noted several times, I didn’t and don’t draw that line. If I was to draw a line it would be between the sayings of Jesus (and prophets speaking on behalf of God) and the sayings of the apostles and the sayings of theologeons. I would lump Paul and Ignatious together as early Church theologeons. But that is a very crude approach.
That is not the point of debate. The point of debate is what happened between 65AD and 107AD.
Sigh. I am not claiming that Ignatius reversed a prior Christian belief about the Real Presence.
I suppose you could add the writings of Karl Marx too while you’re at it.
If preference is given to the views apostles then the views of the apostles become an important criteria. If the apostles are just early theologeans then why not consider the opinions of later theologeans like NT Wright?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Forget for the moment that this is a religious ceremony. Imagine that you were invited to a solemn secular occassion with a snack buffet and some of the guests skipped eating for a week and spent the entire time focusing on consuming the food. You don’t think that would reflect poorly on them?Just what would be the problem with eating one’s fill
F
fbl9
Guest
Still can’t understand how that makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord or how they would be judged by what they have eaten.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I’m just pointing out that it is not only at mass that one does not eat one’s fill when food is presented.Still can’t understand how that makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord or how they would be judged by what they have eaten.
Stephen168
New member
Stephen168
New member
Your point in starting this thread was to prove the Catholic Church invented the belief in the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and hierarchy. In your first post you propose these were invented in the second century after the end of Acts. But when the Bishop of Antioch was quoted, suddenly these events had to happen during the life of the Apostles (the first century.) This is when I starting suspecting you just wanted to play a game of ‘What if.” When it became clear that the Bishop of Antioch was a first century man and it was only his writings that probably were second century, the “inventions” had to have happened after 65AD. The game target has now moved twice.
When asked why there were no writings condemning the belief in the real presence, you suggest the Apostles never thought about it one way or the other. After the discourse told in the sixth chapter of John’s gospel and Christ telling them that this bread is my body at the last supper, according to Paul, you want us to believe the Apostles never thought about it one way or the other.
I don’t mind games, just be honest and declare it a game. I think it would be fun to get some folks together, grab our favorite beverage, and see if we could reconstruct the Battle of Yorktown by only using Martha Washington’s Diary, and pretending that George was never born. That would be a fun game; just don’t tell us we are on a journey to discover the truth of what happened.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I stand corrected on my initial sloppiness. Acts does not end in 99AD but sometime before 65AD. Otherwise, I have been very consistent about focusing on the line that Catholics and Protestants draw between what is Biblical and what post-Biblical.
I repeatedly and consistently pointed out that I was not claiming that the Catholic belief was without foundation and that the issue was what the Biblical Church believed, not whether later theologeans could find a basis for Real Presence in Jesus words.
Protestants, like Catholics, go to the Bible to find justification for their theology.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I mean Jesus is speaking about something that doesn’t actually have its fulfillment at the time He says it even though it’s spoken as though it is current.
Such as Matthew 16, where Peter only burst through the gates of Hell with his confession of Jesus as Messiah and saved souls on the Day of Pentecost.
Likewise in John 20 where Jesus speaks of the coming of the Spirit and the remission of sins which is also fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.
There was no literal fulfillment on the day the words in John 6 were spoken-no one ate His body that day.
All of these statements were set in motion when spoken, but didn’t reach their fulfillment until later-prophetic statements.
Stephen168
New member
I asked because the word ‘prophetic’ can mean so many things, I just wanted to make sure. I’ve thought of John 6 the same way. Thanks. Preparing the troops for future events.
1
1beleevr
Guest
Yo, codebilly! I had to read your post twice, and still I’m not entirely sure I understand what you are trying to say! Of course we non-denominationals and Protestants reject the "authority of the catholic church! And we also reject the pope as the evangelical leader of the world! He is just another man of God, anointed and ordained to lead his flock! If I could find some kind of Biblical directive for recognizing, and submitting to the "authority of the catholic church, then I may submit! And here’ something to ponder; what if Jesus was talking about Himself in Matthew 16:18?
- Status