The Real Presence

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Show me where one Apostle was all about himself and implementing his own doctrines?

That is your take on Luther,quite slanted but understandable from your position.

My take? Are you JOKING? Should I post Luther’s OWN WORDS for you to ADMIT his pride? Slanted? Now that is truly comical.

Quote:
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were part of the original? That is just plain absurd!

The word is “foolish” as Luther states about what he was called .So absurd there are countless threads/posts on CA showing ,documentation ,and scripture ,tradition ,and church fathers etc ,trying to show it is not as simply absurd as you say.

Oh so the church fathers taught and believed in Sola Scriptura? Documents please. Let us see who is foolish.

 

[david_ruiz]

No, you don’t need authority to be “filled with spirit”, but you do need authority to modify the received faith so profoundly, as Protestants have done

.Thank-you for being gentle in that statement of effecting profoundly .They did. They saw themselves as changing it as it came to them ,in the 1200,s 1300, 1400,s .They did not think they changed it profoundly form say the first or second centuries.Remember ,they had scripture of the early Church ,and 1st and 2nd century writings for which to make a judgement.But they definitely changed it from what handed to them 1000 or more years later .

St. Paul would never have been in favour of the kind of anarchy and individualism particularly rampant in the creedless (Ana)baptist evangelicalism which you advocate.

Perhaps ,but even St Paul said ,"Don’t take my word for it ,but search it out for yourselves ,in scripture "(paraphrase). He wrote that remember ? (was it the Bereans ?) He did not write that to elders and deacons ,as if there were a magisterium ,but to the body as a whole and I believe to every member ,for every member is crucial, and must be convinced in his heart that these things are so -the gospel. Anarchy no,division yes. Please don’t miscalculate though (say 50,000 denominations and growing ! propaganda) Creedless ? It is tossup ,but it may be that protestants that used catechisms first ,but whatever ,both sides used them,and still do.As far as creeds ,were the first few pretty much "scriptural’ that is there main authority was the true rendering of scripture ? I thought most PC strongly believe in the first creed and possibly others .Creeds are o.k. After all, we are to live by every Word of God, and long live any creed so fashioned.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Nicea325;8280993]My take? Are you JOKING? Should I post Luther’s OWN WORDS for you to ADMIT his pride? Slanted? Now that is truly comical.

I admitted Luther was prideful and many other bad things .Remember, all men are bad ,only God is good and true and humble .Did I not write that ?

Oh so the church fathers taught and believed in Sola Scriptura? Documents please. Let us see who is foolish.

Off the top .Barnabus(100 ?)-" It is well,that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord,AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, should walk in them", “Meditate how to save a soul by the WORD”

 

[lyrikal]

Off the top .Barnabus(100 ?)-" It is well,that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord,AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, should walk in them", “Meditate how to save a soul by the WORD”

We have already dealt with this Barnabus quote. All it says is that we should walk by the Scriptures and it shows their importance (which the Catholic Church would agree to). However, I don’t see anything in this quote that says “you are to go by the Bible alone and NOTHING else.” You are coming in with a presupposition and applying your beliefs to this passage rather than applying this passage to your beliefs.

 

[david_ruiz]

Precisely David! If you are so confident you are right and your “interpretation” is infallible,then show me the CC document agreeing with you?

Precisely what ? I said what I am basing it on .I do not have "documentation -official .Confidence ,infallibility ? We are having a conversation. At this point I am not going to spend time investigating what a Catholic tells me , to see if it is in some document somewhere, as if it is only Catholic opinion, that may be in error. Why do i have to show documentation for what YOU believe ?

 

[david_ruiz]

We have already dealt with this Barnabus quote. All it says is that we should walk by the Scriptures and it shows their importance (which the Catholic Church would agree to). However, I don’t see anything in this quote that says “you are to go by the Bible alone and NOTHING else.” You are coming in with a presupposition and applying your beliefs to this passage rather than applying this passage to your beliefs.

Can you blame me for using his quote ,I think it fits like a glove.Thank- you for agreeing Scriptures have their importance.

 

[lyrikal]

Can you blame me for using his quote ,I think it fits like a glove.Thank- you for agreeing Scriptures have their importance.

I can’t blame you for using this quote for showing the importance of Scripture (the Catholic Church would agree with you here); however, I can blame you for using this quote to show that Scripture is the ONLY thing that’s important as far as revelation of God goes.
Barnabus is not teaching Sola Scriptura here, he is teaching the importance of Scripture. These two things are very different.

God bless.

 

[Nicea325]

Precisely what ? I said what I am basing it on .I do not have "documentation -official .Confidence ,infallibility ? We are having a conversation. At this point I am not going to spend time investigating what a Catholic tells me , to see if it is in some document somewhere, as if it is only Catholic opinion, that may be in error. Why do i have to show documentation for what YOU believe ?

No David, I am do not base my faith off opinions,but what the church received from Jesus and the Apostles,not some man or woman who decided to open up their own shop based on his/her private interpretation centuries later. Hence, the thousands of denominations out there and why Protestanism is confusion and theological chaos.

As I have said a million times in the past,if Jesus truly taught a symbolic Eucharist as so many Protestants profess,then where are the scores of writings by the ECF’s condemning the Real Presence as heretical or false?

 

[Nicea325]

Can you blame me for using his quote ,I think it fits like a glove.Thank- you for agreeing Scriptures have their importance.

Yes the scriptures have their importance,but they are NOT the only source of Truth or the final authority as so many Protestants believe.

 

[Nicea325]

Off the top .Barnabus(100 ?)-" It is well,that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord,AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, should walk in them", “Meditate how to save a soul by the WORD”

I do not think so! Barnabus taught and defended Sola Scriptura? Show me his writings defending it?

 

[Miriam1947]

Off the top .Barnabus(100 ?)-" It is well,that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord,AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, should walk in them", “Meditate how to save a soul by the WORD”

I do not think so! Barnabus taught and defended Sola Scriptura? Show me his writings defending it?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Walking in the Word is walking with Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

No David, I am do not base my faith off opinions,but what the church received from Jesus and the Apostles,not some man or woman who decided to open up their own shop based on his/her private interpretation centuries later. Hence, the thousands of denominations out there and why Protestanism is confusion and theological chaos.

Totally evades the question ,where is your documention to show #2,3,4 are for heaven ?

As I have said a million times in the past,if Jesus truly taught a symbolic Eucharist as so many Protestants profess,then where are the scores of writings by the ECF’s condemning the Real Presence as heretical or false?

In order to have scores of writings against RP, you need scores of writings proclaiming RP by the ECF… They are not there a hundred years after Christ. That it “developed” is a fact of history , but it took centuries to fully develop , and it took centuries to write against it. Good evidence has been given that Augustine spoke of it symbolically , so much so that it is taking 12 full pages /threads here, just to try to debunk what seems straight forward disortation,against RP. Somebody wrote against it around 900, don’t remember who .They were spoken of on an earlier thread. I know in 1200 it became necessary to proclaim it a dogma .Normally there is always some talk , by some people, to the contrary . Not sure. Haven’t studied those later centuries. But why was there a need to proclaim the dogma , if it was understood and accepted 100% already ?
You must also recognize that even before it became official dogma , the majority rules ,and unity was strictly enforced .To speak against RP , at some point in history , must have become dangerous to your health .

 

[david_ruiz]

As far as Barnabus.,no he does not defend Sola scriptura, nor does he defend Tradition being on par with Scripture, or relegating scriptural interpretation to a selected few, nor did he say the bishop of Rome was infallible. Catholics have shared that silence is not proof .So that he is silent on SS does not prove he is against it. So , at face value, we know and all agree that for sure ,Scripture was solid ground .I would have to reread ,but don’t think he said anything about tradition or a magisterium,that is proclaimed today by Catholics,and I will agree with you ,hence he said nothing of SS, for there was nothing contrary to it.

 

[Trebor135]

I’ll try: #1-Eat bread/flesh-now,on Earth ,literal
#2-no more thirst-later ,in heaven ,figurative, #3- no more hunger-later ,in heaven ,figurative, #4 die not-later,in heaven,figurative

All of these promised benefits are for “now” and “on Earth”, “literal[ly]”. As I understand the Catholic position, communion, the divine food and drink, is going to nourish the soul and strengthen the individual against the power of sin, which brings death–effects felt “now”, “on earth”, “literal[ly]”.

 

[david_ruiz]

John 6:51 and on is what convinces me of the Real Presence. Here John says that the Jews murmured to each other in disbelief about how Jesus’s flesh could possibly be eaten. This shows that the way Jesus said it led people to believe he was speaking literally. Then he responds by saying that, yes, they have to eat if they want eternal life. He didn’t correct them by saying, “Oh no, I meant it symbolically.” He told them they actually had to eat it. Furthermore, he emphasizes that he is the bread from “Heaven.” This means that his body and blood may not actually be of the human body, but of what bodies look like in Heaven. So the bread and wine don’t have to look like human body and blood to be Jesus.

Additionally, the word “eat” that John used was the Greek word for animals eating, not for humans eating. My Bible has a footnote saying that this emphasizes how Jesus meant his body and blood should be literally eaten.

 

[david_ruiz]

Angela77;8276375:

John 6:51 and on is what convinces me of the Real Presence. Here John says that the Jews murmured to each other in disbelief about how Jesus’s flesh could possibly be eaten. This shows that the way Jesus said it led people to believe he was speaking literally. Then he responds by saying that, yes, they have to eat if they want eternal life. He didn’t correct them by saying, “Oh no, I meant it symbolically.” He told them they actually had to eat it. Furthermore, he emphasizes that he is the bread from “Heaven.” This means that his body and blood may not actually be of the human body, but of what bodies look like in Heaven.

I understand how you can come away with RP,Understand others read the same thing and do not.You are correct ,he did not correct them He even upped the ante twice .He goes form eating bread being himself ,to just plain eating him ,to seeing him ascend .All three drove in the wedge deeper .Your observation is good,he did not correct them ,in fact he almost wanted them to be dismayed and go away. Why? Were they not some of his disciples ? No. Verse 65- “no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my father”. Apparently these disciples were not given (faith) unto him(Jesus). For Jesus knew they believed not(vs 64). .Believed what ? To eat him ,oh no, they believed the request /command was literal .So believe what ? The apostles showed what to believe , and it was not to eat him .Then believe what ? “That for sure thou art the Christ ,the Son of the living God, and have the WORDS of eternal life”.The apostles believed -ate - the Words of Jesus .Belief leads to eternal life ,that is the eating. Peter’s confession was his savoring the Lord in his mouth.leave your teeth and bellies behind, Augustine says (paraphrased). How many scriptures say believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved ? …Again His discourse did two wonderful things .First ,it gave a chance for the true disciples to further define and express their faith ,and that they were drawn by the Father ,to Christ.It also foretold His death and resurrection,and ascension. .Secondly , it separated the unbelievers ,who were following for the wrong reasons obviously.This is similar to why Jesus spoke in parables ,or said things that were impossible -going thru the eye of a needle ,selling ALL you have ,the need to be more righteous than the Pharisees,etc,and again His ascension- all “hard sayings” ,all showing that with God all things are possible. Remember also, they were following him for bread, and some for him to kick out the Romans ,and occupy the Davidic throne .They had no idea or aspiration for a crucified king ,much less for one who was going to ascend .And as Augustine pointed out ,how could you eat Him if he ascended ? Do you not think Jesus was at least also implying His death and Resurrection(implied by Ascension vs. 62) here ? Is not that what we remember when partaking of the Eucharist? (well, His death) ?

 

[lyrikal]

Totally evades the question ,where is your documention to show #2,3,4 are for heaven ?

In order to have scores of writings against RP, you need scores of writings proclaiming RP by the ECF… They are not there a hundred years after Christ. That it “developed” is a fact of history , but it took centuries to fully develop , and it took centuries to write against it. Good evidence has been given that Augustine spoke of it symbolically , so much so that it is taking 12 full pages /threads here, just to try to debunk what seems straight forward disortation,against RP. Somebody wrote against it around 900, don’t remember who .They were spoken of on an earlier thread. I know in 1200 it became necessary to proclaim it a dogma .Normally there is always some talk , by some people, to the contrary . Not sure. Haven’t studied those later centuries. But why was there a need to proclaim the dogma , if it was understood and accepted 100% already ?
You must also recognize that even before it became official dogma , the majority rules ,and unity was strictly enforced .To speak against RP , at some point in history , must have become dangerous to your health .

Hi David,

First of all, did you even read the discussion between Radical and me as a whole for you to actually make that comment?

Second of all, you said “it has taken 12 full pages to debunk it…” think about what you’re saying here. There are chapter books that run up to 200-500 pages debunking that Augustine taught a symbolic Eucharist, so according to your logic, Augustine must have taught RP because it took so many pages to debunk the symbolic. This is hardly a reply. You can’t have a double standard or else your point falters. There are thousands of books that are hundreds of pages long written to defend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, does that mean it becomes untrue JUST because it takes so many pages to explain it? Let’s be more reasonable, please.

Third of all, you said you were Catholic before but you are very ignorant about the Catholic Church (not that I doubt you were a Catholic once but I doubt you were a well informed Catholic from what I am reading from you). You said:

Somebody wrote against it around 900, don’t remember who .They were spoken of on an earlier thread. I know in 1200 it became necessary to proclaim it a dogma .Normally there is always some talk , by some people, to the contrary . Not sure. Haven’t studied those later centuries. But why was there a need to proclaim the dogma , if it was understood and accepted 100% already ?

Let’s take this logic and apply it to the cannon of Scripture. There was no official canon of Scripture formed by the Church until hundreds of years AFTER the Bible was completed. The first council that gave us a canon was in 382 AD. That does not mean that prior to this date, there was no belief in a Bible. People believed in the Scriptures as the Word of God whether or not there was a canon or not. Councils happen when there are disputes and so the Church is moved by the Holy Spirit to give an answer to the dispute. The answer that is given is NOT a new teaching that just started when the council was settled; they are answers affirming what the truth is.

Another example: There were disputes about the Divinity of Christ. The first council to make it a DOGMA was in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea. Does this mean that it was taught STARTING 325 AD? Don’t you think that the councils are proclaiming what the Church has taught from the beginning and affirming what was handed down by Christ and the Apostles? Do you think they are teaching something new? If not, then why would you not apply the same to the doctrine of the RP JUST because it was proclaimed dogma centuries later? This is a double standard. You keep on doing this. You need to step out of your world and your box and think about things from the opposition’s point of view and things will make more sense.

The year the doctrine is made dogma has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is true. The councils are held to proclaim what has always been taught from the beginning. So when you say:

But why was there a need to proclaim the dogma , if it was understood and accepted 100% already ?

Then I can ask: Why was there a need to proclaim the Trinity or the Canon of the Scriptures a dogma, if it was understood and accepted 100% already?

God bless.

 

[lyrikal]

If anyone is interested, here is a beautiful Church document about the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) and the Divine Body of Christ (Jesus) and their relationship and unity.

saint-mike.org/library/curia/congregations/faith/aspects_communion.html#I%20%20The%20Church,%20A%20Mystery%20of%20Comunion

Title: Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church

On Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion

Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith
28th May 1992

It was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope B16).

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
No David, I am do not base my faith off opinions,but what the church received from Jesus and the Apostles,not some man or woman who decided to open up their own shop based on his/her private interpretation centuries later. Hence, the thousands of denominations out there and why Protestanism is confusion and theological chaos.

Totally evades the question ,where is your documention to show #2,3,4 are for heaven ?

No David, it is you who has evaded my question. Now you are simply turning the tables around. If your interpretation is infallible and the doctrinally orthodox,then why have you failed to present ANY Catholic document or any canon from any ecumenical council supporting your interpretation?

Quote:
As I have said a million times in the past,if Jesus truly taught a symbolic Eucharist as so many Protestants profess,then where are the scores of writings by the ECF’s condemning the Real Presence as heretical or false?

In order to have scores of writings against RP, you need scores of writings proclaiming RP by the ECF…

Are you joking David? Really? So what you are telling me the ECF did not mention or support the RP?

They are not there a hundred years after Christ. That it “developed” is a fact of history , but it took centuries to fully develop , and it took centuries to write against it.

WRONG! The SYMBOLIC position developed out of the Reformation. No offense David, but you are discussing historical matters to someone who has a Masters in History and I am telling you right now that your position is absurd and plainly bogus! If you want to get into deep historical matters,by all means,go for it.

Good evidence has been given that Augustine spoke of it symbolically , so much so that it is taking 12 full pages /threads here, just to try to debunk what seems straight forward disortation,against RP.

Good evidence-eh? Really? If there is good evidence he believed in a symbolic Eucharist,provide me ONE other ECF supporting Augustine’s belief in a symbolic Eucharist? And if Augustine truly believed in a symbolic Eucharist,how strange he never bothers to write AGAINST the Real Presence? Wow David! Such a defender of orthodoxy that Augustine was and he never attacks such an absurd belief and heretical teaching called the Real Presence? Time to pinch yourself David and realize the so-called belief Augustine believed in a symbolic eucharist is a JOKE!

Somebody wrote against it around 900, don’t remember who .They were spoken of on an earlier thread. I know in 1200 it became necessary to proclaim it a dogma .Normally there is always some talk , by some people, to the contrary . Not sure. Haven’t studied those later centuries. But why was there a need to proclaim the dogma , if it was understood and accepted 100% already ?

AND? And the Arians and scores of others wrote against a lot of orthodox teachings? Do you really believe that debunks doctrinal truth? You have a lot to learn David.

You must also recognize that even before it became official dogma , the majority rules ,and unity was strictly enforced .To speak against RP , at some point in history , must have become dangerous to your health .

Sorry,but historians as myself and most historians could careless about one’s commentaries and opinions.

 

[pablope]

No David,

Are you joking David? Really? So what you are telling me the ECF did not mention or support the RP?

Good evidence-eh? Really? If there is good evidence he believed in a symbolic Eucharist,provide me ONE other ECF supporting Augustine’s belief in a symbolic Eucharist? And if Augustine truly believed in a symbolic Eucharist,how strange he never bothers to write AGAINST the Real Presence? Wow David! Such a defender of orthodoxy that Augustine was and he never attacks such an absurd belief and heretical teaching called the Real Presence? Time to pinch yourself David and realize the so-called belief Augustine believed in a symbolic eucharist is a JOKE!

Hi, Nicea…just this thought came to me while reading this…we know that those martyred during the the early years of Christendon all believed in the Real Presence.

Is there anyone martyred for not believing in the Real Presence?