The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

There is nothing on page 47 in any of your posts where you were able to back up your claim that the Church did not believe in the Real Presence in the first 100 years.

All you’ve done is claim that you’ve read this is so, but no support came for such a claim. If you have really read this, then the information must be where you read it in.

Care to try again?

P

lease show support that in the first 100 years, the Church did not believe in the Real Presence.

Again ,you stated they supported RP .I said they don’t. Prove to me they do ?

 

[lyrikal]

As there was real flesh with the lamb at passover ,(and bread and drink),Christ came in the flesh and hung on the cross. He gave us bread and drink (not flesh) to commemorate.

I already answered this here on post #820. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8331321&postcount=820

 

[pablope]

1)

David, if you are going to justify the removal of the seven books, then you should just look at Luther’s own actions, let them speak for themselves, and not use other Catholics for justification.

Luther’s action should stand on their own merits.

Anyway, if you are going by what Jeroma and Erasmus did, and compare or justify Luther’s acitons with what they said, then your Bible should also contain the seven books of the OT that you protestants removed.

For when the Pope issued and declared the Canon, Jerome and Erasmus followed what the Pope declared, and kept their opinion to themselves.

And if you are indeed going to follow Luther’s opinion on the DC books, then your Bible should also not have Hebrews, James, Revelations, whichi Luther opined should also not be in the Bible. So, why do accept these NT books in your Bible?

 

[CopticChristian]

Trebor135;8311491:

Is there something written in the wind as to when it shall come and when it shall go ?

. He had similar views to Jerome and Erasmus as to cannonocity .Having seen this in your list, I suppose many more need a grain of salt…Why don’t we list all the things that remained, the doctrines that stood and remained ? I believe you will find them quite fundamental ,quite Christian ,quite universal . It is these things that really what separates us from say Islam or Buddhism etc .

youtube.com/watch?v=_zY_cM0_6vA

youtube.com/watch?v=3t4g_1VoGw4

Sometimes the same words, same sentiments provided by different people cause us to see things differently.

Erasmus, Luther, Jerome are all just individuals. They are entitled to opinions. You and I are entitled to opinions. Sometimes our opinions yield to the magesterium. If you have not seen the movie the Cardinal it is a story worth seeing. Humility, life, death, the magesterium are viewed and understood.

youtube.com/watch?v=qxsCBIxr71M

There are a myriad of problems within the Church that are confronted daily and yet confronted by each and everyone of us knowing that we are not in charge.

youtube.com/watch?v=RJrn0PcafCc

In the end it is either me and Jesus and I decide or it is me, Jesus, His Church and what He has revealed. You don’t have to like it. You have to love it and in time you learn to like it because you can give up control of what you think you control. True freedom is freedom from fear of not knowing what it is I am to do, Veritatis Splendor, and the end result is joy. He wants you, He is calling you, you respond as you choose to and in the end He and all welcome you.

 

[david_ruiz]

OK.

As everyone knows, Sts. Augustine and Ignatius were evangelicals who looked to their pastors for spiritual guidance but the Bible for the final say.

 

[david_ruiz]

OK.To who belongs the prerogative of deciding what books are inspired and which aren’t?

I would say Luther put that on you and me ,as perhaps even Jerome did also, based on their commentaries before each book and other writings.Why do you think they both didn’t mind putting that book in the vernacular ,for all to read ? Also certain books tell you they are inspired (Peter and Paul) I think .Also ,we know from tradition ,it was the practice of each individual church to regard scripture ,and other holy writings as they saw fit .

The Church isn’t saying that at all.

Well certainly the church is saying something is on par with Holy Writ.

The Early Church Fathers are witnesses of the faith in generations long past.

Yes ,and the Church uses them to support and pass dogma that is as authoratative as scripture itself.

And if their “double checking” resulted in their rejection of the truth, they’d be condemned.

Oh you worry about so many things .because double checking can not be foolproof you lean away from it and clutch to the only hope for perfection ,Mother Church ? NOTHING is fool proof .Going to mass, the sacraments ,a sinners prayer ,reading your bible ,doing great works ,listening to teachers magisterium or your own inner voice, all of them are nothing without His divine revelation. "Let all men be liars, only God be true ". So place not your hope in a pope or Luther, or a sacrament or a prayer, or this church or that church .Place hope in Christ. That is John 6, the bigger picture ,not RP.

I ask again: where does the Bible instruct us to employ it as the final benchmark? Chapter and verse.

That word "final’ is your rock ,isn’t it ? The ultimate search for security in truth. Will this please you , for me to say ,the bible is NOT enough ? If that is so ,and it is ,your church is certainly not enough either.

I don’t learn my history from movies.

Yes ,they may be slanted , from a particular viewpoint , but please show me something that is not biased. Even the 4 gospels are “slanted”, having their own viewpoint (to which I say Alleluia !).

OK. Well, I’d have to look at such hypothetical transcripts to comment. But let’s say the council didn’t use scriptural arguments; this doesn’t rule out that other Catholics with whom Luther was or could have been interacting didn’t furnish such arguments.

Quite true .I would hope Luther had listened to best of arguments from all sources,from which to be possibly convicted (as we do here ). I suppose to him he had seen the real deal ,the light ,and no amount of casting light on falsehood was going to change him .A lot like FBI agents on the counterfeit squad ,they study and see the real bills ,over and over again ,so much so that if you stick a counterfeit in the stack , they spot it instantly.No amount of uplifting the phony will change their mind ,cause they have seen the real.

Of course. Faith isn’t just a matter of the head, but also of the heart. Someone can’t argue you into believing; ultimately that’s the job of the Holy Spirit.

Alleluia ! But is that in the catechism , and unqualified ?

Presbyter is the etymological ancestor of priest.

Of course, another unbiased development. I believe the Greek word for priest in the OT has a different rendering in the new hence “presbyter” , and not “priests” .I find it misleading .Like the word “hell” is misleading also ,for it can connote several different Greek words , while we have one English.

Then why did he write (2 Timothy 2:2), “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”?

I don’t think that is what constitutes “infallible succession” from a Catholic definition.

This is absurd. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli weren’t bishops, so couldn’t pass on apostolic succession. Why should Catholics turn to Lutherans, Reformeds/Presbyterians, or Anabaptists as “anointed successors” of the apostles when nearly all Protestants deny the sacramental character of ordination?

Maybe not from CC point of view , but I would say they were bishops/presbyetrs.Ceratianly they fullfilled your 2tim 2 scripture.Anyways they were ordained something in you Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

If Jesus was to use a real lamb to give us His REAL Bodily Presence, then what would He have used for drinking His blood? The blood of the lamb?

Also the idea of bread and wine is not foreign in the Old Testament:

Exodus 25:

[23]

"And you shall make a table of acacia wood; two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height.

[24] You shall overlay it with pure gold, and make a molding of gold around it.
[25] And you shall make around it a frame a handbreadth wide, and a molding of gold around the frame.
[26] And you shall make for it four rings of gold, and fasten the rings to the four corners at its four legs.
[27] Close to the frame the rings shall lie, as holders for the poles to carry the table.
[28] You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, and the table shall be carried with these.
[29] **And you shall make its plates and dishes for incense, and its flagons **and bowls with which to pour libations; of pure gold you shall make them.
[30] And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.

They didn’t use grape juice or orange juice or water or anything else for the libation except for wine.

What about this?:

Genesis 14:

[18] And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

The idea of Bread and Wine is not foreign to the OT.

Consider this: Jesus did not make the lamb a focal point and a focus of the Passover meal at the Last Supper because HE IS THE LAMB. He did not want them to focus on the lamb in front of them on the table but on the LAMB that is in front of them talking to them (Jesus).

Jesus could have used grape juice and chips ahoy for His Body and Blood but He didn’t, He used bread and wine. If you don’t think the eating of the lamb at the passover has any foreshadowing of the Eucharist, then I can show you otherwise. There are many similarities between the two.

God bless.

Understand .I failed to put comma after lamb. I meant they had 3things : lamb ,drink(wine), and bread. Why did not Jesus use lamb to represent him ? Were there already symbols ?

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE]As I understand it, a declaration by the priest was required back then for the forgiveness of sins to take place–he wasn’t just there for show.

Yes at what point in history do you find this ? Certainly not before 130 AD.In the OT you either confessed to the individual ,and possibly the congregation(sin toward man) ,or you confessed to God (sins toward God) ,before the congregation and not necessarily in specificity, and not to the priest.The only time you confessed to a priest was perhaps on your deathbed ,unable to go before congregation.A priest was needed to finish the ceremony ,which the penitent began by killing the sacrifice.The sinner did not confess to the priest per say ,as it is understood today. It was first internally before God (Psalms) ,then externally before God and the congregation(Lev) .

 

[lyrikal]

Understand .I failed to put comma after lamb. I meant they had 3things : lamb ,drink(wine), and bread. Why did not Jesus use lamb to represent him ? Were there already symbols ?

Hi David,

I understood what you meant. The issue is with the blood of the lamb. Eating the flesh of the lamb could mean eating the Body of Christ had Christ chosen to do it that way, but the issue is: how was he to have given us His blood? Were we to drink of the blood of the lamb?

 

[david_ruiz]

I wrote a blog a few days ago dealing with John 6 and what Jesus meant and how they understood Him. I highly recommend you check it out. It is very long but I think it will help you understand why we believe Jesus was talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

Check it out and let me know where I went wrong on it, please.

Thank you!

Howdy Started to read your stuff .I got to your baptism part .If figurative speech is using a worldly reality to show spiritual reality ,then the term" Born-again" -is purely figurative in John 3. In reality we can not be born again ,as Nicodemus points out .Even spiritually we can not be literally “born again”. We can only be “born”. It is not as if I had spiritual life , then lost it /died and now I need rebirth .It is a figurative term .Jesus could have been literal and plainly said ,“Nicodemus ,you need to be born in the Spirit”-and actually he later said that as part of a two part statement .But Jesus ,in his wisdom, and economy of words ,says it simply with “born-again” -a simple figurative word depicting two literal events .The first is that you are born , of a mother (water -amniotic fluid,) the second is you must be born spiritually .They are two separate events. What is born of the flesh (mother-water) ,is flesh , and what is born of the spirit is spirit .Just like in John 6 he strenghten’s the statement each time .He makes 3 statements . 2of the 3 (born-again, born of flesh) are not about water baptism .Why would the third statement be (born of water) ? You must answer what is it to be born in the flesh and why it is even introduced ? If verse 6 said ," That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of water and spirit is spirit." then you would have a point .But scripture does NOT say that.The only time the two are combined (water and spirit ) in vs 5 Jesus is building upon Nicodemus knowledge that yes you are born once of a woman ,but now Nicodemus you must be born in the spirit .hence he uses water for the first birth .That other meanings may be harvested is ok ,but that is the primary meaning to me.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

I understood what you meant. The issue is with the blood of the lamb. Eating the flesh of the lamb could mean eating the Body of Christ had Christ chosen to do it that way, but the issue is: how was he to have given us His blood? Were we to drink of the blood of the lamb?

no cause i don’t think that was Jewish ritual .It was meat ,drink /wine ,bread ,wasn’t it ?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8331538:

youtube.com/watch?v=_zY_cM0_6vA

youtube.com/watch?v=3t4g_1VoGw4

Sometimes the same words, same sentiments provided by different people cause us to see things differently.

Erasmus, Luther, Jerome are all just individuals. They are entitled to opinions. You and I are entitled to opinions. Sometimes our opinions yield to the magesterium. If you have not seen the movie the Cardinal it is a story worth seeing. Humility, life, death, the magesterium are viewed and understood.

youtube.com/watch?v=qxsCBIxr71M

There are a myriad of problems within the Church that are confronted daily and yet confronted by each and everyone of us knowing that we are not in charge.

youtube.com/watch?v=RJrn0PcafCc

In the end it is either me and Jesus and I decide or it is me, Jesus, His Church and what He has revealed. You don’t have to like it. You have to love it and in time you learn to like it because you can give up control of what you think you control. True freedom is freedom from fear of not knowing what it is I am to do, Veritatis Splendor, and the end result is joy. He wants you, He is calling you, you respond as you choose to and in the end He and all welcome you.
Well thank-you .Well have pretty much same types (name removed by moderator)ut(scripture,church /teachers,parents/tradition etc) . It is not just Jesus and me. Yes, we all decide after that don’t we ? Haven’t you decided on a church, as I have decided ?

 

[david_ruiz]

That could be true ,but hopefully you will then acknowledge it was against their better academic judgements to include them.

And if you are indeed going to follow Luther’s opinion on the DC books, then your Bible should also not have Hebrews, James, Revelations, whichi Luther opined should also not be in the Bible. So, why do accept these NT books in your Bible?

Quite true about Luther ,but he DID include them ,and left it to the individual and God for conviction.Luther was NOT magisterially rigid. Again Jerome had similar opinions on Hebrew and James etc,as did other scholars of Luther’s day .Luther was a good Catholic in these academic opinions.

 

[pablope]

That could be true ,but hopefully you will then acknowledge it was against their better academic judgements to include them.

But David, the Bible was not compiled solely because of academic judgements.

When you get around to it, after reading the ECFs, why don’t you read something about the Councils of Rome (AD 382), Hippo and Carthage, where the final Canon was decided.

Jerome was tasked, after the Council of Rome, to translate the newly approved canon, into Latin, which produced the Latin Vulgate.

Quite true about Luther ,but he DID include them ,and left it to the individual and God for conviction.Luther was NOT magisterially rigid. Again Jerome had similar opinions on Hebrew and James etc,as did other scholars of Luther’s day .Luther was a good Catholic in these academic opinions.

Luther separated them, David. He reordered the list of books. I think he was already excommunicated when Luther started tinkering with the Canon, so no, he was not a good Catholic anymore at that time.

David, if this was true, and truly what God had wished, there would be one Catholic
Bible and 33,000 other versions of Protestant Bibles. In essence, you are advocating for massive confusion. There is confusion already out there with the protestant denominations, and their different beliefs…and now, you will include confusion about the canon of the Bible…

 

[david_ruiz]

Lev 5:[5] When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, [6] and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Israelites had to confess their sins to the priest.

This is not true ,in todays sense of confession .That a priest helped with decision of animal not sure .But Lev states the sinner places the sacrifice down, kills it, and then the priest finishes the ritual .The sinner confessed to the congregation ,and not necessarily in detail (as one does today in the confessional.Confession is to god (Psalms) and the congregation(Lev.) The only time it was to a priest was on deathbed ,when disability would deny meeting elsewhere. I have read some rabbinical essays and they would be appalled if you were to try to show Lev. and Jewish custom to support the modern day confessional.
So individual auricular confession is not alien to early Christians.

This is totally dishonest and disengenuous. The issue was settled by Bishop Polycarp and Pope Victor, which really was a matter of emphasis & a non-issue. The Pope agreed to allow the Eastern churches to retain their practice of having Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, which the Eastern rite churches still do today

.

One Pope, zealous for unity of practice in Rome, issued a decree that Easter in Rome is to be celebrated according to the Western church’s reckoning of Easter(the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox-which is in fact when I’m sure YOU celebrate Easter as well; again you unknowingly assent to the Catholic Church’s Universal tradition and authority). Then later he tried to extend it for the whole Church throughout the empire. If he had no real authority then he had no real mandate to even issue such a proclaimation. Yet he was advised by Irenaeus to back off on this, to follow the example of Victor and Polycarp, and he did.

Where the heck do you get your “history” from?/QUOTE]
Thank-you for the correction ,that some still observe the 14th. Be generous though ,for you have it little mixed up also, but our points still stand .It was Anicetus (155 ad) that forbade Christians in Rome to celebrate their Easter eastern tradition of the 14 th (Rome had a lot of immigrants). Polycarp came to town and both agreed to disagree ,and both practices continued in Rome. Then Pope Victor (190 ad) advised churches to break off communion with churches that practiced Easter on" 14th “. Iraneus protested, " the immediate upshot is not known, but the “14” tradition continued to lose ground”. ( “Lives of the Popes” by M.Walsh)

 

[david_ruiz]

The GreyPilgrim;8331589=david ruiz;8331538:

Again you still assume your modern protestant notions into your reading. The Nicolatians were NOT Christians. Heretics abandon Christ ever before they are excommunicated, by the very fact of their rebellion.

There are more ways to be in error than doctrinal.I beleive only one of the seven churches in rev. was without fault

What is still amazing is that all of you Protetsants refer to a Jewish decree based on an elitist group of Palestinian scribes and priests after the end of the first century to substantiate your insistence on what the Bible canon is who were prejudicial against the first century Church because so many converts to Christianity were diaspora Jews who spoke Greek & used the Greek Septuagint(maybe because that is what Paul himself used to proclaim Christ?).

Good ,At least you concede their is a Hebrew bible and the greek Septuaguaint,that contains other religious writings (it would be like including the letters of Ignatius or Clements letter to Cor. ),not necessarily "inspired’.Furthermore ,I believe all quotes form Jesus and Paul etc (except maybe one) were not from the “disputed books”.

IOW, “lets find that ‘lowest common denominator’ and just agree to disagree”. I really can’t stand relativists…

I’d rather be relatively right than absolutely wrong.

 

[lyrikal]

Howdy Started to read your stuff .I got to your baptism part .If figurative speech is using a worldly reality to show spiritual reality ,then the term" Born-again" -is purely figurative in John 3. In reality we can not be born again ,as Nicodemus points out .Even spiritually we can not be literally “born again”. We can only be “born”. It is not as if I had spiritual life , then lost it /died and now I need rebirth .It is a figurative term .Jesus could have been literal and plainly said ,“Nicodemus ,you need to be born in the Spirit”-and actually he later said that as part of a two part statement .But Jesus ,in his wisdom, and economy of words ,says it simply with “born-again” -a simple figurative word depicting two literal events .The first is that you are born , of a mother (water -amniotic fluid,) the second is you must be born spiritually .They are two separate events. What is born of the flesh (mother-water) ,is flesh , and what is born of the spirit is spirit .Just like in John 6 he strenghten’s the statement each time .He makes 3 statements . 2of the 3 (born-again, born of flesh) are not about water baptism .Why would the third statement be (born of water) ? You must answer what is it to be born in the flesh and why it is even introduced ? If verse 6 said ," That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of water and spirit is spirit." then you would have a point .But scripture does NOT say that.The only time the two are combined (water and spirit ) in vs 5 Jesus is building upon Nicodemus knowledge that yes you are born once of a woman ,but now Nicodemus you must be born in the spirit .hence he uses water for the first birth .That other meanings may be harvested is ok ,but that is the primary meaning to me.

Hi David,

This is way off topic. I asked you to examine my blog which deals with Baptism but is not primarily about Baptism. Baptism in John 3 is used to show what Jesus meant in John 6 in regards to the Eucharist. I would like to start a new thread about John 3 and what Jesus meant. Would you like me to do that? I have a lot to say in regards to your above reply. How does that sound?

 

[david_ruiz]

]But Luther’s response was overblown and he had no intent at any true reform. He wanted revolution and to make himself known.

Maybe ,but I don’t think so .His initial response was not overblown.He followed procedure and sent letter to the powers to be for change .The Papal reaction was overblown.

QUOTE] He had no intention of working within the Church for reform. Again ,at what point ? I would say Rome had no intention of admitting ANY error. That guarantees truth ,right ?

I have serious problems when one so “well-educated” decides for himslef to add and subtract words from his translation of the BIble as well as remove entire books because they don’t fit his theology.

Why do the Jews not have them in their bible ? Why don’t you have all apocryphal books in yours ?Rome rejected some also .Let’s be cynical and say Catholic ,Lutherans, and Jews have an axe to grind ,and are incapable of being judiciously academic and true to God and His Holy Writ… As to the one word, “alone”, out of a half million, not a bad statistic .Thank God Germans had those correct half -million .I will forgive him the one possible error ,especially given the monumentous, prevailing prejudiced doctrine to overcome .

Indulgences are not doctrines, they are a practice. What “bad doctrine” are you referring to. What is your basis for calling it “bad doctrine”?

Fair question .It would best be answered with doctrinal basis for the “practice”. Has omething to with purgatory ,and stored up grace and merit etc etc etc.

Your kids come to you saying, “Dad, we don’t like going to Church on Sunday, we don’t like family dinner, we don’t like mom at all. We just want to do whatever we want, OK?”

And, what, you just “appease” them? You let them have whatever they want right? Because they’re “well-educated” kids who have every right to decide on their own how to live their lives, right?

Because we don’t want to be “intolerant” to their sensibilities now, do we?

Nice try .Even you are in denial that anything negative was going on during Luther’s time .Why don’t you inject this in your family scenario- "We are tired of eating pizza and wings and ice cream every other night, or we are tired of you working all the time and not being home ". Now what ?

** No! You stand your ground! You tell your kids, “this is what our family is! We go to Church on Sundays, we have family dinners together as a family, and your mother is your mother and her word is as good as mine!”

**You tell your kids that we will continue our diet cause we’ve done it a long time ,as I did with my parents ,there is nothing wrong with being “plump” with clogged arteries"

"Parents do for the good of the child no matter how much that child thinks he/she knows. The child submits to the parent, not the other way around!

Indeed we being evil still know how to give our kids good things ,but we being evil also give our kids bad things ,down to the third generation ,such as bad habits .Again ,your unrealistic assumption is that parents are perfect .

It would be the height of absurdity for the Church to bend appease that child Luther’s rediculous claims, interpretations, and temper tantrums.

.Out of the mouth of babes you will be rebuked ,and learn the ways of the Lord.

 

[lyrikal]

no cause i don’t think that was Jewish ritual .It was meat ,drink /wine ,bread ,wasn’t it ?

Brother David,

I am not sure if the issue with the Eucharist being the new Passover is something you should take up with Catholics. I think it is an issue that you should take up with Jesus. He is the one who instituted it that way and we follow. Follow my logic here:

A.) Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (John 1:29)
A.) The Passover lamb in the OT was done for the forgiveness of sins.

B.) Jesus took bread and said “This is my Body” and took wine and said “This is my blood.”
B.) The Passover lamb in the OT was not done when the lamb was slaughtered. They had to literally eat it (not symbolically).

C.) Since Jesus is the Lamb of God for the world now and this same Lamb of God takes bread and says “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” and then tells us to “take and eat” and “take and drink…” then it is safe to assume that what we are eating and drinking is the Lamb of God (Jesus).

Your statement that you made would have been valid if Jesus took the bread and said “This is my body but you don’t need to eat it…” You would then have a valid argument in saying that the bread and wine does not mean it is the new Passover meal. But since He told us to EAT it and DRINK it, then the bread and wine (Body and Blood) are CLEARLY the NEW Lamb of God that we are to eat after He has been “slaughtered” (crucified).

Now, let’s dig deeper into the Scriptures and see if the Bible calls the Eucharist a passover meal. Let’s go to 1 Corinthians 5:7-8:

[7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
[8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

That sounds VERY Catholic and also sounds like he is arguing against your point. Look closely at what St. Paul is saying. He calls Jesus “our PASCHAL LAMB” and says that He “has been sacrificed.” What does that remind you of? The Passover where the lamb was sacrificed, right? What did they do after the lamb was sacrificed? Symbolically eat it? No, they literally ate it.

Now, verse 8 which makes my point very nicely. What do you think St. Paul meant when he said “Let us, therefore, CELEBRATE THE FESTIVAL…” What Festival is he talking about? Is he talking about the old Passover? If so, does your church celebrate the old Passover still? It can’t be about the old Passover because Christians no longer celebrated the old Passover. So what is he talking about? He is talking about the NEW PASSOVER. The word festival means that there is something that is eaten during the celebration. What do you think they were eating? The new Passover festival is the eating of the new Lamb of God, the Paschal Lamb.

The Greek word festival that St. Paul uses is ἑορτάζω (heortazō) which has its roots from the Greek word ἑορτή (heortē). The latter word is used to describe the Passover meal. Notice the language of leavened and unleavened bread and compare it with the following verse:

Luke.22
[1] Now the **feast **(ἑορτή heortē) of Unleavened Bread drew near, **which is called the Passover. **

I challenge you to do a word search for ἑορτή to see how it is used in the New Testament. It is almost always used in reference to the Passover.

So my question to you is, what Passover is St. Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8? Please do remember that a few chapters later in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Saint Paul starts talking about a meal. Guess what that meal is? The Eucharist.

God Bless you brother.

 

[david_ruiz]

You conveniently fail to answer the question: what church or ecclesial community would St. Augustine join if he returned from the dead today

Conveniently ? I did answer," I don’t know" .First of all I’d have to read all Augustines stuff ,then I’d have to read 4,5, 6 various statements of faith by the main denominations ,and go from there .I fully doubt he would be full blown Catholic.He would be evangelical -that is one needs a personal experience with Christ .

Being right or wrong or somewhere in between is absolutist. Pointing to disagreement as evidence that no truth can be found is relativistic.

Well, then pointing to agreement as evidence of truth is “relative” also.

I see what you mean. But Catholics and Orthodox believe that an ultimate truth exists and it can be known,

Good except Protestants believe that also ,in absolute truth and that it can be known .We just differ on how it is to be known. .

not that people should be left to fend for themselves and celebrate “freedom” over “uniformity” in matters of faith and morals.

Again , this has nothing to do with absoluteness or relativity .,but in the “how”, a very negative "how’. One could bring up a negative view on your "how’ also -whichIi have done ,so we are even.

Must God implement his will exactly as you think he should so you can believe in the faith-stretching things he opts to do without a struggle?

No, just a question,relative to literalness and symbolism of Eucharist and Passover.

The appearance of the third person of the trinity at Christ’s baptism wasn’t symbolic; according to Luke 3:22, “the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove”.

So, the Holy Spirit has the body of a dove ? I understand it was both symbolic and real .This is a specific instance .Sorry ,it was ECFs, that talked of water and the wine as symbols of Word and the Spirit .That is ok .It has been shown to me Catholics believe both symbolism and literalness.

Those with weak faith, perhaps, but not impostors.

No, “those who believed not” walked away cause of the eating .Nothing about “weak faith” or impostors.

This doesn’t prove that Christ doesn’t want us to eat him. We read about original sin only once in the New Testament, and that’s a pretty important concept–not to mention a truth kept in reserve for the New Covenant people to learn. This doesn’t mean original sin is a false notion.

Correct .The point stands .Jesus sometimes uses figurative speech when it comes to things one must do to be saved. Whether , as you point out , it is once or many times ,it stands.

Christ wanted to test people and force them to look into things more deeply than they would otherwise. And he knew some would refuse to have their hearts melted and give his message a chance.

I think so .There are sheeps and goats .He must show us our own "goatness’ and give us the desire to be a sheep under His staff. Job says God is master at that…This matters more than to RP or not.

We really can’t know, since the text isn’t clear on what the disciples thought Christ meant.

Thanks for being honest again .The only hint is when Peter says “your Words are eternal life” -Jesus earlier says eating him is eternal life.I believe Augustine mentions this hence ,believing his words is eating him. Again it is a hint.

About this passage, however, it’s difficult to say, since it’s ambiguous. Jesus was divine, so he knew future events and the thoughts and emotions of others before and while they became reality. What the passage was supposed to mean has to be investigated by reference to the original Koine Greek–the two possibilities I see are:

a) He knew they had never believed in the first place and were walking with him really for no good reason.

b) Though he knew they would believe up to the point of the discourse, he also understood that they were going to stop then because of its unusual content.

Ok I like your process.I think there is a third explanation ,and it is not ambiguous ,given the entire text .Indeed it was unusual text ,but it only magnified what was there already -unbelief,or rather ( for we all have faith ,just not saving faith ) it showed what they did believe in a Messiah, that he would not die ,or resurrect or Ascend back to heaven…They did not believe from the beginning scripture says.