The Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter grasscutter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anabaptist based after the 1500s the Baptist faith was founded around 1611 by John Smyth . Base their faith on John the Baptist but forget to read scripture where he says He must increase and i must decrease (John 3:30 ) Did not in tend to have millions of followers .He intended his followers to be Christs followers not his own .

Now Greek trogon teaching? I saw post 9 what is your response?
been there done that? That does not say anything , if you been their why argue in the first place? it is quote clear as to why the word change and that is to put greater emphasis on
The transubstantiation .

It is quite clear what Bishop Ignatius (student of John ) was teaching .He is speaking about the people that act as if the Eucharist is not the real body and blood of Christ . He also mention the word Catholic in his writings " Wherever Christ is there is the catholic church" (book is at work will cite the exact verses of his writings Friday night )

I have a long way? I believe I gave you enough here and certainly you were not able to refute my argument .
The Lutheran Confessions condemn the teachings of the Anabaptist:

Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists

9 We reject and condemn the erroneous and heretical teaching of the Anabaptists which cannot be suffered or tolerated in the churches or in the body politic or in domestic society. They teach:
10 1. That our righteousness before God does not depend alone on the sole obedience and merit of Christ but in renewal and in our own piety, in which we walk before God. But this piety rests for the greater part on their own peculiar precepts and self-chosen spirituality as on a kind of new monkery.
(tr-1099) 11 2. That unbaptized children are not sinners before God but righteous and innocent, and hence in their innocence they will be saved without Baptism, which they do not need. Thus they deny and reject the entire teaching of original sin and all that pertains thereto.
12 3. That children should not be baptized until they have achieved the use of reason and are able to make their own confession of faith.
13 4. That the children of Christians, because they are born of Christian and believing parents, are holy and children of God even without and prior to Baptism. Therefore they do not esteem infant Baptism very highly and do not advocate it, contrary to the express words of the promise which extends only to those who keep the covenant and do not despise it (Gen. 17:4–8, 19–21).
14 5. That that is no truly Christian assembly or congregation in the midst of which sinners are still found.
15 6. That one may not hear or attend on a sermon in those temples in which the papistic Mass had formerly been read.
16 7. That one is to have nothing to do with those ministers of the church who preach the Gospel according to the Augsburg Confession and censure the errors of the Anabaptists; neither may one serve them or work for them at all, but one is to flee and avoid them as people who pervert the Word of God.
17 8. That in the New Testament era government service is not a godly estate.
18 9. That no Christian can hold an office in the government with an inviolate conscience.
19 10. That no Christian may with an inviolate conscience use an office of the government against wicked persons as occasion may arise, nor may a subject call upon the government for help.
20 11. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience swear an oath before a court or pay oath-bound feudal homage to his prince or liege lord.
21 12. That the government cannot with an inviolate conscience impose the death penalty on evil-doers.
22 13. That no Christian can with a good conscience hold or possess private property but is obliged to give his property to the community.
23 14. That no Christian can with a good conscience be an innkeeper, a merchant, or a cutler.
24 15. That difference in faith is sufficient ground for married people to divorce each other, to go their separate ways, and to enter into a new marriage with another person of the same faith.
25 16. That Christ did not assume his flesh and blood from the virgin Mary but brought it along from heaven.
26 17. That Christ is not truly and essentially God but only possesses more and greater gifts and glory than other people.
(tr-1101) 27 They hold other similar articles. But they are divided into many parties among themselves, with one party holding more and another party holding fewer errors. The entire sect, however, can be characterized as basically nothing else than a new kind of monkery.

Tappert, Theodore G.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 633
 
Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

🙂
 
I stand in solidarity with Bluegoat; it is insulting. I truly wish that instead of telling us what we believe, someone would actually bother to ask. Even the original poster’s question doesn’t ask what one believes; it asks why don’t you believe like me.
That makes three of us. Too often Catholics believe that they are the only ones in the Christian world that believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Simply not so.
 
nope
hmmmm…the accidents of your red octagon are exactly the same as the accidents of a stop sign. On the other hand, the accidents of bread are quite different from the accidents of a body. Further, the “stop sign” created by the government wouldn’t actually be a stop sign and surely wouldn’t work as a stop sign if its accidents weren’t present.
You correctly note that that the substance of a stop sign (its juridical effect), not the accidents (the physical sign) is what causes the duty to stop, and so you go on to reason that you could have an “invisible” stop sign with no accidents at all and therefore very busy policemen. Of course, this is a…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=8323
… since the Eucharist does have accidents, those of bread and wine, whereas the invisible stop sign you posit has no accidents at all. So let’s stick to a situation where you have different accidents than that of a stop sign but the same substance, rather than a substance without accidents. Let’s say you have, instead of the stop sign, an 80 year old granny crossing the street in her walker. You have the same duty to stop as you would before the accidents of the stop sign. The substance of the stop sign, the legal duty to stop, is there even though the accidents of the stop sign are not. Are you going to tell me that granny doesn’t exist because she has the accidents of granny rather than those of a stop sign? Or that the duty to stop does not exist, because the accidents are those of granny rather than a stop sign?

Let’s replace the granny with God. If you are demanding that the accidents of Christ’s Body be there before you will believe, then be consistent and make the same demand of the Holy Spirit. By your own standard, you clearly do not have the substance of the Holy Spirit within you because there is no dove over your head, no tongue of fire over you. Why do you not demand a sign from the Holy Spirit before you will believe that He is there, when you make the same demand of Christ?

It’s not the Father, the Son and the Holy Symbolic, after all. Spiritual realities are more real than physical ones. Physical things turn to dust but spiritual things never do. A human being is spiritual but has physical accidents, the body. When the spirit leaves the body, we call that death; your body no longer has the substance of you and instead has the substance of a corpse. But that does not mean your substance no longer exists. So, again, according to your standard, heaven does not exist since in your view there is no substance without accidents and so, there is nowhere for your soul to go.

This is how rejection of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist always and inevitably leads to atheism. Those of you who want Catholics to just “get over” the Real Presence need to study your history. Or you could just watch the 10 o’clock news and its cavalcade of murders and suicides. People kill others and themselves because they reject spiritual reality, because the material is all that matters to them. To them, God is not any more present in the Host than in their neighbor or in themselves. Thus, to lose spiritual reality is to lose humanity itself.

I will demonstrate upon you again.
No, I would be asserting that people (including early Christians) are less than perfect and possess sufficient free will to add to the original deposit of faith.

Why wouldn’t any have been saved? Where do scriptures or where have I asserted that a perfect understanding of the Eucharist is required for salvation?
Like all Catholics, and like the Orthodox, I worship the Eucharist as God.

Of course, that means that if Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, then I am an idolater. What happens to idolators?

[bibledrb]Revelation 21:8[/bibledrb]

So those are the stakes. Pick your date when you claim that the Real Presence was “added” to the deposit of faith. From that date (let’s say you claim 350 AD) to the Protestant Reformation, everyone was either Catholic or Orthodox or else not a Christian at all. Thus all Christians were either worshipers of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament or idolaters. If the latter, then everyone from your date to the Reformation is in hell.

Considering that the Bible says…
[bibledrb]1 Tim 2:3-4[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]John 3:16[/bibledrb]

…so if you are right, then God is utterly unable to accomplish His will of salvation, as He would have failed to offer salvation from the alleged idolatry for ANY of the millions of people who were so unlucky as to live within that 1,000-year-plus period between your date and the Reformation. It would then follow that Christianity is a false religion.

So either you are wrong (on the Eucharist) or you are wrong (for claiming that Christianity is true).

Of course, you are wrong on the Eucharist only. Jesus is Lord and God and He is there waiting for you in the Blessed Sacrament. Give Him a chance. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord. (Or since you can’t do that until you are reconciled, just go to a Mass and say to yourself the words of Doubting Thomas, “My Lord and My God!” at the moment of consecration.)
 
That makes three of us. Too often Catholics believe that they are the only ones in the Christian world that believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Simply not so.
Do you worship the Eucharist?

If not then how can you claim His presence is Real?
 
And you are wrong as well. Why would Christ leave people second guessing as to what verbage he truly intended to use?
well, any way he meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball. As such, I would think that he didn’t have that purpose.
If Christ meant it to be symbolic,he would have easily used the proper terminology describing a symbolic Eucharist. You are merely guessing and assuming Christ could have meant something different.
we are talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing God here…as such, if he meant it to be some sort of hithertobefore unknown manner of the existence of his body in the element of bread, then I think such a God wouldn’t have broken a sweat finding the terminology to describe that unique manner of existence…heck, I can do it in one sentence w/o effort.
BTW: As of today Radical,you have yet to show me one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 1,000 years) teaching the RP was a heresy or false.
Well, thanks for the update…please continue to keep me posted. Here are some other things that I haven’t done:
  1. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that the Shepherd of Hermas = scripture was a heresy or false. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that Revelation was not scripture was a heresy or false. It is almost as if the early church, in some instances where the teaching wasn’t received from the apostles, was prepared to allow divergent views to exist w/o having a serious blow-up about the matter (with one local church calling another local church heretical for possessing a different view)…it is almost as if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus…at least once that approach of adding to the original deposit seems to have worked quite well, other times, not so much
  2. I also haven’t shown you that the Early Church of the first 4 centuries possessed a uniform belief WRT the presence of Christ in the Eucharist…I can’t cause no such uniform belief existed. J Pelikan, in his first volume of The Christian Tradition writes:
Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence
I have probably shown you that F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

The diversity (seen by Pelikan) and the absence (seen by van der Meer and others) sure would be odd things if a Real Bodily Presence was taught from the outset, but would be rather expected if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus…and, of course, as I have told you before, Kilmartin tracks the establishment of a real somatic presence view to the Antiochene school of the 4th Century.
 
well, any way he meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…
Please review your facts. Catholicism and Orthodoxy together comprise well over half of the world Christian population and both believe in the Real Presence.
The assumption that none of us believe in it is irritating. Lutherans do, and some Anglicans do, and I do though I’m not formally a member of either. We generally would not use “transubstantiation” to describe it though, preferring to leave exactly how it works more of a mystery.

Protestantism is very non-monolithic, which is another thing we are often criticized for.
Virtually no Protestants worship the Eucharist, so when a Protestant claims to believe in the “Real Presence” that belief is always watered down so that Christ is not really there.

Maybe you could find pseudo-Adoration (no orders, ergo no consecration) in the Church of Sweden or something, though. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
 
…Let’s replace the granny with God. If you are demanding that the accidents of Christ’s Body be there before you will believe, then be consistent and make the same demand of the Holy Spirit. By your own standard, you clearly do not have the substance of the Holy Spirit within you because there is no dove over your head, no tongue of fire over you.
Cat Herder, I only read your post up to this point and then decided that life was too short…if you can’t tell the difference between the Christian’s possession of the gift of the Holy Spirit (where no bodily presence is contemplated) and the Catholic claim of the presence of Christ at the Eucharist (where a bodily presence is contemplated) then I can’t help you
 
Cat Herder, I only read your post up to this point and then decided that life was too short…if you can’t tell the difference between the Christian’s possession of the gift of the Holy Spirit** (where no bodily presence is contemplated)…**.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 6:19[/BIBLEDRB]

If you’re done with me then please read the BIble and let the Lord teach you.

Regardless, God bless you.

I hope you come to know the power of His Mercy.
 
Please review your facts. Catholicism and Orthodoxy together comprise well over half of the world Christian population and both believe in the Real Presence.
you might have a point if anywhere near all of the world’s Catholics believed in a RBP…but it ain’t even close and that is why the majority of Christians in the world do not believe in a RBP…got it?
 
you might have a point if anywhere near all of the world’s Catholics believed in a RBP…but it ain’t even close and that is why the majority of Christians in the world do not believe in a RBP…got it?
I’d like to see a GLOBAL poll on that question if you have one. From what I can tell, faith in the Real Presence is quite strong in Latin America where the Eucharist is simply called “el Santisimo” (the Most Holy).

I’m well aware that, unfortunately, many US Catholics give the wrong answer when polled on the Real Presence. And I know that weakens our witness to the Real Presence. As a catechist I’m trying to help fix that.
 
Do you worship the Eucharist?

If not then how can you claim His presence is Real?
Depends on the Anglican. If what you mean is, do Anglicans reverence the Presence, as in the Tabernacle, permit no one not in orders to touch or distribute it (no EMs), observe Benediction and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, use a piscina (sacrarium), communicating with blessed ground, reverently consume any undistributed Holy Blood, etc. because the sacrament is truly, really and substantially the body and blood, along with the soul and divinity, of Christ…depends on which one you ask. Such is the practice at my parish.

GKC
 
Sure. The concrete answer is that it is really, truly, etc. Not all Anglicans believe it. Nothing to be done about it.

GKC
Although I didn’t move through an Anglican or Episcopalian church on my voyage to Rome, I did see something similar in the Methodist church and so I share your frustration.

I hope that you and your traditional Anglican bretheren can eventually make the jump into the Ordinariate. You’d be a great asset to the Catholic Church.
 
Although I didn’t move through an Anglican or Episcopalian church on my voyage to Rome, I did see something similar in the Methodist church and so I share your frustration.

I hope that you and your traditional Anglican bretheren can eventually make the jump into the Ordinariate. You’d be a great asset to the Catholic Church.
You are very kind to say so.

GKC
 
I’d like to see a GLOBAL poll on that question if you have one. From what I can tell, faith in the Real Presence is quite strong in Latin America where the Eucharist is simply called “el Santisimo” (the Most Holy).
actually, I think that you do even worse when you step into Latin America. IIRC to get to the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world almost every man. woman and child in Latin America is counted as Catholic (b/c of the baptismal certificate). As such, a country might be 10% Protestant with 15% remaining as devout Catholic…and yet 80% might be categorized as Catholic (I am making these percentages up as I go along, but IIRC they reflect reality in a number of cases). If that 80% represents 50 mill of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, how many of that 50 mill actually believe in a RBP?..I expect no where near half (and with the Protestants being significantly of the Charismatic flavor, you won’t find many RBPers there either). I would suggest that 1.1 billion Catholics is an inflated figure and that by including non-devout Catholics from every corner of the planet, not even 50% of the much lower number of Catholics in the world would believe in a RBP. I too would like to see accurate global numbers on the matter.
 
I think that comparing Anglicanism to Unitarianism is pretty insulting and inaccurate. Rather like comparing Catholicism to Mormonism.
Posted by **Conor7 **I stand in solidarity with Bluegoat; it is insulting. I truly wish that instead of telling us what we believe, someone would actually bother to ask. Even the original poster’s question doesn’t ask what one believes; it asks why don’t you believe like me.
Posted by** kylemccloughan**That makes three of us. Too often Catholics believe that they are the only ones in the Christian world that believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Simply not so.
This began when Cheshangle, an Anglican, wrote in posts #13 and 14 that he believes in the Real Presence and that the “Anglican stance” supports that belief.

I observed that Anglicanism covers three distinct belief systems - the Anglo-Catholics (High Church), the evangelicals (Low Church) and the liberals (Broad Church). The Broad Church seems to me similar to the Unitarians, who have no required set of beliefs. Neither the Low nor Broad churches believe in the Real Presence.

My long lost half-brother told me he is Unitarian. He described his religious beliefs as “optional.” I was merely trying to describe my understanding of the Broad Church’s liberal POV. I am not Anglican, but I have read about the three-church division within Anglicanism in many books. It’s difficult for me to understand how Anglicanism can encompass three such divergent beliefs.

Please see GKC’s very informative reply to me in post #34.

If I offended the three of you – or anyone – I apologize.

Jim Dandy
 
No worries, Jim Dandy. Sometimes the only way to be heard around here is to feign outrage. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top