The Real Presence

[CopticChristian]

Trebor135;8296381:

That indeed is our challenge before the Lord ,as protestants facing history.But you have your spiritual challenge also ,not to be afraid to see if indeed some dogma is “fallible”. To say all are perfect is head-in -sand, that a promised, perfect church has different interpretations. I would have never read the early fathers up to 130 A.D. had not this site (CA )invited me to do so (Church Timeline thread) .I found that their writings were pretty much acceptable to Protestants AND Catholics. Sorry , but i would encourage all Christians to read them .You can see why some are not quite on par with Holy Scripture, but some are quite moving and enlightening. When I say Catholics find them acceptable , it is because they shed possible seeds for future developing dogma, but mostly because they cover dogma that is catholic -universal to ALL Christians .Have you read them ?

Well ,we are both half right ,here is the full scripture, that I may totally right (humor) ,“these were more noble than those in Thess.,in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, AND searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” Acts 17:11 Beautiful. Did they receive readily because they trusted verification , by scripture ? I will gladly look at anything Catholic or ECF’S because I have a good benchmark /foundation -Scriptures
Notice the bereans did not say the following : they daily checked with their magisterium or they daily checked with the Talmud (their version of ECF’s)
Luther did pretty much the same thing. He said he would gladly recant, and receive any correction ,admonition form His beloved Church if they could show scriptural basis.What he was offered was councils and papal decrees,and a magisterium line of thought. Not bad ,but then Paul would show OT that says He was accursed for our sake and for our sins …You bring up a point. Ignatius had similar problems .People said it is not found in the “Archives”, therefore I won’t believe. His reply was that the Spirit revealed to him the truth in the archives .Notice he did not say a magisterium or a tradition .He had divine , one on one, personal ,divine revelation into scripture.

Never said that .You said we have anarchy .I said we have divisions(yet unified in Christ ,the body) ,as you did in Paul’s day. He did not advocate division ,but there was division amongst Christians.They were still Christians .I would not say anarchy. Paul would have rebuked us for this Catholic /Protetstant bickering .He would correct any deficiency , one issue at a time .Remember the boasting," I am of Paul ,orI am of Peter" ? It made him sick .So , RP is right or not . But as soon as it is defended or attacked because of my church’s stance ,or that my church is more important and must be defended or attacked , we are done and make Paul sick all over again.

Luther did pretty much the same thing. He said he would gladly recant, and receive any correction ,admonition form His beloved Church if they could show scriptural basis.What he was offered was councils and papal decrees,and a magisterium line of thought.

Catholic Answers was not available to Luther. It is to you and all that take this position of Luther. Scriptural basis is shown time and again. The ears become deaf, the positions do not yield, Protestants of today have a similar mindset. I can conclude that someone told Luther in a different way by Scripture that he was wrong since today I see no yielding when those positions held are proven to be wrong by Scripture, by Tradtion and history.

The notion that Paul was talking about division of Churches and Real presence denies One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.

When you conclude your church, it is one ecclesial body that speaks only for those that attend and not for any universal body of believers.

 

[david_ruiz]

If we look at it as merely a sign and only a sign and symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ, then that’s where the Anathema holds true. But if we look at a both/and concept of the matter, then there is no problem there. I don’t think there is a Christian who would deny that the Bread and Wine is a sign of the memorial and what Christ did for us on the cross.

Here are some paragraphs from the Catechism to look at:

1323 “At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’”

1328 The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:

Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek words eucharistein and eulogein **recall **the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - **God’s works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. **

1325 “**The Eucharist is the efficacious sign **and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.”

409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: “This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . .”

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

One can look at some of these passages and come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church teaches a symbolic-only Eucharist. But we all know that this isn’t the case. We have to look at her teachings as a whole. This is what we have to do with the writings of the Fathers as well. We can’t make one passage answer to another passage as if one passage has more authority or say over another. We take it all in unity and conform it and make sense of it. It usually makes more sense that way (especially in Christianity) to conform passages together (both/and) rather than understand them as contradicting each other (either/or).

Hope that helps. Grace and peace, brother!

Ok reread council and you are right .Thanks

 

[david_ruiz]

I see this misunderstanding among non catholics common place (especially among Mormons); bread and wine before the consecration are symbols, after the consecration these signs become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ real presence sacramentally.

Re-read your Catholic sources and you will find the bread and wine before the consecration are symbols, after the consecration they are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This simple formula also applies to many ECF’s writings.

Just a note

I did reread council of trent only.What you say is implied thanks

 

[david_ruiz]

Huh! So you are saying that the ECFs after the first 100 years viewed the Eucharist as the Real Body and Blood of Christ but those in the 1st 100 years did not? So you are saying that corruption of the doctrine occured as early as the 2nd Century.

Hmmm, you’ve got a lot of proving to do.

We await.

Noooooh.Just said that I have only read up to about 130 A.D. and some Augustine .That’s all folks.

 

[david_ruiz]

Y

ou will be exremely

 

[david_ruiz]

David cannot and will not produce an ounce of evidence because none exist supporting his position of symbolic eucharist the first 100 years. His position is based on pure speculation,conjecture and biased views based on a novel position:symbolic eucharist.

To make the charge the first 100 years Christians did not believe in RP is state one has proof otherwise? So far I have not read a single letter or document outside the NT supporting such a belief.

Show me one that shows transubstantiation , that you need a priest, that it is behind a veil or tabernacle or in gold ,that it is adored, worshiped, indeed that is an offering (re-presenting), that you had to fast, before 130 A.D.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8299417:

]Catholic Answers was not available to Luther. It is to you and all that take this position of Luther. Scriptural basis is shown time and again. The ears become deaf, the positions do not yield, Protestants of today have a similar mindset. I can conclude that someone told Luther in a different way by Scripture that he was wrong since today I see no yielding when those positions held are proven to be wrong by Scripture, by Tradtion and history.

Yes ,he had heard the arguments from scripture ,at some point ,but not at the hearings.Luther had read the early fathers,and believed they were not unanimous in opinion on many things .What Tetzel was doing was scriptural ? It shows the ignorance of scripture ,superstition ,that only held truth and dignity in human life back -indeed the dark ages.

The notion that Paul was talking about division of Churches and Real presence denies One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.

not sure what you mean

When you conclude your church, it is one ecclesial body that speaks only for those that attend and not for any universal body of believers.:

Well it could be said for all churches ,including yours .But I wouldn’t put it as you did cause i don’t believe in your definition of “church” ,even your definition of what it is to be “Catholic”.

 

[Nicea325]

Show me one that shows transubstantiation , that you need a priest, that it is behind a veil or tabernacle or in gold ,that it is adored, worshiped, indeed that is an offering (re-presenting), that you had to fast, before 130 A.D.

And show me one explaining the that you need a NT canon, a one volume Bible with 66/73 books containing both the OT/NT before 130 A.D.?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Institution of the Eucharist is Biblical. Jesus gives himself to His disciples in the form of Bread and Wine. In addition to the synoptics of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the First letter to the Corinthians of St Paul 11:23-26 provides a further institution narritive. All four accounts are similiar.

The only real argument is which is older?

The structure of the ritual in Leviticus16 is reproduced exactly in Jesus prayer which is the High Priest prayer? This prayer manifests Jesus Christ also as the High Priest on the day of atonement. Another referrence is Isaiah 53 in OT.

In John Jesus states Five times he that the Good Shepard lays down his life for the sheep. 10:11, 15 and twice in 18 and this clearly is referrence to Isaiah 53:10.

Thus we have the Eucharist, the RP of Bread and Wine and the High Priest which is OT teaching. The only difference being the animal sacrifice is abolished. Christ appoints the apostles whom appoint those who follow?

I fail to see the issue? Also Eternal Life isn’t to come it is given and exists in the present, and that is the correct understanding, it is recognition and submission.

However this would take much dialogue as we already see. ECF and what exactly they stated could be summed up in one sentence. No-where do any of them deny the Body and Blood and Christ or the authority of the Church. Its laid out by Ignatius of Antioch before his death for all to witness through time. St Ignatius didn’t make this up, it already existed and was in use.

The earliest Biblical claims are the 30’s-AD by Rudolf Pesch as to the Gospel of Mark, however its also claimed St Paul is from the same period.

However since you asked David…

St Ignatius of Antioch

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

BTW heres what I referred to above also…

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

Peace

 

[david_ruiz]

Are you conceding the ahistorical character of Protestantism?

Absolutely not. I am saying , like all generations who are handed down a faith, with it’s dogmas and traditions ,should not be afraid to look at from whence they came, and be fully persuaded that they indeed are genuine, and from the Lord. As Augustine and Ignatius point out , there is One final teacher for that, who sticks closer than a brother.

But if throughout history Christians viewed the Church as infallible, whether just the councils or also the popes, why should we modify that paradigm? We might as well throw out the Bible: it has some seeming contradictions and discrepancies too, but that doesn’t prevent us from accepting it as divinely inspired.

Now you are doing the" either or scenario", so often shot down when the other side tries it. Isn’t it ironic that when the Pope was stripped of all his earthly power (1870) that he declared himself infallible and spiritual ruler of all ?

Part of the problem is that there isn’t a huge amount of extrabiblical material up to 130 A.D. for us to consider; based on my reading, we seem to have much more from the fourth century.

That’s right .Why do you suppose there are no more ,cannonized writings after 100 a.d.?

And see my quote from Ignatius of Antioch in an earlier post. Does he really sound Protestant to you?

when you add the rest of quotes ,he seemed more Protestant.

But you’re assuming sola scriptura here–which is itself not taught by the Bible, ironically enough.

No .it is based on the fact that some writings are deemed inspired holier even apostolic.Interesting though ,why did the early church deem only apostolic writings as inspired , after all ,did not they believe in perfect succession and transmission of truth ? Can not Ignatius or Barnabus or Cyprian and Augustine be on par with Paul,or Peter , as to the infallibility and inspiration of teaching (oral) and writing ? Were not they anointed and laid hands on ? Does not Iraneus (200 ?) declare such careful transmission of the “torch” , from bishop to bishop , giving us succession lists for three different cities ? Isn’t that what the Church is saying ,they are on par,yet non of their writings are cannonized .Strange.

But the story illustrates the importance of Scripture as well as an external teaching authority.

No ,it primarily illustrates that what is taught ,should be conforming to scripture ,and that it is the responsibility of the believer to do so, to “double check”. They were admonished for it

Where does the Bible instruct us to take Luther’s approach: “If you can’t convince me, this means you’re wrong”?

Well, of course you left out the most important part , the method , the benchmark , the foundation for discerning truth .Scripture can surely be used for that .So even by this standard Luther was at least half right ,according to Catholic view. Again ,his words were :“convince me thru scripture”. The council should have, cause apparently all tradition ,councils, papal decrees are either scripturally based, or at least do not contradict ,or are in harmony with. Again ,the Bereans did this and were admonished for it

Do you have any evidence for this?

haven’t you seen the movies? Actually I thought it was a very famous discourse , between Luther and the Council .I am sure somewhere we have transcripts of the thing.

Where did you read this?

Ignatius letter to Philadelphia ch-7 I believe- that others could not find (a risen ,crucified Christ etc.-paraphrase ) in archives but he could ,thru the Spirit-paraphrase

St. Paul would tell us to follow the bishops, priests, and deacons who are the successors to the clergy he appointed, rather than to pay heed to the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their ilk, propounded long after the first century.

Paul did not use the term "priests " it was presbyters/bishops.Paul NEVER intimated infallible succession .The Holy Spirit was the only infallible agent /shepherd .Having said that, Luther ,Calvin and Zwingli (I think) took part in your succession .They were "anointed " laid hands on, successors of the apostolic mission. Now choose you this day ,which annointed will you follow.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
And see my quote from Ignatius of Antioch in an earlier post. Does he really sound Protestant to you?

David Ruiz:
when you add the rest of quotes ,he seemed more Protestant.

Pipedream! Tell me which Protestant church he belonged to? Methodist? So.Baptist? Baptist? Assembly of God,etc?

Paul did not use the term "priests " it was presbyters/bishops.

Okay…and? Priests is the more common spelling of the ancient word presbyters,thus how does it rebuke the priesthood? By the way, a bishop is a priest.

Paul NEVER intimated infallible succession.

And Paul also NEVER REJECTS IT either does he? Circular argument.

The Holy Spirit was the only infallible agent /shepherd .Having said that, Luther ,Calvin and Zwingli (I think) took part in your succession .

Exactly! So tell me when and where the Holy Spirit starting telling Luther one thing and Calvin another and still be considered TRUTH? Luther was a bishop? Really?

They were "anointed " laid hands on, successors of the apostolic mission. Now choose you this day ,which annointed will you follow

Yeah and are you stating ‘laying on of hands’ is a CC fabrication?

 

[pablope]

Absolutely not.

No .it is based on the fact that some writings are deemed inspired holier even apostolic.Interesting though ,why did the early church deem only apostolic writings as inspired , after all ,did not they believe in perfect succession and transmission of truth ? Can not Ignatius or Barnabus or Cyprian and Augustine be on par with Paul,or Peter , as to the infallibility and inspiration of teaching (oral) and writing ? Were not they anointed and laid hands on ? Does not Iraneus (200 ?) declare such careful transmission of the “torch” , from bishop to bishop , giving us succession lists for three different cities ? Isn’t that what the Church is saying ,they are on par,yet non of their writings are cannonized .Strange.

.

David, maybe you need to read up more on why the actual books that make up the final canon were chosen, the reasons behind the choosing and why the Bible canon was made in the first place.

One of the reasons was to have a standard set of readings during the Mass for all parishes. Due to the differing opinions as to which writing was Scriptural and to be read during the Mass, there was no standard list of books to read from.

The Letter of Clement to Corinth was considered scriptural and read during the mass in some places, and not in some.

The Bible was never intended to be a source of doctrine. It is only the Protestants who started to make it a source of doctrine to justify their doctrines, hence sola scriptura and the confusions behind it.

 

[hn160]

Now if that is not one crazy Augustinian Monk German priest and professor of theology who initiated the Protestant Reformation. If my priest said even a few of those things I would think he was wacko.

I’d call the Bishop!

Spoken like a true believer, who isn’t interested in the truth.

 

[CopticChristian]

Spoken like a true believer, who isn’t interested in the truth.

What truth is that you believe I am not interested in seeking?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by david ruiz
Show me one that shows transubstantiation , that you need a priest, that it is behind a veil or tabernacle or in gold ,that it is adored, worshiped, indeed that is an offering (re-presenting), that you had to fast, before 130 A.D.

Very easy to answer David,please answer the following:

And show me one explaining the that you need a NT canon, a one volume Bible with 66/73 books containing both the OT/NT before 130 A.D.? Why do you adhere to a 27 NT canon -David?

 

[david_ruiz]

David, maybe you need to read up more on why the actual books that make up the final canon were chosen, the reasons behind the choosing and why the Bible canon was made in the first place.

 

[david_ruiz]

Very easy to answer David,please answer the following:

And show me one explaining the that you need a NT canon, a one volume Bible with 66/73 books containing both the OT/NT before 130 A.D.? Why do you adhere to a 27 NT canon -David?

Let’s stick to the topic.Your question deserves better train of thought that I can provide, AGAIN ,to that question

 

[david_ruiz]

Now if that is not one crazy Augustinian Monk German priest and professor of theology who initiated the Protestant Reformation. If my priest said even a few of those things I would think he was wacko.

I’d call the Bishop!

Wacko was all over the place ,even Rome-like the dark ages.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Institution of the Eucharist is Biblical. Jesus gives himself to His disciples in the form of Bread and Wine. In addition to the synoptics of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the First letter to the Corinthians of St Paul 11:23-26 provides a further institution narritive. All four accounts are similiar.

 

[david_ruiz]

Exactly! So tell me when and where the Holy Spirit starting telling Luther one thing and Calvin another and still be considered TRUTH? Luther was a bishop? Really?