The Real Presence

[CopticChristian]

Study? Why ruin a really good time? I seem to recall a lot of history courses and I am able write 7 letters after my name…if I was ever so inclined.

Radical is 7 letters.

 

[benedictus2]

Wrong I support my claim ,not the one you want me to.

No you can’t. Or you’d have come up with one by now.

 

[lyrikal]

Hello everyone,

It took me two days but I have finally finished writing a blog on John 6. To view the blog, please click here.

Thank you and God bless!

 

[david_ruiz]

No you can’t. Or you’d have come up with one by now.

Ohh benedictus .Anyone reading us wouldn’t know what we are talking about now .why are you leading down an off the road track with your Hummer .looking better than me in my Jeep .The road we WERE on ,we both had equal footing, making sense to all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Actually the unbelievers left because they knew it was literal and they were disgusted. Did Christ stop them to explain?

If you read John 6 - Christ re-iterates the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood about 5 times to make sure that the listeners get it alright.

At the first mention there was already murmuring among His disciples. But instead of softening His language He hardens it. He makes it even more unpalatable. Here’s the chance to say “I mean this symbolically” but instead, 4 times He hammers it, with the words becoming more graphic.

Mind you these are His disciples not just on-lookers These are people who would have seen him perform miracles, heard him speak so they know when He was being symbolic and when He was being literal. So they knew He meant exactly what they thought He meant. So they left.

Did He stop them? No. Did He explain that it was symbolic? No. All He had to do was explain that He was speaking figuratively and He didn’t.

The apostles felt exactly the same as those who left. And notice, He did not even explain it to the apostles even. All He said is “Will you leave too?”. Fr Barron refers to that as the most plaintive verse in the Gospel. Here is God asking His disciples would they leave too because of what He has said.

The apostles did not know what to say and even Peter’s answer was more an affirmation of faith in Him rather than a comprehension of how this is to happen.

Those who remained with the apostles are the ones who continued the practice of the Eucharist. Those who separated from the apostles (1500 years later) are the ones who like the other disciples, walked away because they didn’t understand it and could not accept Jesus words in faith.

So yes, you are the one who walked away from Jesus at the point when He was promising the greatest gift He will give His followers.

But you know what, I don’t think you will even bother to read that thoroughly to absorb it, becuase at the end of the day, you are not really interested in the truth.

This is very good and correct “context”

After you read John and everything else we have already mentioned. The only other place to go from here is Exodus and the plagues. What doe’s God tell the his people to do? Well he tells them to find themself a PURE MALE LAMB[CHRIST] sprinkle the Blood over their doors[CROSS] and then continue the feast which is to eat the lamb[Eucharist].

Did we talk about Exodus yet??? What would have happened in egypt had they not ate the Lamb? Not hard to figure out is it?

So what happened from the OT to the NT? There’s no difference in what Christ taught NT from OT.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is very good and correct “context”

After you read John and everything else we have already mentioned. The only other place to go from here is Exodus and the plagues. What doe’s God tell the his people to do? Well he tells them to find themself a PURE MALE LAMB[CHRIST] sprinkle the Blood over their doors[CROSS] and then continue the feast which is to eat the lamb[Eucharist].

Did we talk about Exodus yet??? What would have happened in egypt had they not ate the Lamb? Not hard to figure out is it?

So what happened from the OT to the NT? There’s no difference in what Christ taught NT from OT.

I ditto everything you said and add this.

I believe that John would have made a good movie maker. You know how the movies always lead up to a scene of importance, dropping hints until the dramatic scene of importance is seen. If you read the beginning of John 6 about a hundred times and look at the words John plants in your head.

Miracles
Them that are diseased, our spiritual disease
Passover was nigh
Eaten
Loaves
Miracle
Eat Bread
Work of God that ye believe

If you can do this and believe all of this literally and then get to John 6:51 and truly believe that Jesus was speaking other than literally then read everything prior another hundred times.

1After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. 2And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased

4And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh

11And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. 12When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. 13Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

3(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread

Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

This is the **work of God, that ye believe **on him whom he hath sent.

Now this is all before the question of literal or symbolic. Did Jesus literally multiply loaves?

I am the **living bread **which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and **the bread **that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Living
Bread
Heaven
Eat
Bread
Life for the diseased

There is a contrast The Bread vs This Bread. One was eaten and the other is asked to be eaten.

While the movie has come to an end and the credits are being shown. A question arises and the audience is asked…if you do not believe leave the theatre. If you believe stay and join our celebration.

 

[pablope]

pablope;8315107:

Provide chapter and verse that the bible was primarily meant to unify “liturgy”

So, you cannot answer the question to come up with the chapter and verse of the Bible to state that it is the source of doctrine…and you evade the question…and you cannot even come do admit that there is no such verse…common, David…be honest and not evade a question.

The fact is there is none, that is why you avoided answering with your response. If there is none, so why do you make it the source of doctrine?

And there is no such verse to say it was meant for liturgy…why would there be such a verse…very silly indeed, David.

So, if there is no verse to state that the Bible is to be the source of doctrine, and no verse for it to unify the liturgy…so what is the Bible for?

 

[GaryTaylor]

then get to John 6:51

There’s Catholic Church here that has this verse carved in stone above the alter by the ceiling. They didn’t have enough room to fit the entire verse, so its cut short after “forever”.

Peace, Gary

 

[benedictus2]

Ohh benedictus .Anyone reading us wouldn’t know what we are talking about now .why are you leading down an off the road track with your Hummer .looking better than me in my Jeep .The road we WERE on ,we both had equal footing, making sense to all.

Well why don’t you go back to the road we were on and maybe make your case. But of course you can’t.

Instead of this post, you could have come up with your case and yet here you are wasting keystrokes on a no-post.

And no, we didn’t have equal footing. You were off-balanced from my last post. A proper response should get you back on balance again.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8322940:

pablope;8315107:

The fact is there is none, that is why you avoided answering with your response.

There are .I chose to evade cause it is different thread.Have ans. many times .

And there is no such verse to say it was meant for liturgy…why would there be such a verse…very silly indeed, David.

What ,that is what you basically said .“it was to to have a standard set of writings to be read during liturgical services.” -your words.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well why don’t you go back to the road we were on and maybe make your case. But of course you can’t.

Instead of this post, you could have come up with your case and yet here you are wasting keystrokes on a no-post.

And no, we didn’t have equal footing. You were off-balanced from my last post. A proper response should get you back on balance again.
/QUOTE"]I think we can confidently say that despite some disagreements, they (ECF’s) viewed the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ."-benedictus
“Not if you are talking about the first hundred years .” -dave’s response -page 47…shall we start all over …I have read upto abvout 130 a.d of ECF’s .Not much if anything showing RP When RP was more manifest, not sure ,except most agree it was there toward 3-4 c for sure…Am not saying a word on the second hundred years .Have not read it. Got it .That is ALL i am saying .Stop putting words where they are not.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

To david ruiz, or Radical, or anyone else who disbelieves:

Did Jesus give us His real flesh or symbolic flesh on the cross for the life of the world?

 

[Radical]

To david ruiz, or Radical, or anyone else who disbelieves:

Did Jesus give us His real flesh or symbolic flesh on the cross for the life of the world?

I am sorry that you find this confusing…here’s how you can tell the difference:

If it looks like a human body, has weight like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc. …then it is real flesh and blood.

If it looks like bread, has the weight of a loaf of bread, is made of baked flour and other ingredients (you know like eggs, milk, salt), covered with a crust etc. …then it is bread and could only be symbolic of human flesh.

I realize that I could have supplied a much more detailed list of features to allow you to distinguish between flesh and bread, but this isn’t rocket science. The above should be sufficient to enable you to sort through your confusion. Good luck…I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.

 

[david_ruiz]

What about the Didache? Does it speak of the RP in relation to the eucharist? Does it even discuss the “sacrifice of the mass” as held by the CC today? Just a question…but the Didache was the first early document outside the NT which explained the eucharist…and it did so with no hint of “re-presenting” the sacrifice of Christ…nor did it indicate the bread and wine were His blood and body.

Thank-you.Your list could go on as to what they did NOT do back then.Thanks again

 

[david_ruiz]

Unfortunately the Didache does not give us a detailed theological understanding of it nor does it discuss the Liturgy.However,it does not rebuke the RP or the understanding of the RP. The problem with many opponents of the RP and other doctrines is their failure to understand doctrinal development. Many have the belief everything was all layed out explicitly,which is absolutely false.Precisely why Jesus says in the Gospel of John the Holy Spirit will guide into ALL truth,not instantly.

While this nicely applies to an individual’s spiritual growth, and perhaps of things dealing with end times ,but otherwise ,your explanation is unscriptural .What ,so the Holy Spirit will leave many in the dark for say, 1800 years, before we can surely say, “Mary was Immaculate”.or 1200 years before "I will transubstantiate myself ",etc. etc.Because a doctrine develops ,in NO WAY proves or disproves it’s apostolicness. Just as you say The Didache does nor rebuke RP , it does not rebuke Symbolism either. Again ,your assumption is that because indeed some things rightly became defined (trinity) ,that all things defined are right by the Catholic Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

Didache? You know I happened to reading Benedict XVI and he mentions the principles being laid out on the Didache. Though not complete, we see confession, communion and the RP in its early stages.

4:19 In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience.

9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.

10:1 And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:
10:2 We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
10:3 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
10:4 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
10:5 but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.
10:6 Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful;
10:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.

Admittedly it is merely a step on the way towards.

This is NOT today’s Confession .Notice the "thanksgiving " ,nothing of sacrifice or re-presenting .If you shall say, "Look, it is the seeds of Catholic expression " , I will say "it is not a seed of protestant expression , it IS proteststant expression " no development needed.

 

[david_ruiz]

For the bread to be now, how is it that it has to be figurative?

cause the benefit was(never hungering)

I

ndeed. Not to get off topic, but Alister McGrath, a Protestant scholar, acknowledges that this notion of justification was unheard of before the Reformation.

Would have to read full article .Of course i would have to deny that Luthers idea of justification was brand new .He denied it was new .It was "new "in the sense that it had not been taught for centuries.

It’s ironic to see Protestants here refuse to accept Catholic doctrinal developments as not in line with what Christ and his apostles taught when one of their fundamental principles was invented by one fallible man, Martin Luther.

I shall use a favorite Catholic term -develop. Luther had to re-develop this notion of salvation by grace .BUT, the seeds were always there .Indeed Augustine had a similar “salvation” to Luther ,as did St Francis, ,and probably many other mystics .Bottom line ,as long as it didn’t rock the boat ,you know ,put em in a monastery ,make an "order’ out of them ,make them “mystical” but still Catholic, that was ok .But for the everyday layman ,to have a "mystical experience with Christ himself …

Haha, this certainly reveals an American cultural bias against authority.I said “if” we have aproblem with authority ,then you have a problem with a church "lording over " -controlling

.Nothing to do with 'America

And it doesn’t line up with Ignatius of Antioch

Again nothing to do with my point .We all have bishops/presbyters .Why do you suggest we don’t ? We All aspire to unity , like Paul and Ignatius. Igantius also said to be under the guidance of whom ? The bishop (nope-but obey him), the pope -nope- Ignatius doesn’t even acknowledge the office ,but names 16 other bishops ,but not even a hint of leadership or guidance from any roman bishop of bishops.So who are we ALL under the guidance of -who could be this Vicar ? Ignatius ,in Ephesians CH 20 - "ye being under the guidance of the “Comforter”…or ,“Yield him reverence (the bishop), submit to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of us all”.

Do you have any evidence that confession of serious sins to other Christians was optional in the Early Church,

Just scripture .Confess your faults one to another .

and that going to God directly for the forgiveness of such sins was ever taught?

It has been suggetsed that some things carry over from the OT,this is one of them

.Methinks you’re reading your presuppositions into history.

Actually the is strong writings talking of Christians confessing before the entire congregation. It would be centuries before it was “delegated” to strictly a priest behind a confessional.

Why is that? What evidence do we have that this was the way Christ wanted things to be?

Actually, we almost could have been “one” .For a brief moment in history ,there was a slight chance that many of the lutherans spiritual demands could have been “incorporated”’ and a different church would have emerged .Not totally Lutheran ,but not totally Catholic.That was sometime in the mid 1500’s during a decades old council .Me personally ,I don’t think it was ever possible back then but…Again ,that the tendencies of Rome made the development of “protestantism” inevitable .No proof ,just history and Christ’s promise to be with us always ,through the good bad and ugly of our history .Again ,some things carry over from OT. This is one of them ,that upon studying our history ,it is indeed by the grace of God the Church exists (just read about the twelve sons of Abraham- they were barely “holy-”-that is, set apart for Him).

This surely isn’t optimal, and can’t change until we have everyone read the history books and see the Early Church wasn’t invisible and anti-sacramental.

Sure ,I advise reading everything we can , but …it will only magnify what is already in the heart .Where you sit is where you stand .It all starts with scriptures .You can be like the Bereans and search it out ,and trusting like earliest ECF"s that Christ is the teacher /interpreter .OR you can be like Ignatius of Loyola ,the Jesuit, who take an oath that says if something white is declared black by the pope , then it is black…If we differ on John 6 ,we will differ on The Didache ,or Augustine.

What do you mean?

Uniformity at the expense of freedom will eventually lead to freedom at the expense of uniformity (hence protestantism). As an example ,one of the first "developments ’ of Romes authority over the other Patriarchs was a forcing to observe the celebration of Easter on precisely the same day .Not because it was apostolic ,on the contrary , it did away with apostolic tradition for one segment of the church.(and gave seeds to Orthodoxy division).Does it really matter ? or does it matter that Rome must rule, covering her stern,lording-over face with the makeup of “Unity” ?

The question remains: if Christ set up a visible church, shouldn’t we do our utmost to find it and start catechetical classes as soon as possible?

See, we stay true to form. If Christ is indeed alive and well on planet earth ,would it not be wise to find Him ,for He shall lead you into green pastures. Indeed He calls us to Himself , and then places us in His body .I do not attach to His body in hopes of meeting the Head. Find Him and you are in the Church . Find the Church , and maybe you will find Him (even in a baptist church). Will the real gospel step forward please ?

 

[benedictus2]

“I think we can confidently say that despite some disagreements, they (ECF’s) viewed the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ.”-benedictus
“Not if you are talking about the first hundred years .”** -dave’s response** -page 47…shall we start all over …I have read upto abvout 130 a.d of ECF’s .Not much if anything showing RP When RP was more manifest, not sure ,except most agree it was there toward 3-4 c for sure…Am not saying a word on the second hundred years .Have not read it. Got it .That is ALL i am saying .Stop putting words where they are not.

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?

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

 

[Trebor135]

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.

OK.

As Augustine and Ignatius point out , there is One final teacher for that, who sticks closer than a brother.

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

Now you are doing the" either or scenario", so often shot down when the other side tries it.

Not at all. I’m exposing your inconsistency in arguing that difficulties for a visible church disprove the need to follow that authority, but difficulties in Scripture don’t eliminate that as an infallible source of teaching.

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 ?

You act as if the council conceded papal infallibility so as to mollify the pope for his loss of temporal authority. Is that what you meant? If so, give proof for your insinuation.

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

Because the visible church decided, based on a small number of criteria, not to include St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians or other early texts.

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

Advocating obedience to a visible church is so un-Protestant that anyone at a good Protestant church who did that would likely be regarded as a closet “Romanist”. What in Ignatius’ writings sounded Protestant, anyway?

No .it is based on the fact that some writings are deemed inspired holier even apostolic.

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

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.

The Church isn’t saying that at all. The Early Church Fathers are witnesses of the faith in generations long past.

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

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

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

That one man wasn’t convinced doesn’t prove anything. Who knows what was preventing him from seeing the light? Pride? Sloth? Miscommunication?

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

haven’t you seen the movies?

I don’t learn my history from 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.

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.

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

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.

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

Presbyter is the etymological ancestor of priest.

Paul NEVER intimated infallible succession .

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”?

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.

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?

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

I am sorry that you find this confusing…here’s how you can tell the difference:

If it looks like a human body, has weight like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc. …then it is real flesh and blood.

If it looks like bread, has the weight of a loaf of bread, is made of baked flour and other ingredients (you know like eggs, milk, salt), covered with a crust etc. …then it is bread and could only be symbolic of human flesh.

I realize that I could have supplied a much more detailed list of features to allow you to distinguish between flesh and bread, but this isn’t rocket science. The above should be sufficient to enable you to sort through your confusion. Good luck…I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.

With that mindset, then we would have to also admit that Jesus is not God. A Jew can use this argument against our belief of the Divinity of Christ. He/she could say:

God is spirit, He is eternal so He cannot be born, He doesn’t eat, drink, cry, have emotions the way we understand emotions, and does not have a human form.

Jesus has flesh and blood, He had a beginning and was born in Mary’s womb, gets hungry so He eats, gets thirsty so He drinks, has emotions and cries and does have a human form.

With all that said, it seems that if we look at it in such an extreme level, it would appear as though Jesus is not God. If we were to take a part of Christ’s flesh (say His finger) and we were to examine it and put it under a microscope, we would not come up with the conclusion that it is the finger of God (since God doesn’t have a finger). We believe that Jesus is God because He claimed to be not because we examined Him to be.

You may reply with: Yes but the bread hasn’t done anything miraculous for me to believe that it is anything more than just bread. Jesus has done miracles and has risen from the dead which would tell me that He is more than just a human being.

And I would reply with the following: Yes, but when Christ was in the womb of Mary for 9 months, did He perform any miracles in there that we can examine? Let’s even take it further…When Christ in Mary’s womb the very first second and was microscopic, was there anything about Him that would have convinced you that He is God in the womb? If not, does that take away from the fact that He was actually God in the womb?

We can take it further and say that Angels are pure spirit. If so, then how come we see Angels in the Bible taking on a human form? Wouldn’t that imply that an Angel became human for a time, as far as appearance goes? If that is possible, then can’t God take on a form of bread and wine? To God, a piece of bread is just as infinitely less than Him as a human being is. There is nothing that is more equal to God than something else. God is infinitely greater than ALL and nothing comes close. So, if He can become a tiny microscopic creature inside Mary’s womb, He can be present under the appearance of bread and wine.

So, we believe that the bread is His Body because He said “This is my body” just as we believe that He (God) took on a human form because He said that He is the “I AM” multiple times.

I acknowledge that the Incarnation is a different idea from the RBP of Christ since one claims that the flesh remains with the Divinity while the other claims that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine. This still doesn’t help your “examination of bread to be just bread” argument valid.

God bless.