To those who deny the true presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter workingman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=CalCatholic;5720359]Isn’t it amazing how many Christian denominations will quote the Bible letter and verse and condemn others for not following its teachings, but will over look such a vital teaching as this, and dismiss the Lord’s words here as allegory. I don’t know how they do it?
The true issue as i have come to understand it, if far more a lack of Faith, then mere lack of understanding. At the root of there not understanding is not actually knowing who and what God are. They seem to understand that God is Good, but do not connect Justice and Fairness with Gods Goodness.

Because they can’t understand the Nature of God, their faith extends to only what they can see, what that can understand, and what simple logic tells them is possible. That friends is a serious LACK OF FAITH!

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
Jesus chose Peter to be the rock upon which His church would be built. No symbolism here.
No symbolism? So, what non-symbolic form of rock was old Peter…granite? limestone?
We attest to objective truths, not symbolism that is a form of subjective relativism and no authority.
Objective? How exactly is your objectivity acheived?
 
When you take those very descriptive verses from John Chap.6 in context with;

Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, 1 Cor. 11:23-29 (all establishing the institution of the Eucharist), and add a word of caution from Paul, which doesn’t sound figurative;

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and the blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

The Early Church Fathers also commented on the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus Christ;

Ignatius of Antioch (35-105 A.D.) “I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life - which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God… And I desire the drink of God, namely his blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”

“Take heed, then, to have only one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to the unity of his blood.”

"They [The Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ… Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death."

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.)
"We do not receive these as common bread and common drink. Rather, Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation. So, likewise, we have taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.)"How can they [the Gnostics] be consistent with themselves [when they say] that the bread over which thanks has been given is the body of their Lord and that the cup is His blood - if they do not call Him the Son of the Creator?.. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life?"

“For the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation from God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist - consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

[The wine and the bread] having received the Word of God, become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ."

These teachings have been passed down through the Church for 2000 years and only were challanged after the reformation in the sixteenth century.

(A quotes from the Early Church Fathers taken from; ‘A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs’, David W. Bercot, Editor)
Luther on the Real Presence:
This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to this hour-a testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets.
Jon
 
**Radical [/quote said:
;5724469]It seems to me that you must be employing a double standard here. One of the descriptive words used by John is about Jesus’s requirement that his flesh must be chewed/gnawed/ground with one’s teeth, but no Catholic I know thinks that he actually grinds Jesus’s flesh with his teeth or chews that flesh to bits…So it seems that while you point to such a descriptive word, you don’t really believe that the action that the word describes is actually carried out.

Gabriel of 12;
There is never a double standard in Jesus teachings, only the disbelief in the True presence brings about inconsistancies and double standard interpretations.

This Catholic believes Jesus Words that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The action does take place in faith. The confusion you have is the difference between what is “Spirit” and what is “flesh”. The Spirit is what gives us eternal life from the action of consuming the body, blood soul and divnity of Jesus Christ.

This eternal sacrifice is made eternal and sacramental for our souls. So the action of chewing and gnawing does occurr, but not in the flesh which profits nothing as you appear to misunderstand Jesus teaching, but the action of eating and drinking according to the Spirit which gives eternal life to all who eat and drink the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World definitely takes place in time (Mass) from eternity (Heaven).

This bread from heaven in the form of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity made present in his Eucharist is food for the believers journey passover from this life into life eternal, this is a promise from God. No one can enter this wedding feast of the Lamb in Heaven(Revelations 19) unless he is wearing a wedding garment (baptism) and consumes the Lamb of God, this is the daily bread given to the believer on earth as it is in heaven, when heaven and earth join in worship liturgy before the Throne of God.

Radical; This is just wrong. Here is what Marcarius wrote:

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’* Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize,** but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth."

-“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D. *

Obviously some challenge was in place ca. 400 AD and of course, Tertullian was one of those that called the bread a figure of Christ’s body.

Gabriel of 12;

Interesting post here; I am impressed that a Protestant would find the Early Church fathers very Catholic in believing and defending the True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist.

What is not noted here in this early stage of the Catholic Church is that there were no other such Christians apart from the Catholic Church only One Apostolic Catholic Church exists. That is what is being expressed about no other Christian church existed for the first 1500 years to dispute this faith in the Eucharist. Only heretics and apostates who were excommunicated from the Apostolic Catholic Church.

It should be noted also in this primitive stage from the great growth of Catholic members were growing, some Bishops and priests were found teaching a heresy in the Catholic Church. These are the disputes that were brought on, and excommunication, apostates surfaced from the Eastern Catholic Church this early in the historical Catholic Church.

The Great Saints and Martyrs defended and believed in the True presence of the Eucharist and were victorious. Thus these heresies and heretics who professed a different Jesus or symbolic Jesus which included heretical views of Jesus humanity and divinity. Either repented from teaching error or were excommunicated from their position in the Church and replaced to correct their errors from a new Bishop or Priest. So the body of believers were protected and maintained the Eucharistic belief of the True presence.

Their were never a community of Christian believers to ever hold to a symbolic Jesus in the Eucharist. The leaders who taught such heresey were exiled from their Catholic Communities. Some left with a few members who followed these false teachings but never heard of again, unless they repented which many did come back to the Catholic Faith.

It should be noted however that the True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist was never doubted in the Roman (western) Catholic Church until the reformers protested the Catholic faith from the sixteenth century who seperated themselves from the Western Catholic Church. Unless you know of any Roman Catholic heretics other than Luther, Zwingly, Calvin before them who denied or protested with their community of believers?
 
The summit of our faith is the Eucharist…I would think Christ in establishing His church would be clear through the Holy Spirit as to what is actual and what is symbolic.

You have to follow the paper trail, the documents, the church artifacts, the history and context of people’s times.

The Eucharist as the centrality and nourishment of our lives in Christ has always been. The heresy denying His presence was present as well in the beginning church.

Best to understand how early Christians believed and worshipped…I just got through a great little book, ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’, by Mike Aquilina. I have shared elsewhere I found the Liturgy of St. James (the lesser) most fascinating as he was among the original 12 apostles. The liturgy has the same tone, focus as the modern Mass of today.

Catholicism, like Judaism, perceives God as the center of our life, we the gathering of a people together revolve around Him in the recurring seasons and events of our lives. I find my spirituality akin to Jewish people as I work closely with them…same sensitivity, collective…I think the Protestants have a true faith in Jesus in sharing faith on a daily, devotional level…but there is so much they are missing without the Sacraments, the encyclicals, the documents and catechism, the liturgy and liturgical year and seasons, the celebrations, the saints, the art expressions, the religious orders and their secular counterparts, as well as the more erudite tradition of philosophy and logic you find particularly expressed in the Dominican charisms…as well as the inside jokes and puns.

People should check out the Hebrewcatholic.org…on their forums, the Hebrew Catholics are experienced more as completed Jews as they have come home to Christ’s church, but they are awesome in how they are identifying so many symbols of the Old Testament with the Church in the New…the Church is truly a kingdom of its own, it has good guys and bad guys…all seeking salvation…we can’t judge other people…even in our own church.
 
Hi JonC, since you are still around this thread, please allow me to address something that you wrote earlier.
I think figurative language in John 6 and the real presence are, to a degree, 2 different issues.
There is language in John 6 that appears figurative, and my expereince is that those who believe in a symbolic presence will stand on this to justify their position.
It is not that the language merely appears to be figurative, but it is the case that everyone on all sides of the issue interprets portions of John 6 in a figurative fashion…the difference is where one draws the line.
The accounts of the Last Supper, on the other hand, is literal language.
As I have mentioned to you before, I do not see how the language in the institution accounts is any more literal than the language in this passage from Matt 12:

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Now I trust that you don’t think that, when Paul (aka Saul) started to do the Father’s will, that somehow the substance of the apostle Paul’s DNA was transformed into a different DNA such that it would be (all at the same time) the DNA of a biological brother (cousin or step-brother if you prefer), sister and mother of Jesus.
This is the only time that I know of where Christ says “this is me” when he holds the bread at the last supper.
…but he also did say that whoever does the Father’s will ** is my mother**.
The language is different.
well, in both Matt 12 and in the institution passages he says that one thing (bread/disciple) is something else (body/mother) and everyone on hand could tell that no real change occured and that he was just being figurative.
 
Luther on the Real Presence:

This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to this hour-a testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets.

Jon
Do you think Luther actually had a sound grasp on church history here, or were you just quoting Luther to give his opinion? If you are curious I could provide a reference or two or three from some respected modern scholars that don’t exactly think the likes of Augustine believed in a Real Presence.
 
Do you think Luther actually had a sound grasp on church history here, or were you just quoting Luther to give his opinion? If you are curious I could provide a reference or two or three from some respected modern scholars that don’t exactly think the likes of Augustine believed in a Real Presence.
Judge for yourself:

bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary

. . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}

Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. {Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66}
 
Judge for yourself…
CR, I have dealt with Augustine’s view in detail on this thread and the quotes that you have supplied do not a RP view make. For example you provide but a sentence and a half from sermon 272 and think that it demonstrates (or at least helps to demonstrate) a RP view. Here are my remarks re Sermon 272 from the other thread:

IN SERMON 272 Augustine said:
  1. the bread IS the body of Christ
  2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
  3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table
    My position is that if one is going to understand that the “IS” in #1 means “is actually” as opposed to “is symbolically” or “is spiritually”, then one should be consistent and understand the “ARE” in #2 to mean “are actually” and the “BEEN” in #3 to mean “actually been”. From there, if one claims a real bodily presence of Christ from “is actually”, then one should be consistent and claim a real bodily presence of all believers from “have actually been”. Further, if one can understand that in saying #2 and #3 that Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner, then one should be consistent and understand that in saying #1 Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner.
My complaint is that RCs produce the beginning of this sermon as prima facie evidence of Augustine’s belief in the RCs doctrine of Real Presence as it that settles the matter. (As has been done on this thread.) The balance of the sermon is ignored and it is the balance of the sermon that eliminates (or at least calls into question) the prima facie case.

Further, Augustine first notes that one thing is seen and another is understood. He then asks, “How can bread be his body?” His answer to that question (which continues to the second paragraph) is not one which points to a bodily presence. I understand his answer to be:
  1. Just as Paul tells the believers at Corinth that they are the body of Christ, Augustine’s congregation are also the body of Christ
  2. If one accepts this understanding, then by partaking in the Eucharist one is partaking in the sacrament of peace and unity with one’s fellow believers (who are the members of Christ’s body)
  3. A loaf of bread is suitable for this understanding because it is made from many grains (and many believers are united in the body), the grains are ground (believers are exorcised), mixed into dough (believers are baptized) and baked (believers receive the fire of the Holy Spirit).
  4. “Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread.” This is how Augustine concludes his remarks on the loaf of bread.
In other words, Augustine (IMHO) says that the bread is Christ’s body b/c the bread is also a symbol for the church and the church is, in a figurative sense, the body of Christ. The bread is well suited to be that symbol. Recognize what the bread signifies and participate in the Eucharist so as to enjoy the unity symbolized by the bread. As you can see, I do not see sermon 272 as evidence of Augustine’s belief in a real bodily presence. Instead, I believe sermon 272 is better evidence of Augustine’s figurative understanding.

Your other brief quotes can be similarly handled and if you look at the other thread you can see that it is easy to produce quotes from Augustine that point to a non-RP view…and the beauty of all this is that you don’t have to take my word for it…

A Catholic author by the name of J T O’Connor, wrote a book on the Eucharist called “The Hidden Manna”. That book seems rather respected in catholic circles. O’Connor, a fellow that believes that Augustine held to a real presence, felt that he had to acknowledge that van der Meer, the author of a renowned work on Augustine, concluded that with respect to Augustine: "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." That is what a renowned (O’Connor’s word) expert on Augustine concluded…yet Catholics on this site continue to copy and paste bits from Augustine thinking that they have demonstrated something while (at the same time) remaining oblivious to the scholarly opinion that disagrees with their interpretation of Augustine.

Allow me to reference another scholar in regard to the early church’s view on the RP. Jaroslav Pelikan stated:

*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 . *

Please note that at one extreme is something akin to the present position of the CC which (by way of transubstantiation) specifies a process of substantial change and at the other extreme is a view that is little more than symbolism. That was the range that existed in the first centuries but modern conservative catholics will read their modern understanding of a real presence (involving transubstantiation) back into the comments of the ECFs (apparently oblivious to the fact that uniformity among the views of ECF did not exist and oblivious to the scholarly opinion’s that see symbolism in some ECFs).
 
Gabriel of 12;
Let me give it a go; Those who did not understand Jesus teaching including his 12 apostles. The disciples that left Jesus True presence because they must be freed from the world, these went back to their old way of life which only forshadowed what Jesus was doing.

These disciples who did not understand were of the flesh (old covenant) where God does not desire. Jesus introduces the “Spirit” here when it is the Spirit (New covenant in Jesus body and blood) that gives life whereby the flesh (old covenant) could not give eternal life because the Law of the Old Covenant convicts. When one is of the Spirit who partakes of his divinity (2Peter 1:4) (Eucharist) the Law cannot convict because these have been set free from the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ through the sacrament of baptism.

The Shepherd seeks the lost sheep who are not hindered by pride or sin which keeps them from the true presence of God, where nothing unclean can go before the presence of God.

It is not confusing when one recieves the gift of baptism. This is the death that removes all obstacles from God being present to you and those who are lost. For it is God who teaches us all.
So, baptism helps a person to understand Jesus better?

Does the eucharist do this also?
 
CR, I have dealt with Augustine’s view in detail on this thread and the quotes that you have supplied do not a RP view make. For example you provide but a sentence and a half from sermon 272 and think that it demonstrates (or at least helps to demonstrate) a RP view. Here are my remarks re Sermon 272 from the other thread:

IN SERMON 272 Augustine said:
  1. the bread IS the body of Christ
  2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
  3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table
    My position is that if one is going to understand that the “IS” in #1 means “is actually” as opposed to “is symbolically” or “is spiritually”, then one should be consistent and understand the “ARE” in #2 to mean “are actually” and the “BEEN” in #3 to mean “actually been”. From there, if one claims a real bodily presence of Christ from “is actually”, then one should be consistent and claim a real bodily presence of all believers from “have actually been”. Further, if one can understand that in saying #2 and #3 that Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner, then one should be consistent and understand that in saying #1 Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner.
My complaint is that RCs produce the beginning of this sermon as prima facie evidence of Augustine’s belief in the RCs doctrine of Real Presence as it that settles the matter. (As has been done on this thread.) The balance of the sermon is ignored and it is the balance of the sermon that eliminates (or at least calls into question) the prima facie case.

Further, Augustine first notes that one thing is seen and another is understood. He then asks, “How can bread be his body?” His answer to that question (which continues to the second paragraph) is not one which points to a bodily presence. I understand his answer to be:
  1. Just as Paul tells the believers at Corinth that they are the body of Christ, Augustine’s congregation are also the body of Christ
  2. If one accepts this understanding, then by partaking in the Eucharist one is partaking in the sacrament of peace and unity with one’s fellow believers (who are the members of Christ’s body)
  3. A loaf of bread is suitable for this understanding because it is made from many grains (and many believers are united in the body), the grains are ground (believers are exorcised), mixed into dough (believers are baptized) and baked (believers receive the fire of the Holy Spirit).
  4. “Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread.” This is how Augustine concludes his remarks on the loaf of bread.
In other words, Augustine (IMHO) says that the bread is Christ’s body b/c the bread is also a symbol for the church and the church is, in a figurative sense, the body of Christ. The bread is well suited to be that symbol. Recognize what the bread signifies and participate in the Eucharist so as to enjoy the unity symbolized by the bread. As you can see, I do not see sermon 272 as evidence of Augustine’s belief in a real bodily presence. Instead, I believe sermon 272 is better evidence of Augustine’s figurative understanding.

Your other brief quotes can be similarly handled and if you look at the other thread you can see that it is easy to produce quotes from Augustine that point to a non-RP view…and the beauty of all this is that you don’t have to take my word for it…

A Catholic author by the name of J T O’Connor, wrote a book on the Eucharist called “The Hidden Manna”. That book seems rather respected in catholic circles. O’Connor, a fellow that believes that Augustine held to a real presence, felt that he had to acknowledge that van der Meer, the author of a renowned work on Augustine, concluded that with respect to Augustine: "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." That is what a renowned (O’Connor’s word) expert on Augustine concluded…yet Catholics on this site continue to copy and paste bits from Augustine thinking that they have demonstrated something while (at the same time) remaining oblivious to the scholarly opinion that disagrees with their interpretation of Augustine.

Allow me to reference another scholar in regard to the early church’s view on the RP. Jaroslav Pelikan stated:

*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 . *

Please note that at one extreme is something akin to the present position of the CC which (by way of transubstantiation) specifies a process of substantial change and at the other extreme is a view that is little more than symbolism. That was the range that existed in the first centuries but modern conservative catholics will read their modern understanding of a real presence (involving transubstantiation) back into the comments of the ECFs (apparently oblivious to the fact that uniformity among the views of ECF did not exist and oblivious to the scholarly opinion’s that see symbolism in some ECFs).
The quotes I posted are explicit and clear. There is no need for paragraphs of explanation UNLESS you don’t want to accept the words as written.
 
The quotes I posted are explicit and clear. There is no need for paragraphs of explanation UNLESS you don’t want to accept the words as written.
No the quotes are bits taken out of context…you would be wise to follow the academic integrity of the real Chesterton and actually take an honest look at the full sermon and not a mere sentence and a half…or, I guess you could hold to your approach and conclude that the following quotes (from Augustine) demonstrate that Augustine must have held to a symbolic view:

from OCD bk III: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us… and

…but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage;… and from Tractate 26.12

** But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.**

The choice is yours…actually look at the matter or remain oblivious to what was actually said… I know what Chesterton would have done and I know what Augustine wrote. I invite you to take an honest look at it.
 
So, baptism helps a person to understand Jesus better?

Does the eucharist do this also?
If you want the veil of your eyes, the heart, mind and soul to see Jesus who reveals the Father to you. Baptism is the entrance into the kingdom of God, NO ONE can enter unless one is born “anothen” born of water and Spirit John 3:3-5 by baptism. Please read John 3:3. It is from here where all sins, original and actual sins are washed away forever enabling one to see the Kingdom of God.

Baptism is the sacrament when the Grace of God places his seal upon your forehead forever that not even angels can harm you Please see Revelations 7:2-3 for confirmation.
Baptism is the first death that makes you rise in Jesus Christ as a new in creation in him, where the blessing’s of God and his mercy and grace are poured upon your living soul. You become a child of God, Royalty of the heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ. Where you dont need to understand Jesus, it is here where Jesus lives in you for in baptism you become a partaker of his divinity see 2 Peter 1:4.

It is God himself who reveals these mysteries to you, not man, through his sacraments of which Jesus Christ himself instituted.

May the peace and Love of Jesus Christ be with you;
P.S I have prayed for you and offered you to Jesus in his eternal sacrificial Eucharist at Mass, when I saw the “son of man lifted up”.

The mystagogy of the Eucharist is for the believer in Jesus Christ upon (baptism) entrance into the Kingdom of God. The Eucharist is the summit of the Christian faith because it is here where sacred scripture meets its definitive revelation until Jesus returns. Yes coming into the true presence of Jesus in his Eucharist is no point of return according to those Saints and martyrs who went to their deaths singing for their Catholic Faith.
 
That is a lot to think about Gabriel of 12

I will think about this and I will remember your kindness in explaining this to me when I do.
 
That is a lot to think about Gabriel of 12

I will think about this and I will remember your kindness in explaining this to me when I do.
When the True Shepherd calls his sheep, his sheep hear his voice and the True shepherd calls them by name. God says “prove me by my Word”.
 
This is for those who deny the true literal presence of Christ how do you justify the following out of John 6

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.
I agree with Jon.

If I were to believe in the Real Presence, my starting point would be the Last Supper accounts in the gospels. If I were to see the Real Presence in these accounts, then I may or may not see it in John 6. If I did not see it in these accounts, there is no way I would see it in John 6.

Before you ask, I am undecided on the Real Presence. It is not something that I “deny”.
 
It is a factual impossibility that anyone who does not Know who and What God are can read the Bible and have a proper, as in true understanding, of what is being said.

Such is the very infallible Will of God.

Simply [not at all making light of this] having “a personal relationship with Jesus” is NOT by itself evidence of understanding Who and What God are.

Without this [still] limited understanding of the unlimited power, unlimited wisdom, and unlimited love for His Created humanity, one can only see with human eyes, human understanding, that tells us “if we can’t understand it, it MUST be untrue.” That friends stems from a serious lack of Faith, which is the foundational issue to proper and fuller understanding of God’s Word.

Seek God first, because all understanding is GRANTED as a grace from Him. And God grants to whom it please, and withholds from whom He pleases.

Pray for Wisdom, Undertanding, Discernment and the necessary courage to accept the graces God is offering you.

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
Originally Posted by mpjw2
chestertonrules…
all good scripture but you missed my point .
I agree with you 100% that if I am standing today i may fall tomorrow.
That is not what I am talking about…
let me say it another way, you make a contrite confession, no sin witheld, you are sorry, you repent, absolution given, penance said, soul restored to grace after prayers said…there is no chance to fall or seek because tomorrow does not come…
why?? you ask
because you died right there at the altar…
After making a sincere confession,
Isn’t your soul in a state of grace???
if yes, then God would accept you into heaven, right?
Yes, I agree.

However, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, so I’m not sure what your original point was.
CHESTERTONRULES, You just agreed with me that you will go to heaven if you were to die after a sincere confession…

Thank you for your honesty and sincerity.

So here is my point,

if you are sure you will go to heaven after a sincere confession, what do you believe will happen to you if you fall into mortal sin and die before you get to confession?

Would you pray to God directly on the spot, confess and ask for forgiveness?

Just to let you know… I believe I will go to heaven after I, do just that, make a sincere confession before the Lord… the only difference is I confess directly to God.

That is if I die right after confessing, not next hour, or next day or week or year but right at the exact moment after a sincere confession to God. 🙂

It is not because I said a prayer 10 years ago and now I do not need to confess because God has saved me once and for all, as long as I live, no matter what…that is a lie of OSAS 😦

this is off topic
I am on the following thread if you want to copy this over and discuss further…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5728713#post5728713

iteresting that it seems that Cathoilcs are not as sure you are about salvation
also 1 catholic posted there is no hope for my salvation if i were to die a non catholic

thank you and God bless

mpjw2
 
Hi Gabriel,
If you want the veil of your eyes, the heart, mind and soul to see Jesus who reveals the Father to you. Baptism is the entrance into the kingdom of God, NO ONE can enter unless one is born “anothen” born of water and Spirit John 3:3-5 by baptism. Please read John 3:3.
I agree with you here

please clarify what you believe here
It is from here where all sins, original and actual sins are washed away forever enabling one to see the Kingdom of God.
Do you believe baptism washes all sins past present and future?

thank you

God bless

mpjw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top