"True Church" versus "Roman Catholic Church"

[MonicaC]

Hi,
I agree Isnt God everywhere? God is especially with all believers in their churches on sunday. Actually Jesus is with me every day all day long. Thank you Jesus:bowdown2:

As far as the Eucharist that is fine that you believe that and I know people say how much more personal can you get. Well I say much more personal.If you can trust Jesus to walk with you through everything and totally depend on Him, I would say that is pretty personal. If you are just receiving the Eucharist every sunday but dont trust Jesus the rest of the week then what good is it? Sorry for my rant

AFH

I do agree with most of what you are saying. But Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Yes he is with us always but in the Eucharist we more personally intimate with him where as when he is with us always we aren’t. For example the disciples where with him unknowingly on the road from Erimus (sp) and he was with them at dinner but it wasn’t until he broke the bread that they were actually with Him intimately. This is what He wants with all of us to be with Him intimately and this is why he is present with us in the Eucharist. Yes He wants to acknowledge that he is with us all the time but in the Eucharist He is with us in such a deeper way. I hard Fr Richards say like this, “when you are talking with your spouse on the phone it is nice and you guys are together but when you are guys face to face talking it is better. This is the same with Our Lord, he is with us always but it is better to be with him face to face.”

I hope I just didn’t babble but this is the way Catholics see, because this is the way Jesus told us to see it.

God Bless,

Monica

 

[jAlex]

That is offensive.

It’s not about being offensive…

There are basically 3 categories:

• churches that believe in the Real Presence and actually have it (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc);
• churches that believe in the Real Presence but don’t have it - because of broken Apostolic Succession
• churches that believe the Eucharist is symbolic - most of them…

So we can safely say that at least 2/3 of churches don’t have the Real Presence. Do you agree ?

Alex.

 

[milimac]

It is not meant to be offensive os luke

Catholics believe that we have the physical presence of God
Body, Blood, Sould and Divinity in the form of the Eucharist
We also believe that no one without a valid priesthood(ie Orthodox) has it.

He is not saying you are Godless, he is saying you do not have the physical presence of God in the Eucharist.

A Lone Raven

Lone Raven,
I opened a new thread to get some clarification on what you said regarding the “physical presence”: Is Christ physically present or sacramentally present in the Eucharist?

 

[milimac]

I do agree with most of what you are saying. But Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Yes he is with us always but in the Eucharist we more personally intimate with him where as when he is with us always we aren’t. For example the disciples where with him unknowingly on the road from Erimus (sp) and he was with them at dinner but it wasn’t until he broke the bread that they were actually with Him intimately. This is what He wants with all of us to be with Him intimately and this is why he is present with us in the Eucharist. Yes He wants to acknowledge that he is with us all the time but in the Eucharist He is with us in such a deeper way. I hard Fr Richards say like this, “when you are talking with your spouse on the phone it is nice and you guys are together but when you are guys face to face talking it is better. This is the same with Our Lord, he is with us always but it is better to be with him face to face.”

I hope I just didn’t babble but this is the way Catholics see, because this is the way Jesus told us to see it.

God Bless,

Monica

I like that analogy of talking on the phone vs talking face to face.

I just happened to be reading Jimmy Akin’s blog, where he discusses this very topic: Flattening the Real Presence

 

[valient_Lucy]

Hi,
I agree Isnt God everywhere? God is especially with all believers in their churches on sunday. Actually Jesus is with me every day all day long. Thank you Jesus:bowdown2:

As far as the Eucharist that is fine that you believe that and I know people say how much more personal can you get. Well I say much more personal.If you can trust Jesus to walk with you through everything and totally depend on Him, I would say that is pretty personal. If you are just receiving the Eucharist every sunday but dont trust Jesus the rest of the week then what good is it? Sorry for my rant

AFH

Catholics don’t receive the Eucharist as a substitute to walking with Christ spiritually every day of the week. Catholics recieve the Eucharist to help them walk with Christ every day of the week.
The difference between the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the presence with us in our daily lives is the difference between saying, “Jesus is in our midst” and “Jesus just walked into the room.” Are you saying that, if you were given the chance to meet Christ in the flesh, you would turn it down? What if your spouse said, “You know, I really don’t feel the need to live with you or have physical contact with you, since I feel spiritually connected to you and think about you all the time. After all, isn’t that much more intimate then actually living together or engaging in sexual relations?”
That’s what the Eucharist is. We meet Christ in the Eucharist sacramentally once a week, at least. Many people receive the Eucharist more than that, even every day! But we meet with Him in the Eucharist so that we will have the strength to walk with HIm in our daily lives. Catholics, in receiving the Eucharist, recognize that we desperatly need God’s grace in order to do this, Christ, in His mercy, gives us Himself to strengthen us, so that we may walk with Him at every moment of our lives, and trust in Him completly.
In heaven, we will have BOTH the physical presence AND the spiritual presence of Christ. Christ will be present in heaven with His earthly body. He did not jettison it after the Ascension, like an old shoe. And that’s what the Eucharist is. When we receive the Eucharist, we experience a foretaste of Heaven. NOTHING can be better, or closer, than that.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It’s not about being offensive…

There are basically 3 categories:

• churches that believe in the Real Presence and actually have it (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc);
• churches that believe in the Real Presence but don’t have it - because of broken Apostolic Succession
• churches that believe the Eucharist is symbolic - most of them…

So we can safely say that at least 2/3 of churches don’t have the Real Presence. Do you agree ?

Alex.

Of course I don’t agree, since you have categorized me as someone who believes in it but doesn’t have it. And I don’t think there’s anything “safe” at all when talking about God and the real presence of Christ.

We disagree. And whether you see it this way or not, it is offensive to me to hear that there is no God present in my church or worship.

O+

 

[jAlex]

Of course I don’t agree, since you have categorized me as someone who believes in it but doesn’t have it. And I don’t think there’s anything “safe” at all when talking about God and the real presence of Christ.

We disagree. And whether you see it this way or not, it is offensive to me to hear that there is no God present in my church or worship.

O+

** I categorized you**??? where ? I do not see your name mentioned under any categories. Do you?
C’mon, we’re both mature, there’s no point in playing the “who’s more offended” game. You don’t agree with what I said - fine! Just don’t put words in my mouth pease…

Alex.

 

[jAlex]

And I don’t think there’s anything “safe” at all when talking about God and the real presence of Christ.

Of course there is a safe way to know about the Real Presence of Christ and about valid consecration of Eucharist. It’ is the Apostolic Succesion. All apostolic churches have records of their bishops back till Apostles’ times.

If a church proves its Apostolic succession I really have no problem believing they do have the Real Presence. Even if they are not Catholics . Imagine that ! …

Maybe I should write a disclaimer: I am not accusing/atacking you personally. But this is what the Catholic church believes (with reasons clearly stated). Instead of getting frustrated or offended you could provide your view as to why do you think I am wrong. I’d be willing to listen, and I am not going to get offended - it will really be for the sake of a good discution. It’s really that simple !

God bless you!
Alex.

 

[mercygate]

Of course I don’t agree, since you have categorized me as someone who believes in it but doesn’t have it. And I don’t think there’s anything “safe” at all when talking about God and the real presence of Christ.

We disagree. And whether you see it this way or not, it is offensive to me to hear that there is no God present in my church or worship.

O+

I see no claim that God is not present in your church or worship. I think your profile says you are a Methodist. The poster claimed that you do not have the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as it is understood in Catholic sacramental theology, which is objectively true for ecclesial bodies which do not have Apostolic Succession, either by history or by intent, unless this has become a recent development among Methodists (ex Anglican, here)…

 

[RCCDefender]

I see no claim that God is not present in your church or worship. I think your profile says you are a Methodist. The poster claimed that you do not have the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as it is understood in Catholic sacramental theology, which is objectively true for ecclesial bodies which do not have Apostolic Succession, either by history or by intent, unless this has become a recent development among Methodists (ex Anglican, here)…

I second that.

O, no one said “that there is no God present in [your] church or worship.” They only said that Christ is not PHYSICALLY present in your church. Do you take communion every Sunday? Do you believe that Jesus’ body, blood, soul, divintity is the “bread” and “wine?” That is to say, do you believe that you are eating Christ’s actual flesh and drinking His blood? Do your ministers have apostolic succession that can be traced all the way back to the Apostles??

 

[Mannyfit75]

That is offensive.

If I offended you, I am sorry but I went to observe a Protestant service at a Baptist Church, and there is no physical presence of God. He is there spiritually but no physical presence.

Most Protestants do not believe in Jesus’ Christ real presence in the Eucharist. I have talk to some Evangelicals Christians who insist it is symbolic and not real.

Catholics and the Orthodox have the Real Presence. They have valid Sacraments. Catholics believe in the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus because Jesus himself said, “This is my Body will be given up for you.”

Jesus further said that he is the Bread of Life in the Gospel of John 6:31-66.

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

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.

There are Protestants like the Anglicans who believe in the real presence but their Holy Order is invalid because the King of England did away with the priesthood and only to return it back.

Protestant Church do not have the Real Presence of God. They do have the spiritual presence but the Protestant cannot have a real personal relationship since they did not eat his flesh for they deny the Eucharist as Jesus Christ himself.

Catholics and Orthodox are the only Christian Church that have God in their Churches that is kept in the Tabernacle, where Jesus Christ is worshipped everyday.

 

[milimac]

They do have the spiritual presence but the Protestant cannot have a real personal relationship since they did not eat his flesh for they deny the Eucharist as Jesus Christ himself.

Well, I agree with most of your post except for that claim. One has a personal relationship with Jesus before the first time one receives him. In fact, that’s why we usually wait until kids are older before letting them receive him for the first time. The relationship comes first – or at least it should, not unlike how a personal relationship comes before marriage. We Catholics should not underplay the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus.

A Protestant can and often does have a personal relationship with Jesus. Who else calls them to a deeper conversion in the first place?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well, I agree with most of your post except for that claim. One has a personal relationship with Jesus before the first time one receives him. In fact, that’s why we usually wait until kids are older before letting them receive him for the first time. The relationship comes first – or at least it should, not unlike how a personal relationship comes before marriage. We Catholics should not underplay the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus.

A Protestant can and often does have a personal relationship with Jesus. Who else calls them to a deeper conversion in the first place?

The Protestant personal relationship with Jesus is limited in a spiritual sense they lack the Eucharist.

It doesn’t get more personal than receiving Jesus upon your mouth and he remains in you.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Protestant personal relationship with Jesus is limited in a spiritual sense they lack the Eucharist.

It doesn’t get more personal than receiving Jesus upon your mouth and he remains in you.

Hi,
I a little confused by the last part of your statement about after eating His flesh and then drinking His blood what exactly do you mean He stays in you? If you look at it from a biological standpoint He does not stay in you(I wont elaborate-you know what I mean). Spiritually the Holy Spirit is the only presence that stays with us till the day of redemption. Im a little confused by your statement maybe dense I dont know Im tired.

 

[mercygate]

Hi,
I a little confused by the last part of your statement about after eating His flesh and then drinking His blood what exactly do you mean He stays in you? If you look at it from a biological standpoint He does not stay in you(I wont elaborate-you know what I mean). Spiritually the Holy Spirit is the only presence that stays with us till the day of redemption. Im a little confused by your statement maybe dense I dont know Im tired.

You are correct, ALLFORHIM. The Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist is not biological. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is substantial, Sacramental, and spiritual, but it is not biological. Where Protestants and Catholics run afoul on this is that, often, Protestants mean “symbolic” when they say “spiritual.”

The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is ESSENTIAL… It is the resurrected Lord we receive. Think about it. God is the “living God” but he is not biological. God is Spirit. God is Real.

The claim that the Real Presence can abide only in the Apostolic Churches lies in the Lord’s prayer that “they all might be one” and his declaration that he is the vine; we must remain attached to the Vine in order to be “one.”

 

[O.S.Luke]

I second that.

O, no one said “that there is no God present in [your] church or worship.” They only said that Christ is not PHYSICALLY present in your church. Do you take communion every Sunday? Do you believe that Jesus’ body, blood, soul, divintity is the “bread” and “wine?” That is to say, do you believe that you are eating Christ’s actual flesh and drinking His blood? Do your ministers have apostolic succession that can be traced all the way back to the Apostles??

Re-read Manny’s post. I quoted him verbatim.

Our apostolic succession can be traced to the Archbishop of Canterbury… which the Catholic Church denies. Other than that, yes to all of the above.

I guess I’m at the point where if you don’t care to respect my faith, I’m not too worried about what you think.

 

[O.S.Luke]

** I categorized you**??? where ? I do not see your name mentioned under any categories. Do you?
C’mon, we’re both mature, there’s no point in playing the “who’s more offended” game. You don’t agree with what I said - fine! Just don’t put words in my mouth pease…

Alex.

You posited three (and only three) categories where people could fit. Did one of these apply to me? I think it’s fair to say that your are thus categorizing people, is it not? If that’s putting words in your mouth, I don’t see how we can communicate.

I don’t think I really belong here anymore. The past few years posting here have taught me that sacramental discussions between Protestants and Catholics are fruitless, since we have no “validity” of orders, confection, or anything else. We’re just playing church in your eyes, I think.

I took a vow to do no harm. I think I best live up to it.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[jmcrae]

Re-read Manny’s post. I quoted him verbatim.

Our apostolic succession can be traced to the Archbishop of Canterbury… which the Catholic Church denies. Other than that, yes to all of the above.

The reason is that under King Edward VI, you changed the words of the ordination ceremony. That’s what broke the line of Apostolic Succession in the Anglican communion. Schism alone didn’t do it, but schism plus changing the words of the Sacrament is what did it.

Any “priests” who were “ordained” under that wording were still lay people - as is anyone whom they later attempted to ordain, even if they used the correct wording when they themselves attempted to ordain others, because if a man himself does not have a valid ordination, he is not capable of ordaining others.

 

[Genesis315]

The reason is that under King Edward VI, you changed the words of the ordination ceremony. That’s what broke the line of Apostolic Succession in the Anglican communion. Schism alone didn’t do it, but schism plus changing the words of the Sacrament is what did it.

Any “priests” who were “ordained” under that wording were still lay people - as is anyone whom they later attempted to ordain, even if they used the correct wording when they themselves attempted to ordain others, because if a man himself does not have a valid ordination, he is not capable of ordaining others.

It wasn’t the wording per se, but that the intent was changed away from the offices of bishop and priest being sacerdotal (and the change in words reflected the change in intent.)

 

[GKC]

It wasn’t the wording per se, but that the intent was changed away from the offices of bishop and priest being sacerdotal (and the change in words reflected the change in intent.)

That is, to be sure, the judgment refected in Apostolicae Curae, and is, of course what all RCCs should affirm. Anglicans, as you can understand, see the matter differently. As, for example, in (RC) Fr. John J. Hughes’ two books on the issue, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus