J
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Well, PJs, i thought Jesus was praying for the Apostles who were present the time, and whose names were Peter, Matthew and John, et. al. But please tell me why you think He was not praying for them, but instead was praying for this Mr. Magisterium. And who exactly is this mysterious Mr. M that is not mentioned anywhere in the entire text of the Bible?…
It is when and ONLY when the priest is teaching in full accord what the Catholic Church Magisterium profess as the SINGLE TRUTH on [and only on] matters of both Faith and Morals.
As evidence of this I share the following words of Jesus Himself: [assuming you accept the Bible as Divinely Inspired?] [2 Tim. 3:16].
**John 14: 16 **And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
John 17: 13 But now I [JESUS Praying to] I am coming to thee [The Father, 1st. Person in the Blessed Trinity] ; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
So yes friend, when a priest, or Bishop speak on behalf of the CC, on matters of Faith and Morals, and what they teach conforms fully to the Catholic Magisterium teaching on the issue at hand [Faith and Morals only] they speak with and for the voice of God Himself. No other faith can support such a claim
It is not so much a matter of “personal knowloedge” but teaching in unison with the Mageristerium that matters. The education is to facilate and aid them recalling and expressing the mind of the CC, not mere subjective and personal “expert” opinion.
Love and prayers,
Pat
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
You are making an inference from ignorance; aren’t you? From what i know from studying the Bible for the last 20+ years, and from the little i’ve learned about the early Church Fathers in the last 2+ years, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the infant Mary was never mentioned in the first few hundred years of the Catholic Church. If i’m wrong, i’d be grateful if you will correct me. Please quote the Biblical verse or Church Father who describes the doctrine.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thank you for saying so, PJs! But i really cannot take credit for anything profound the might pass through my fingers. I’m really more of a repeater than an inventor of great insights. I mean, when a parrot says something clever, no one thinks the bird brilliant. Instead, they praise it’s master, who taught it to speak so well. The same is true of me, i think. Although, to my great embarrassment, i’ve quite forgot who my trainer is. And it seems Socrates shared the same shame:
Now, I am certain that this idea is not an invention of my own, since I am well aware that I know nothing. Therefore, I can only infer that I have been filled through the ears, like a pitcher, from the waters of another, though I have actually forgotten in my stupidity how this occurred, and who my informant was.
(Phaedrus, 235)
Regarding the passage in the CCC, please quote it for me and tell me what you think it means.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Not looking for reconciliation; looking for revelation. I want to write what is true on the SMART board of my soul.If memory and perceptions concur with our impressions at a particular occasion, then they seem to me to inscribe words in our soul, as it were. And if what is written is true, then we form a true judgment and a true account of the matter. But if what our scribe writes is false, then the result will be the opposite of the truth.Keep searching, Soc. But if you do, you’ll never be able to reconcile the basic attitude of Evangelical Christianity-or of most Protestants for that matter- towards the Eucharist with that of early Christians-or, coincidentally- with that of the CC.
(Philebus 39)
My son, keep my words
and store up my commands within you. Keep my commands and you will live;
guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.
Bind them on your fingers;
write them on the tablet of your heart.
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
and call understanding your kinsman.
(Proverbs 7:1-4)
C
clmowry
Guest
I’ll ask the question again: Who in his right mind would believe what he does not know? If i’ve examined the evidence for and against the authority of the Catholic Church, and i find that there is no convincing reason to either believe or reject her, could i trust Her? Isn’t faith a kind of trust? Is trust given to those who one knows should be trusted and not to those who one does not know are trustworthy?
Aside from perhaps mathematical and logical constructs can we ever “know” or “prove” anything to be true?
For example, if you asked “Do you know your daughter loves you?” I would say “Yes!” But if you asked me to “Prove it” I would be at a complete loss as to how to do so, yet I trust completely and absolutely that it is the truth.
Who do you trust (in the matters of Christian faith and morals) now; and why?
Why have you given that “authority” your trust?
Is there more or less, historical, textual, logical (or scriptural) reason for you to trust your current “authority” than there is to trust the Catholic Church?
There is no way for me (or you or anybody else) to “prove” beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Catholic Church or any other person or institution (book) is the “infallible” (inerrant) depository of the Christian faith.
Yet somehow, you have come to have the faith that Scripture is in fact the inerrant word of God (and that the particular set of writings in your bible actually constitute the list of inerrant books).
You have taken that leap of faith, and have somehow come to give that belief your trust.
I would submit that the logical and rational basis for taking same leap of faith required to give your trust to the Catholic Church is decidedly sounder than the leap you’ve already made.
For now you’re in the precarious position of needing to believe that the Catholic Church was somehow used to protect and preserve the inerrant written word of God and at the same time got much of its theology wrong.
Why would the members of the fallible Catholic Church not have chosen to gather and preserve as “scripture” those writings which best suited its own theology at the expense of the “true scriptures” which were in conflict with Catholic Theology? (In fact I believe we have some “christian” sects today that make precisely this claim.)
Yet you take what the Church has handed you, on faith, in this one area, to be inerrant, and then dismiss Her as incapable of being infallible.
For me at least, the opposite approach seems much more logically sound.
I take it on faith (and reason based on the preponderance of the evidence) that the Catholic Church is the infallible depository of the Christian faith, and therefore take what she tells me about Scripture, Tradition, Faith and Morals to be true.
If I presuppose, as I once did, that the Catholic Church is not “the Church” then frankly, I’m left with the conclusion that if there is a God then He pretty much doesn’t care what we believe.
Chuck
P
paul_c
Guest
Chuck,
I agree with you.
if you trust the church to have generated inerrant scripture, then why wouldn’t you trust the church’s traditions in the same fashion? Why would God protect Sctipture but not tradition? Are they not from the same base? In fact, isn’t scripture just the subset of tradition that happened to be written down in the first 30-50 years of the church’s existance and canoninzed 350 years later? Why would that be the only part of tradition to be inerrant? Where does it say that this is the case? That would be an excellent question for SOC to go back and ask his Protestant Prosecuters: Why is the Bible the only part of Catholic Traditiion that is inerrent and under what authority do they make that claim.
I agree with you.
if you trust the church to have generated inerrant scripture, then why wouldn’t you trust the church’s traditions in the same fashion? Why would God protect Sctipture but not tradition? Are they not from the same base? In fact, isn’t scripture just the subset of tradition that happened to be written down in the first 30-50 years of the church’s existance and canoninzed 350 years later? Why would that be the only part of tradition to be inerrant? Where does it say that this is the case? That would be an excellent question for SOC to go back and ask his Protestant Prosecuters: Why is the Bible the only part of Catholic Traditiion that is inerrent and under what authority do they make that claim.
C
clmowry
Guest
Let me be as clear as I can be about what I think about what is unclear. Is that clear?
I do not believe that what the Catholic Church teaches, what the Holy Scriptures has to say, or what the Church Fathers believed is “unclear” at all (in most cases).
So by all means you should read what the Church (Catechism, Council Documents, and Encyclicals, etc.), Scripture and the Church Fathers have to say on various subjects.
You should also look at what theologians and apologists from both sides have to say on all of the above as well, because they save you a lot of leg work. (Just remember to go back and look at the “proof texts”, whether biblical or otherwise in their context. Unfortunately, apologists from both sides have a tendency to leave off the next line or paragraph that disproves their position, when they provide their “proof texts”. I find their dialogues much more useful in pointing out good places in the vast sea of Christian writings to read about certain issues than I find the particular arguments they are trying to make.)
Just remember, as you do so, that no matter how clear a statement from any one of these sources might be there are those (and sometimes you and I are one of them) who can and will (for a wide variety of reasons) take what is written and twist it to mean something completely different from what it “obviously” actually says.
For example, If you look at what JPII had to say about the ordination of women, in a document that was “obviously” meant to put the issue to bed once and for all, it seems “absolutely clear” to me (and I would think most reasonable people) that that is exactly what he did (whether you agree with his position or not).
Yet there is many a Catholic who is very emotional about the ordination of women to the priesthood that claim that the document still leaves the issue open for debate.
It simply “must be ok to ordain women to the priesthood” because anything else would not be “fair” so therefore, the issue “must” still be open for debate, and pretty much nothing anyone has to say will sway them from this position.
So they look for grammatical wiggle room, and of course they find it.
And as we can see from many of the scriptural discussions had on this forum that we can torture a text until confesses whatever we want it to say.
But, then again, if you apply your logic and reason to the vast amount of Christian writings available to you, without letting your emotions get in the way; I believe the preponderance of the evidence will stack up in a certain direction.
What you do with that evidence then becomes a matter of Faith.
Chuck
P
PJM
Guest
Dear friend, don’t panic about what I am about to share.
The Bible was written nearly 2000 years ago. The NT, by men we would know today as Catholics for the ONLY Christian Church in existence at the time, thus it s factually by Catholics and for Catholics.
Further, one may surmise that the authors were very likely unaware that what they wrote would be compiled into an authoritive book of teaching this New Faith for all time! So they were written to very specific audiences. Johns Gospel may be the exception to this general understanding?
So in trying to understand the Bible we need clearly [and humbly] to accept the the words ARE Divinely Inspired, carefully selected, not by the authors so much as by God Himself, who of course did know His plans for these teachings.
With this understanding knowing that much in the bible has at least two possible meanings… one for the audience it was written speciffically for, and possibly another as the HS applies it to our own lifes today.] The first understanding one should first seek the readily apparant message, in the litteral understanding of the words. [Nearly all of the NT was written after all for a largely uneducated, under educated people. Clarity was essential.
So verses like Mt. 16: 15-19 should be taken litterly before [and often in lieu of] personal discernment. So too John Chapter 6:[read verses 9-16 first as they are palced there with a very specific purpose], Then read verses 18-20 where God again demonistrates His Divine Power over The Natural World. Next read verses 36-40, Jesus tells “WHY!”.
Jn. 6: 52-53 "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you";
“Truly, Truly” is saying : I Jesus make a contract with you!
Jn. 6: 55-56 "
[55] ***“For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” ***
Friend that is not intended nor was it understood to be mere colorful speach, which we know for certain by what took place next.
Verse 60: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” AND THEY STOPED FOLLOWING JESUS, THEY LEFT HIM. v. 66
“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”
SO what did Jesus do? Well, He didn’t say “please come back, I was just kidding!” In FACT quite the opposite. He turned to Peter and the others and asked.
Verse 67-69 " Jesus said to the twelve, **“Do you also wish to go away?” **
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Friend, this is exceedingly clear, difficult to accept, BUT NOT AT ALL difficult to understand!
The issue dear friend is a lack of trust, a lack of Faith. May I again suggest you go back a few post and read the explaination of “WHY” God would do such a thing.
Love and prayers,
Pat
C
clmowry
Guest
Vent away, I wish I had had a good place to vent and dialogue 20 or so years ago when I was having similar struggles.
As frequently happens, I’m afraid, I the cradle Catholic found myself coming out of college and into my twenties as basically an Atheist at best an Agnostic.
It took what I believe to be some direct divine intervention to put me back on the right path.
In the abridged version I was first convinced there was a God and He expected a response of me. I spent quite sometime trying to convince myself that “what” I believed was irrelevant as long as I “believed.”
But eventually I became convinced that this position was no better, perhaps worse than not believing at all. If He was there and if He cared then He must care WHAT we believe and He must therefore have revealed what we should believe somehow.
Looking into the various world religions, most seemed to me to be quickly self-refuting, in that they either did not directly address a personal God and what He expected of us or they offered up some very strange and inconsistent moral teachings (that changed over time.)
So I eventually came back to Christianity as the only reasonable (at least in my opinion) source of revelation. I really read and studied the Bible for the first time. I traveled a bunch and listened almost exclusively to Christian talk radio for a couple of years (I still wonder when the “Bible Answerman” is going to give it up and cross that old river.)
One week I actually heard 7 different shows discuss the same bible passages each coming to different and in come cases diametrically opposed opinions about baptism (kind of like watching members of various protestant denominations debate the same issue on these forums.)
It shook me up pretty good.
I was all into the Bible and what it taught me the truth was and the “once saved always saved” ask forgiveness once and your good to go version of Christianity I was talking myself into was a pretty comfortable place to be.
And there I sat listening to one Protestant expert spell out exactly what the Catholic Church taught me all those years ago about baptism in direct opposition to the varying opinions of half a dozen other Protestant experts.
If God exists and cares what we believe, then He “must” have given us a way to “know” what to believe, and He is not going to be the Author of confusion.
So I found no other viable option than the Catholic Church. And though I continued to fight it for a while, during a business trip to Rome God put an end to any debate for me.
I wish I could tell you that it is easy. “All” I had to do was accept a faith that my upbringing had already pre-conditioned me to believe.
I didn’t have to overcome any barriers out side of my own internal barriers, I wasn’t going to break my mothers heart by converting to Catholicism, I wasn’t going to loose any friends or family because of the decision (though later on ex-wife did toss in my becoming a “bible thumper” as one of the reason she was leaving me, though it wasn’t an issue at the time.)
And even with the relative ease of my reversion I still struggled with if for years, and it eventually took several personal divine kicks in the pants to get me where I was supposed to be.
So know that I will continue to pray for you wherever your journey leads you.
Chuck
P
PJM
Guest
No friend, you don’t have an option to be a “Catholic priest” until and unless calls you, and appoints you to this exalted office.
John.15
[16]" You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. [19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
I’m somewhat dissapointed in your last few post. At frist I thought you were seriously seeking thee TRUTH, I now sense you only want debate
Love and prayers,
Pat
John.15
[16]" You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. [19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
I’m somewhat dissapointed in your last few post. At frist I thought you were seriously seeking thee TRUTH, I now sense you only want debate
Love and prayers,
Pat
P
PJM
Guest
As you well know; NO!
However they are the leaders, the sheperds, while we remain the sheep.
Everyone is to live, practive and share The Good News, in accordance to what the Pope and magerterium teach as truth. And those of other faith beliefs have a similar responsibility, in accord to there honest understanding of thee truth.
Why?
Because the magisterium is the present tense Word of God. Speaking on behalf of Jesus and with the Power of Jesus, as assured by Jesus.
Love and prayers,
Pat
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Soc, just a few quick questions before I head out, that might help us resolve the Immaculate conception matter:
Do you believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the church built by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, into all truth? If so, where would one go to find this church built by God, in the world today?
Do you believe that the church built by Jesus, to which He is the head and Savior, 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, cannot fall prey to Satan’s endless devices used to attempt to defeat Jesus’ established church?
Do you believe that the church built by Jesus 2000 years ago cannot fail to propagate through every century, until Jesus’ return, all that Jesus taught, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit, regardless of the devils masquerading as holy men in Jesus’ established church, no doubt through every century, in different parts of the world.
These were the questions that eventually brought me back to the church built by Jesus, once I answered them with absolute honesty, removing the shackles of denial, irrationality and impracticality. I know you have to respond to many people here at this thread, so if you get a chance could you answer these questions for me with just one or two sentences.
Thanks friend…
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Soc,Funny! And true.
I could get that this agreement means you at present see serious inconsistencies the other side of the fence. Could I ?
P
pneuma07
Guest
Your conclusion could be shared by many a catholic.Well, they have credentials–just not Catholic. And i wonder if that is the way God wants it. I mean, the principle of Capitalism has it’s wisdom–competition can cause make betters of competitors. Luther had some valid points about the corruption of the Catholic Church of his day. But they were really the only game in Europe town, and were becoming lazy in doing good. Then came the competition–the Protestant team. And the aging, and soft Home team began worrying about loosing the religious season to these rookies.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(Romans 8:28-29)
So writes Paul. And i cannot help but think that if the Protestant Reformation was bad news for the Catholic Church, God used the competition to make Her a lean, less mean, spiritual fighting machine.
It is about credentials that we could go in more detail. I understand that you do not consider the “I have the Holy Spirit, you have the Holy Spirit” a sound approach to the legitimacy of Christian authority.
From what has been said here on the limits of the explicative power of the written word, we can probably see that such a structurally simple sentence like “I will be with you“, in the context of the Great Commission, can lead us to ask what means here “you“ , addressed to the Apostles, and what “to be with“.
It is my impression that protestantisms have come to implicitly read these words as conveying, more or less, a message like this:
“ Your successors will eventually fall into heresy. All of them. “( some would add at this point, “ but outside your successors there will always remain a scattered forgotten few faithful to my word“). And the time comes, when the Spirit shall call many, who, saving a large part of my sheep from your successors, shall restore the original Church, and all the teachings handed down by you to your immediate successors“.
I do not want to build a strawman here. I ask you Soc whether this reading attributed to protestantisms contains essential misunderstandings.
If, and only if, it doesn’t, can we consider it as plausible, even the most plausible, explanation of the original sentence ?
I cannot see credentials of legitimate Christian authority in protestant pastors, teachers, preachers.
I mean, outside subjective claims.
Isn’t apostolic succession, for all the questions and objections we can for sure raise about it, at least a serious proposal of an objective mark of legitimacy ?
Reformation was built against this very mark.
And proposing IMHO something like the reading I wrote above about the ““I will be with you“.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Yes Soc. It looks we’re back to Apostolic Succession.
We cannot probably know whether a guy is corrupt or not. We can get to know whether this guy acting as a detective is a legitimate policeman or not.
why i should trust the priests, bishops, cardinals, and Pope, who together ARE the Catholic Church.
You trust Jesus and His Apostles. You trust the Apostles, because they were sent by Jesus.
The model which was chosen by the Apostles was selecting successors to which the deposit of the faith and the authority of the Church would be entrusted. The way Jesus had done with them.
We can start examining this statement by going back to the already proposed evidence.
It’s nice to see you have no problem with the catholic teaching about the existence of both ministerial and common priesthood.
Many protestant brothers as you know throw the latter against the former.In Christ
P7
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
But it was not that way with the Jewish believers, FH. The rabbis prior to Jesus’ time created the first, free public school system, and all Jewish boys were required to attend until they reached the age where they themselves chose to follow a rabbi, or take on the family business. This public school system was firmly established by the time Jesus arrived on the scene. As evidence of this, we have the gospel, epistles and Revelation written by John, a common fisherman. Peter, also a fisherman, wrote his epistles. It was not a fluke that they were literate, it was the norm.
But outside the Jewish communities, there were many who might have been illiterate, and by some estimates 50% were slaves within the realm of the Roman Empire. However, the Old Testament Scriptures were routinely read allowed to the congregations, as were the letters written by Paul and the others. And there is no doubt that there was much discussion, either before or after Mass, for the Greeks and Romans had a great love of dialog (something like what we are having now). The less intelligent in the congregations would no doubt benefit from crowding around and listening to these discussions. Though some of them might be illiterate, they would certainly not be uneducated.
I’m speaking of the first few hundred years of the church, of course. Things would have no doubt been different in the Middle Ages, after the collapse of the Roman Empire.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Then i am glad to have you as my defending attorney, PC! Please cross examine me. Play the part of a defense lawyer and ask me what the truth is, rather than tell me what it is. Otherwise, the Protestant prosecutor will object, and the judge will order you to refrain from giving testimony, for such is not allowed for the lawyer who questions a witness. I’ll start the cross examination and then you please continue:
PAUL C: Socrates, during your testimony, you started off stating that you were questioning your position but by the end of your testimony you were acquiescing without argument to everything the Protestant prosecutor said. Were you afraid to confront him with the truth?
SOCRATES4JESUS: No, i was not afraid; just confused. You see, i’m not sure what the truth is, or maybe i am. I don’t know for certain.
PC: Yes, the esteemed prosecutor has that effect on witnesses. After all, that’s his job, isn’t it? to confuse the witness and make his testimony look weaker!
PROTESTANT PROSECUTOR: Objection! Your honor, I resemble–I mean, I resent that remark. The People are not on trial, here!
JUDGE: Sustained. Counselor, keep your opinions to yourself and concentrate on questioning the witness.
PC: My apologies, Your Honor. Socrates, could it be that you were confused because you have not carefully considered what the Church Father meant by what he said?
SOC: Yes, i have not carefully considered it.
PC: Then let’s do so. You quoted the Church Father as saying this: “And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.” Now, what does it mean to be a partaker of the Lord’s body?
SOC: Well, a participant, i think. To become a Christian is to become a participant in the Body of Christ.
PC: Yes, that’s true, but have you ever heard of partaking in a meal?
SOC: Yes, of course.
PC: Doesn’t this understanding of the Church Father’s words make more sense?
SOC: That’s just it, you see, i don’t know. His words are ambiguous to me.
CONTINUED …
P
paul_c
Guest
Its fine to put me in the role of defense attorney, but I was actually putting myself in your shoes as the defendent. No need to ask questions, like I was a contestant in Divine jeopardy. I simply needed to state the facts. He says to DRINK THE BLOOD of the Lord. How can you understand this as anything other than to accept the real presence as a reality?
P
paul_c
Guest
SOC,
I’m going to take you one Step closer to Christ to understand the real presence, from the ECFs to St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. He has this to say in chapter 10:
15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Note, we are participated in the body and blood of Christ. and that makes us part of the Body of Christ.
Now check out what he says in Chapter 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
This is a clear, scriptural statement for St. Paul’s belief in the real presence. He says clearly, " THIS IS MY BODY", just as Christ related in John 6. Note that Paul says he got directly from Christ. For St. Paul, this is clearly more than just a memorial ceremony, it really is the Body and Blood of Christ… According to him, those that eat the body and the drink the blood of Christ unworthily will need to answer for it and that some are ill and dying as a result. That would not happen if it was merely bread and wine now would it?
Cease your unbelief and believe.
I’m going to take you one Step closer to Christ to understand the real presence, from the ECFs to St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. He has this to say in chapter 10:
15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Note, we are participated in the body and blood of Christ. and that makes us part of the Body of Christ.
Now check out what he says in Chapter 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
This is a clear, scriptural statement for St. Paul’s belief in the real presence. He says clearly, " THIS IS MY BODY", just as Christ related in John 6. Note that Paul says he got directly from Christ. For St. Paul, this is clearly more than just a memorial ceremony, it really is the Body and Blood of Christ… According to him, those that eat the body and the drink the blood of Christ unworthily will need to answer for it and that some are ill and dying as a result. That would not happen if it was merely bread and wine now would it?
Cease your unbelief and believe.
- Status