Why dear friend do you not believe in the Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wannano said:
Patrick, the time has come
Click to expand...
Who are you, the walrus?

:cool: But seriously …
Wannano said:
for me to tell you in Christian love that judgements you make like the one above are unacceptable.

My understanding is that we are to be charitable on this forum and if your statement is indicative of current Catholic thought then I am misunderstanding your Pope.
Click to expand...
Hmmm … not to put too fine a point on it, but that strikes me as an odd thing to say about an internet discussion forum that people post anonymously to.
 
Peter_J said:
Who are you, the walrus?

:cool: But seriously …

Hmmm … not to put too fine a point on it, but that strikes me as an odd thing to say about an internet discussion forum that people post anonymously to.
Click to expand...
That’s probably why he said, "If your statement is indicative… "

Just my :twocents:
 
rcwitness said:
That’s probably why he said, "If your statement is indicative… "

Just my :twocents:
Click to expand...
That’s certainly a fair point, but it’s still a very weak statement – just as it would be weak if I found something posted by an Evangelical on a Protestant forum and said “If this statement I found on the Internet is right, then I guess I misunderstood Billy Graham.” or something like that.
 
Peter_J said:
That’s certainly a fair point, but it’s still a very weak statement – just as it would be weak if I found something posted by an Evangelical on a Protestant forum and said “If this statement I found on the Internet is right, then I guess I misunderstood Billy Graham.” or something like that.
Click to expand...
He is a forum master… :nunchuk:

… but he did take the response in good spirit! 👍
 
Wannano said:
Patrick, the time has come for me to tell you in Christian love that judgements you make like the one above are unacceptable.

My understanding is that we are to be charitable on this forum and if your statement is indicative of current Catholic thought then I am misunderstanding your Pope.
Click to expand...
PJ could have worded it differently. I don’t think he meant offense.
 
rcwitness said:
Mark relates that He appeared in “another form”. I have touched on this with you before, but what does Mark (or the Spirit) mean by “another form”? And remember, it was significant for them to return to the others to to relate how He was made known to them.
Click to expand...
Mark 16 9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

Mark 16:9-20 wasn’t in the original texts, but is in the later ones. The NIV has this separate from the rest. Either way, I don’t know what is meant by a different form. They reported it to the others because they had seen and recognized Jesus. They thought He was dead, but they saw Him alive. Does there need to be any more of a reason?
 
PJM said:
quote

Originally Posted by susanlo View Post
Are you saying that Jesus was present with them as they had their meal? Or that at this point in Luke 24 he transubstantiated Himself into the bread on the table? end quote

A question for you: Originally Posted by susanlo View Post

Are you suggesting GOD could not do this?

GBY

Patrick
Click to expand...
Of course God can do whatever He chooses to do. He created the world and all of its properties. But just because God can do something doesn’t mean that He did or that He does do something. Miracles happen all of the time and are scientifically investigated.

Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine: John 2 7Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
8Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.” Here we see that the taste and other properties (accidents) of the water changed. Everyone knew it was now wine, not because it still had the accidents of water and was still H2O although changed on some “other” level, but because it was physically changed.

God turned the Nile River into blood as well in Exodus 7. This time the river stank, fish died and people were aware that the Nile had blood and not water based on the characteristics of the river. So of course God can change whatever matter He wants to change. But I don’t understand why God would perform a physical miracle that is undetectable to observers. Maybe we need to look deeper than the physical level to perceive the spiritual miracle of salvation observed in the communion symbols He gave us.
 
susanlo said:
Mark 16 9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

Mark 16:9-20 wasn’t in the original texts, but is in the later ones. The NIV has this separate from the rest. Either way, I don’t know what is meant by a different form. They reported it to the others because they had seen and recognized Jesus. They thought He was dead, but they saw Him alive. Does there need to be any more of a reason?
Click to expand...
Yes, the end of Mark is interesting, in that regard. I don’t know if we should say, “[it] wasn’t in the original texts…” We simply don’t have the original to confirm that, right?

No, there does not “need” to be “any more of a reason”. Neither does there “need” to be any less meaning. Scripture sometimes conveys more than one single meaning. And this passage (along with the longer account by Luke) definitely has peculiar language. It makes more sense, to us, under the frame of Transubstantiation.
 
rcwitness said:
Yes, the end of Mark is interesting, in that regard. I don’t know if we should say, “[it] wasn’t in the original texts…” We simply don’t have the original to confirm that, right?

No, there does not “need” to be “any more of a reason”. Neither does there “need” to be any less meaning. Scripture sometimes conveys more than one single meaning. And this passage (along with the longer account by Luke) definitely has peculiar language. It makes more sense, to us, under the frame of Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
“[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]” - NIV
It isn’t in the earliest manuscripts. Yes, ‘earliest’ and not ‘original’ is the correct word choice.
 
susanlo said:
“[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]” - NIV
It isn’t in the earliest manuscripts. Yes, ‘earliest’ and not ‘original’ is the correct word choice.
Click to expand...
👍 It would be nice to know the story behind that section. Either way, it seems the Church accepts it as Inspired.
 
Peter_J said:
Heh. 🙂

Don’t get me wrong, I like the Protestants who post on this forum … and W is certainly no exception.
Click to expand...
👍
I did mean that PJM responded in good spirit to wannano’s response.

… ANYWAY… enough about all that, huh? 😃
 
Blacksword said:
Late to respond but I noticed no one gave this much attention but your assertion that the Real Presence developed late (the 11th Century?!) is totally false. The writings of dozens of Early Church Fathers are all universal in agreement on this issue, including St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Clement of Rome writing in the First and very early Second Centuries, as well as documents like the Didache. This same teaching is reiterated over and over right up through the end of the pre-Nicene Fathers including St. Augustine. If there is one doctrine we can be certain of in terms of authentic Tradition handed on by the Apostles to the ECF’s it is this one, hardly a late theological invention.
Click to expand...
The Doctrine of Transubstantiation wasn’t accepted until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. Before then there were various accepted explanations for the Eucharist. Ignatius does call the elements body and blood, but does not speak of an actual conversion; I was not aware Clement of Rome wrote about the Eucharist at all; The Didache mentions “spiritual food,” but no mention of either symbol or conversion. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others call the bread and wine symbols or figures, while by the 4th century Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose seem to speak of the elements actually converting. Augustine later writes that John 6 is figurative and not to be taken literally. There were debates in the 9th and 11th centuries until 1215 when the Doctrine was finally accepted.
 
susanlo said:
The Doctrine of Transubstantiation wasn’t accepted until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. Before then there were various accepted explanations for the Eucharist. Ignatius does call the elements body and blood, but does not speak of an actual conversion; I was not aware Clement of Rome wrote about the Eucharist at all; The Didache mentions “spiritual food,” but no mention of either symbol or conversion. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others call the bread and wine symbols or figures, while by the 4th century Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose seem to speak of the elements actually converting. Augustine later writes that John 6 is figurative and not to be taken literally. There were debates in the 9th and 11th centuries until 1215 when the Doctrine was finally accepted.
Click to expand...
For the sake of peace, I will say I agree to what you summarize here. I only add that some of these conclusions could be debated.

But let’s assume this assessment is accurate. What if this was all debated within 24 hrs? Would it matter? Does the Church run out of time to Confirm something? Or if something is debated, is it no longer possible to know the Truth?

As for your assesment, I do believe the bread and wine are symbols. This is not opposed to Transubstantiation.
 
susanlo said:
But I don’t understand why God would perform a physical miracle that is undetectable to observers. Maybe we need to look deeper than the physical level to perceive the spiritual miracle of salvation observed in the communion symbols He gave us.
Click to expand...
Well, there was nothing more miraculous than the incarnation of God in human flesh. Yet, for many, it was undetectable; they saw Jesus and saw an ordinary human being.
 
rcwitness said:
For the sake of peace, I will say I agree to what you summarize here. I only add that some of these conclusions could be debated.

But let’s assume this assessment is accurate. What if this was all debated within 24 hrs? Would it matter? Does the Church run out of time to Confirm something? Or if something is debated, is it no longer possible to know the Truth?

As for your assesment, I do believe the bread and wine are symbols. This is not opposed to Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
I don’t really know how to answer about the church running out of time to confirm things. However I would say that just because one person wrote something at some certain date, it doesn’t mean that their statement is true. It is the true belief of the individual writer, but not a statement that is inerrant.
 
Peter_J said:
Who are you, the walrus?
:confused:::confused: Must be an inside joke?

Hmmm … not to put too fine a point on it, but that strikes me as an odd thing to say about an internet discussion forum that people post anonymously to.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to an internet discussion forum. I was repectfully saying that I appreciate that Pope Francis does not tell other Christians they do not aceept God Himself because they differ on some theology.
 
Peter_J said:
That’s certainly a fair point, but it’s still a very weak statement – just as it would be weak if I found something posted by an Evangelical on a Protestant forum and said “If this statement I found on the Internet is right, then I guess I misunderstood Billy Graham.” or something like that.
Click to expand...
Sorry Peter, it went over your head. Read the first line of the post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top