You can't have it both ways.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think so, schaick. I think if you cannot accept what is written in the Scriptures, the Early Fathers, and the unbroken faith of the Church in this, then there is no other more convincing evidence I could give you.

It is probably more useful to ask “can you show concrete evidence that the disciples did not believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord”? We do have some early evidence of this, and they are called “heretics”, meaning that their believe to the contrary of what the Apostles taught was a significant departure from the ONE FAITH that was handed down.
Itis written in Scripture that the Eucharist is Real Presence- we have proof for that. We know the Disciples believed this. In fact it caused some to turn away as Jesus was talking about it.

WHat we don’t have is evidence that the Eucharist was worshipped. Jesus never said to worship the Eucharist.

So you are calling me a heretic because I will not worship the Eucharist when we are never instructed to by GOD?
 
Itis written in Scripture that the Eucharist is Real Presence- we have proof for that. We know the Disciples believed this. In fact it caused some to turn away as Jesus was talking about it.

WHat we don’t have is evidence that the Eucharist was worshipped. Jesus never said to worship the Eucharist.

So you are calling me a heretic because I will not worship the Eucharist when we are never instructed to by GOD?
Jesus never said to attend Church on Sundays.
Jesus never told us to celebrate Christmas or Easter.
Jesus never told us to have raffles.
The Scriptures do not record a great deal. The Scriptures say next to nothing about actual worship.
 
Can you tell me what ones? Can you show me proof?

tell me and prove what the Apostles taught.

This is not the first thread I have asked to show and prove chain of transmission of a Sacred Tradition that only Catholics have access to.

What new doctrine do I follow that is not Biblically based- remembering that sola scriptura was what Jesus practiced- HE always turned to GOD’s Word
Actually Jesus did not practice Sola Sriptura. He interpreted Scriptures in a way that can not be found by a plain reading of the text.
 
Prove to me that Jesus said to worship the Euharist.
Originally Posted by StTommyMore
If the Eucharist is the very Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is not only worthy of worship, but if it is not worshiped you commit sacrilege.
Hello Schaick,

I don’t know if you understand what StTommyMore is saying here. Catholics believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. We also believe that the Holy Spirit is in us and with us. In others words , we believe in the Holy Trinity and that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (everywhere at all times). So, not only, is it possible for Christ to be present in the Eucharist…according to Christian History, Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…He is truly present.

HERE - The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist / Proof from Scripture (New Advent, online Catholic Encyclopedia. )

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1133 The Holy Spirit prepares the faithful for the sacraments by the Word of God and the faith which welcomes that word in well-disposed hearts. Thus the sacramentsstrengthen faith and express it.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Eucharist

1374The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161 the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.****

 
Everything boils down to your own interpretations and opinion of Scripture then?

The bible is the sole rule of faith…but, really, it means, “my opinion of what the Bible says is the sole rule of faith”???
PR,
No, it doesn’t.
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord
1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
Properly understood, sola scriptura is used to protect the true faith from "personal interpretation.

Martin Chemnitz
This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.
Jon
 
PR,
No, it doesn’t.
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord

Properly understood, sola scriptura is used to protect the true faith from "personal interpretation.

Martin Chemnitz

Jon
I will be the first to admit that Catholics can be just as guilty as telling others what they believe. We must understand that not all Protestants hold the same definition of Sola Scriptura.
 
Ah fundamentalism. It is the opposite extreme of modernism, yet both insist on separating Scripture from its proper environment.
I guess your answer means ‘no’ but to properly understand the verses you must be correctly connected with the CC.
 
I will be the first to admit that Catholics can be just as guilty as telling others what they believe. We must understand that not all Protestants hold the same definition of Sola Scriptura.
There is more than enough guilt on that front to go around, isn’t there? 😦
I pray the Holy Spirit open our ears and hearts, not only to each other, but also to His truth.

Jon
 
Everything boils down to your own interpretations and opinion of Scripture then?

The bible is the sole rule of faith…but, really, it means, “my opinion of what the Bible says is the sole rule of faith”???
You’ll understand my meaning any way you want to to justify your opinion of what you think I was meaning. So be it.

I like the way the Bereans dealt with truth.
 
I guess your answer means ‘no’ but to properly understand the verses you must be correctly connected with the CC.
The proper habitat of Scripture is the Liturgy. Only in the liturgy ca one unlock the fullness of their depth.
 
I won’t.

Not until someone here, *anyone, *shows me why we have to provide a NT verse for any of the teachings of the Apostles.

A verse in Scripture would be great! 👍
OT priests were of the tribe of Levi. I doubt any CC priest is a Levite. Maybe there is a very small number that maybe.
 
Wrong. Sola Scriptura does not mean “No other authority AT ALL”, but "No authority ABOVE OR EQUAL TO Scripture. Scripture’s the supreme authority given to man by God, from which all other authority is derived.
Very Good Point. God bless you.
 
OT priests were of the tribe of Levi. I doubt any CC priest is a Levite. Maybe there is a very small number that maybe.
Are we going to argue semantics? And if you look, the original Israelite priesthood was not restricted to Levites. That change did not occur until the Golden Calf
 
Are we going to argue semantics? And if you look, the original Israelite priesthood was not restricted to Levites. That change did not occur until the Golden Calf
The priesthood didn’t get set up until the Commandments and the Tabernacle was given. Til then there was no need for the priest, was there?
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Eucharist

1374The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161 the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.****

Jimmy,
I’ve reviewed this, wondering if there was something I disagreed with. And even though we don’t use the language, “sole and divinity”, there’s not.

Jon
 
Who can authoritatively interpret the bible, the supreme authority, given to man, by God? It’s a simple question my friend. Is it you or one of the the Lutheran churches? Help me find the person (the church) - that can give me the correct interpretation of the bible?
Hi my friend Joe,
Take a look at my post #656. Perhaps that goes at least part way to finding your answer.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top