Transubstantiation? From the Apostles? Uh-Uh!

So some theologians disagreeing on the miracle of transubstantiation negate the words of Christ at the Last Supper?

Oh, man, better, I'm not sure I've got any debate left in me!

That is nothing new here to read. That is why the Anglicans both assert the Real Presence yet refuse to define it. The Orthodox Church also refuse to define it, save that the Prayer of the Descent of the Holy Spirit through the faith of the people assembled is what makes it "Real." Methodists follow Anglicans' lead, since we are mother and daughter. The Lutherans have con- instead of trans-. The Baptists minimize it save as a semi-regular "ordinance" with no mystical properties, as do the CoC here so much in ascendancy. The Quakers do not even bother, and who know what the Mormen do, since they are a polytheistic sect with a living prophet, but I am given to believe that it is water vice "fruit of the vine". If I am not mistaken, the Jehoveys try to go through the motions but no one is holy enough to take it, so it sits on a table while someone reads the Watchtower.

Believe what one will. It is no skin off my nose, but rest assured that the majority of Christians in the world do believe in the Real Presence and those who do not are a minority. This is common practice from the oldest existing liturgies.

Definition comes from early Renaissance and High Medieval fetish to use newly popularized Plato and Aristotle to be the sine non qua of scholasticism. Hence, the definitions of Thomas a Kempis, the Council of Trent, etc.

Of course there are those who use another philosophy as their touch stone! It is theology, not absolutology!

Go to an illiterate tribesman in Papua New Guinea who is a Christian and they will tell you, most likely why they believe in the Real Presence. Same goes in Uganda and the Congos and Kenya and Nigeria, for Subcontinental Christians, and Middle Eastern ones.

One writer's theology, that of extreme Protestant Reaction is not the majority viewpoint. No one says it is invalid, but one must realize that it is radical and not widespread throughout this entire earth.

quote:

It is theology, not absolutology!

Brilliant. I shall break a commandment and steal this one sir. Thanks.

The praise is most welcome. I found out that my use of "Marquis of Microsoft" in an old blog I had was previously used and I wrote the originator and asked if he wanted me to change it or delete it. He said, "Absolutely not. I am sure I was not the first."

With that sentiment I must concur.

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
That is nothing new here to read. That is why the Anglicans both assert the Real Presence yet refuse to define it. The Orthodox Church also refuse to define it, save that the Prayer of the Descent of the Holy Spirit through the faith of the people assembled is what makes it "Real." Methodists follow Anglicans' lead, since we are mother and daughter. The Lutherans have con- instead of trans-.

Hi Neal,

Isn't that analogous to throwing a blanket over the dead victim -- so that you can deny there has been a crime.

Either you believe it IS the actual blood and body of Christ -- or, you agree with we Baptist who say we take the unleavened wafer and fruit of the vine, juice, in remembrance of Him; as He instructed us.

Luke 22:19 "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'"

Sorry, my Friend, there is no "middle of the road" here. As the old B.B. King song asks, "Is you is, or is you ain't my baby? The way you're acting lately makes me doubt."

And, the way you are vacillating on this makes me wonder.

Is you is, or is you ain't a Closet Baptist?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

No, Bill. Baptists believe it is crackers and grape juice always. We do not. We believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Now there are some in Sydney who disagree, but they are just Presbyterians in disguise anyhow.

You cannot kneel and hear and pray the words before, during, and after Communion in the Episcopal Church without confessing the presence.

What we lack is what the Orthodox Church lacks, and the Lutherans and Roman Catholics have: an actual Eucharistic Theology. We are settled in our ways and let the liturgy speak through the ancient Fathers and the Gospel and Apostles in our Liturgies.

Communion is very different in the Baptist Churches than it is in the Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Very, very different.

Not that yours may not satisfy a spiritual need and reenactment of the Last Supper, but frankly it is not approached as central as we see it. To us it is a sacrament to you an "ordinance." If Baptists don't need Baptism, then why do they need Communion? Why not just be like the Quakers and dispense completely with those pesky commandments? You only do it because the Lord commanded it to be done, and the Apostles in the Bible agreed. In other words, "we do it because He/they told us to."

We do it because of that, but also "so that He might dwell in us and we in Him."

Matthew 23:24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Certain peoponents of transubstantiation would have us believe that the doctrine can be traced neatly back to the apostles. The historical record belies that notion and the link below exposes some of the spurious arguments put forth for the antiquity of this belief:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Teaser: Yet to come in future posts: some ver-r-ry interesting information on the extensive debate on transubstantiation among major league Catholic theologians, together with an observation on the amazing matter of stercorianism. For a head start, you might wish to Google up Paschasius, John Duns Scotus and Berenger of Tours.

Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to prove the Catholic Church is wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by smokey1:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Certain peoponents of transubstantiation would have us believe that the doctrine can be traced neatly back to the apostles. The historical record belies that notion and the link below exposes some of the spurious arguments put forth for the antiquity of this belief:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Teaser: Yet to come in future posts: some ver-r-ry interesting information on the extensive debate on transubstantiation among major league Catholic theologians, together with an observation on the amazing matter of stercorianism. For a head start, you might wish to Google up Paschasius, John Duns Scotus and Berenger of Tours.

Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to prove the Catholic Church is wrong?

You need to re-think your question. This is a forum. A forum of this type is a marketplace of ideas. There has been considerable discussion about transubstantiation on this forum. Aude Sapere, for one, has steadfastly advanced arguments in its favor. Why have you not asked him why he has spent so much time trying to prove the Catholic Church is right?

Look, smokey 1, you obviously are allergic to anything being posted on here that challenges your beliefs. But you come on here not to participate in the discussion. Instead, you come here, as in your past forum history, questioning why others are posting material that advances viewpoints you do not share.

If you want to participate in the argumentation, discussion and debate, then instead of griping about what others post, you should put up your own defense or advocacy. However, you have not thus far demonstrated that you are intellectually capable of doing that. You have two choices: either get into the substance of the debate on issues involving the forum topic (RELIGION--remember?) or continue to carp and whine a because you feel uncomfortable when your beliefs are challenged.

If you choose the former, your contributions will be respected, insofar as they are on topic and stated in an intellectually honest way. If you choose, instead, to continue in the puerile manner that has thus far typified your participation, then do not expect those of us who honor vigorous and substantive debate to respect or to respond to your whining and complaining, because that kind of stuff is not what a forum is about.

\\
I did find this article, that perhaps may explain the Catholic and Episcopal, as well as others that believe in the Real Presence. I think it explains it rather well. But Beter, I did ask you earlier- is your theory to deny Apostolic Lineage of the Eucharist based on some folks that steered away from their beliefs? I'm not sure where you were going with this. There have always been doubters- in every Faith, every day. I don't really understand the argument that because of some church leaders debating over the Real Presence in the Eucharist would detract from the words, and Institution of the Holy Eucharist, by Christ Himself. After all, He is the sole authority, the beginning and the end. Men muck things up all the time, but I believe the words of Christ saying "THIS IS MY BODY" say it all....


"Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.

Those who believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.

From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.

Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.

Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.

Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.

In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it
-source unknown...

Hi VP,

One question: Regardless of what it looks like and what it tastes like -- do YOU really believe you are eating human (Jesus was human) flesh and drinking human blood -- when YOU take the Eucharist?

If you do not, then you are merely taking Communion in remembrance of Him -- like we Baptists.

If you are, how does this differ from cannibalism?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Differ from cannibalism? Well, one supposes not one whit, but then again we support the murder of Our Lord every time we claim to have out sins blotted out by His death, blood and resurrection.

Are you willing to accept that you condone the sacrifice of Our Lord? I am. He offered Himself freely and willingly.

Now go bash a Catholic Mexican or something useful.

Bill,Bill,Bill.
That is a common (albeit ridiculous) question, and perhaps this will help explain it to you.

"Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist,cannibalism is not possible

Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term (see "The Fathers Know Best," page 34). See, for example, the citation from Justin Martyr’s First Apology (A.D. 151): "The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is compelling and unanimous. In fact, it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied."

quote:

If you are, how does this differ from cannibalism?

Umm, cause they don't actually eat the body or drink blood? Think of it thins way, Bill: It's a symbolic gesture where you, in effect, earth the flesh of Christ in a symbol yet very real manner.

It's not the action itself but what it in the heart of a believer.

Besides, who the heck are you to be calling into question ANY practices of another religion when you can't effectively justify your own?

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:
Bill,Bill,Bill.
That is a common (albeit ridiculous) question, and perhaps this will help explain it to you.

"Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist,cannibalism is not possible

Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term (see "The Fathers Know Best," page 34). See, for example, the citation from Justin Martyr’s First Apology (A.D. 151): "The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is compelling and unanimous. In fact, it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied."

Hi VP,

Okay, then the elements you are eating and drinking at your Eucharist -- are NOT the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Your Eucharist is ONLY SYMBOLIC of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

You say it is the presence of Jesus Christ; but, since it is ONLY SYMBOLIC; how is this different from the symbolic Communion we Baptists take in remembrance of Him?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

If you are, how does this differ from cannibalism?

Umm, cause they don't actually eat the body or drink blood? Think of it thins way, Bill: It's a symbolic gesture where you, in effect, earth the flesh of Christ in a symbol yet very real manner.

It's not the action itself but what it in the heart of a believer.

Hi Sofa,

I have to presume that when you wrote, "earth the flesh of Christ in a symbol yet very real manner" -- you really meant, "eat the flesh of Christ in a symbolic, yet very real manner."

So, I will ask you. Since the Eucharist is NOT really the body and blood of Jesus Christ -- but, only symbolic -- how is this different from the symbolic Communion taken by we Baptists?

You believe you receive Jesus Christ within you during the Eucharist -- many times; we Baptists know that we receive Him, the Holy Spirit, within us the moment we are saved. Once He is in us -- how much more could He be in us. How much more that 100% full can one be?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

No, Bill. Not symbolic, sacramental!!!
Christ is present in the Eucharist: His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
PERIOD!

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:
No, Bill. Not symbolic, sacramental!!! Christ is present in the Eucharist: His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. PERIOD!

Hi VP,

Either the elements actually BECOMEs the body and blood of Jesus Christ -- or they symbolically represents the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Which is it?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Either the elements actually BECOMEs the body and blood of Jesus Christ

Is this a rhetorical question? Or just an exercise in redundancy...
I believe I have made my point quite clear. It is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. By the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Host and Wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ.
This is why we kneel in reverence to the Sacrament, why we Fast before receiving the Sacrament, and hold the consecrated Host in a tabernacle, with candle lit to remind us of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
What do you do with your leftovers? toss em? because they are not consecrated! Are you playing dumb,or are you really not able to see the distinction????

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:

quote:

Either the elements actually BECOMEs the body and blood of Jesus Christ

Is this a rhetorical question? Or just an exercise in redundancy...
I believe I have made my point quite clear. It is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. By the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Host and Wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ.

Hi VP,

Nothing rhetorical about it! Just a straight, simple question: Are the elements REALLY the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ -- are are they only symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Which is it? With no double talk -- are they the ACTUAL body and blood -- or are they symbolic?

If they are the actual body and blood -- how does this differ from cannibalism?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Take a moment and READ my post above, which clearly distinguishes cannibalism from the Holy Eucharist.
I am not using any double talk.
I have now said 3 times,in this same thread: clear as day:

THE EUCHARIST IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

I don't care if you don't believe it- chances are you never will. But I do. With all my being. And rest assured, I will NEVER waver from that statement. You got a problem with that? Take it up with our Lord. Pray about it.

quote:

Since the Eucharist is NOT really the body and blood of Jesus Christ -- but, only symbolic -- how is this different from the symbolic Communion taken by we Baptists?

I didn't say it was. In fact, I'd say they are both visible representations of invisible forces. A tangible symbol that represents an intangible reality.

Like I've said before, there are many paths to the Lord. If you disagree, then you are willing to state that all who receive the Eucharist are bound for hell. Are you prepared to say that?

quote:

Are the elements REALLY the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ -- are are they only symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Which is it?

They are BOTH.

When you baptize, are you REALLY empowering the water itself with some sort of magic property that LITERALLY washes away all your sin?

Are you REALLY being "reborn" as a brand new person or are you the same old person with a new outlook and lease on life here and hereafter?

Please remove the dang beam from your eye before answering, Bill. It's causing blindness from your own ignorance in this matter.

Hi Sofa,

When, I asked, "Since the Eucharist is NOT really the body and blood of Jesus Christ -- but, only symbolic -- how is this different from the symbolic Communion taken by we Baptists?"

You tell me, "I didn't say it was. In fact, I'd say they are both visible representations of invisible forces. A tangible symbol that represents an intangible reality."

So, you do not believe in the Eucharist -- and you take the Communion unleavened wafer and grape juice in a symbolic remembrance of what Jesus Christ did for us by dying on the cross, resurrecting, and ascending to the Father. I am glad to know that we agree.

However, you go far astray when you tell us, "Like I've said before, there are many paths to the Lord."

Jesus, Himself, told us there is only ONE WAY to God the Father -- and that is through Him (John 14:6). Yet, you are saying that He is wrong; that this is not true -- and there are MANY ways to God. I am sure that He will be happy to learn this new revelation.

And, you finish by saying, "If you disagree, then you are willing to state that all who receive the Eucharist are bound for hell. Are you prepared to say that?"

I fail to see how you make this connection. Just as I disagree with baptism by sprinkling; I disagree with VP or anyone who tells me that when a priest pronounces some magic words -- the unleavened wafer becomes the ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ and the grape juice becomes the ACTUAL blood of Jesus Christ.

We do not have to eat His ACTUAL body and drink His ACTUAL blood -- to have Him inside us. The Bible clearly tells us, in Ephesians 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

That, my Friend, is the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit taking up residence within the believer -- all believers. Once that occurs, we have God within us, God the Holy Spirit, sent to reside within us by Jesus Christ. How can we have MORE of God in us than to have Him living within us?

So, why Communion? We do it because He told us, in Luke 22:19, ". . .do this in remembrance of Me."

No, my Friend, when you declare, "If you disagree, then you are willing to state that all who receive the Eucharist are bound for hell. Are you prepared to say that?" -- you are following the example of our atheist and secularist Friends who twist and spin everything Christian to be bad -- and you are following the example of those in the Liberal Theology who tell us that, if we do not worship exactly as they do -- we are crazy, stupid, ignorant, etc. Oh, I forgot, you are following Liberal Theology. Please forgive the oversight.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Hi Sofa,

When I asked, "Are the elements REALLY the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ -- are are they only symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ? Which is it?"

You reply, "They are BOTH."

Sorry, my Friend, but you are doing like our 1970s friend, Tiny Tim, and "tiptoeing through the tulips." The elements cannot be both the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus Christ -- and the SYMBOLIC body and blood of Jesus Christ. When you eat a steak -- is that a real steak or is it a symbolic steak?

Then, you tell me, "When you baptize, are you REALLY empowering the water itself with some sort of magic property that LITERALLY washes away all your sin?"

No, when I was baptized, it was my way of declaring to the world that I have been born again, that I am now a Christian, a Christ Follower -- and, I am following the ordinance He gave to all Christian believers; that we be baptized AFTER we become saved. There is no special power in that water or in any other water. The power is in telling the world that I am now a Christ Follower -- and that they should also become a Christ Follower.

Next, you ask, "Are you REALLY being "reborn" as a brand new person or are you the same old person with a new outlook and lease on life here and hereafter?"

I prefer to say that I am a "regenerated" person -- for now it is no longer just Bill Gray; but, it is Bill Gray with the Holy Spirit living within him. Now, that, my Friend, IS a new person. And, as we are told in Romans 8:1, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Finally, you tell me, "Please remove the dang beam from your eye before answering, Bill. It's causing blindness from your own ignorance in this matter."

Just couldn't resist getting in that old Liberal Theology dig, could you? Sofa, I will say that I see well enough to study and, to a pretty good degree, understand what the inspired, inerrant, literal Written Word of God, the Bible, teaches me. You really should try it. You will be amazed at what YOU can learn from this amazing God Authored book. In case you forgot; the Bible is that one hidden under your Prayer Book, your book of Traditions, and you Rituals guidelines.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

I disagree with VP or anyone who tells me that when a priest pronounces some magic words -- the unleavened wafer becomes the ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ and the grape juice becomes the ACTUAL blood of Jesus Christ.

A priest does not pronounce magic words, Bill. Unless you call prayer magic. Do you? Do you use magic in your church? We do not. We use prayer. In this case, we invoke the Power of the Holy Spirit to bring Christ's Real Presence into the Eucharist.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, Bill? If you do, then you wouldn't have a problem with this notion....
But that's okay...the Eucharist has been here since it's Institution at the Last Supper, and maybe one day you will hunger to feast at His Table.

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:

quote:

I disagree with VP or anyone who tells me that when a priest pronounces some magic words -- the unleavened wafer becomes the ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ and the grape juice becomes the ACTUAL blood of Jesus Christ.

A priest does not pronounce magic words, Bill. Unless you call prayer magic. Do you? Do you use magic in your church? We do not. We use prayer. In this case, we invoke the Power of the Holy Spirit to bring Christ's Real Presence into the Eucharist.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, Bill? If you do, then you wouldn't have a problem with this notion....
But that's okay...the Eucharist has been here since it's Institution at the Last Supper, and maybe one day you will hunger to feast at His Table.

Okay, VP,

Let's make sure we are on the same page: You believe that the wafer becomes the ACTUAL body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays.

And, you believe the grape juice becomes the ACTUAL blood of Jesus Christ when the priest prays.

Right?

So, when I go to restaurant and order a steak very rare -- is there a difference?

You say it is the prayer. Well, every meal I eat is preceded by a prayer. Now, are you telling us that the prayer your priest prays is different from the prayer I pray? Aren't we both praying to God, in the name of Jesus Christ, that He will bless our food?

So, what is different about your priest's prayer that, magically, or mysteriously, or however -- makes an unleavened wafer turn into human flesh?

What about that prayer turns grape juice into human blood?

Do you see our dilemma? Your priest prays. You pray. I pray. All Christians pray. What makes your priest's prayer different. We all have one Mediator between God and man -- Jesus Christ. Yet, you are eating His actual body and drinking His actual blood. Can you see where folks may have some doubts about what you are teaching?

Keep in mind that, in the passage in Luke, Jesus tells us to "do this in remembrance of Him" -- not to be indwelt by Him or the Holy Spirit. That is done when we are saved; we cannot be indwelt twice. We are indwelt once; we can be filled, i.e., strengthened in the Holy Spirit, over and over -- and we should be, daily. But, He only comes into us once -- forever.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

No, Bill. No dilemma. We are not "indwelt" twice.
Good grief. We need continuous nourishment from Jesus. Eucharist provides that for believers.You say

"Now, are you telling us that the prayer your priest prays is different from the prayer I pray"....
YES BILL IT IS A DIFFERENT PRAYER!!!!!!! IT IS THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER, invoking the Holy Spirit. It is a mystery, a miracle, and if you cannot comprehend this, I'm sorry for you.

As for your steak analogy- i am going to leave that alone, and bid you adieu for now. Not even worthy of a response.

In my own weak eyes, I fear Bill may have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit when he made the "rare steak" comment. Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in the Real Presence and historically since time immemorial. No one denied it until the time of the Cathars and then Zwingli. That was the 1200s through the 1500s. Even your precious Jean Calvin defended the Real Presence as did Luther, only Calvin refused to use Aquinas to define the transformation and Luther used his more modern terminology from that of Platonic Scholasticism to turn trans- into con-.

Zwingli won in the Reformed Branch. Lutherans held with Luther. The Anglicans translated and reformed the Pre-Tridentine Mass and even put in a rubric to require people to receive both elements on their knees. Then they refused to define it, and came out against Eucharistic Adoration in the new prayer book of Edward VI. That edition was very pro-Calvin.

The US edition is based on the Scottish original in English, then modernized in 1928 and 1979 when a lot of historic elements such as the Trisagion and epiclesis which now the newer Roman Rites and the Lutherans use in a modified form.

Do you know what the Epiclesis says? In Eucharistic Prayer B the dialogue goes thus:

Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Savior Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

________________________________________________

Note well the last sentence, particularly the phrase "thy whole Church." You can thank the clergy later for adding you (allegedly) to the grace of Our Lord through the holy mysteries of the Altar. Mysteries, like Christ's incarnation, coming, death, and resurrection.

Hi VP,

You tell me, "No, Bill. No dilemma. We are not "indwelt" twice. Good grief. We need continuous nourishment from Jesus. Eucharist provides that for believers."

True, Christian believers are indwelt once; at the moment of believing and receiving salvation -- we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. In other words, He comes to live within us from that moment on -- forever. This is one reason I tell people that a Christian believer has eternal security and KNOWS that he/she HAS salvation and eternal life in Christ. How can a person have the Holy Spirit residing within him/her and not be a Christian believer. And, if one is a Christian believer -- he/she HAS eternal life in Christ (John 6:47).

Yes, after we are indwelt once -- we do need to be filled by the Holy Spirit daily, hourly, by the minute -- to keep us focused on Jesus Christ and the task He has given us: "Go, Make Disciples, Baptize Them, Teach Them" (Matthew 28:19-20) and "Be My witnesses in all the world; preach the Gospel in all the world." (Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15)

One indwelling; many fillings. Yet, you tell us that you take the Eucharist to have Jesus Christ inside you. He is already there, in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Then, you tell me, "You say "Now, are you telling us that the prayer your priest prays is different from the prayer I pray"....

YES, BILL, IT IS A DIFFERENT PRAYER!!!!!!! IT IS THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER, invoking the Holy Spirit. It is a mystery, a miracle, and if you cannot comprehend this, I'm sorry for you."

So, your priest is a voodoo man; he has the power of prayer that Christian believers do not? Where does he get this magical prayer power which makes his prayers more powerful, or different, than yours or mine?

Searching Scripture, I find many references to prayer -- but, NONE with reference to special prayers by priests, or any mention that ANYONE -- pastor, priest, or ordinary believer, i.e., saint -- has any SPECIAL prayers which change wafers and grape juice into human flesh and human blood. VP, where do you find this taught?

James 5:16, ". . .the effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."

Romans 10:1, "Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation."

Romans 12:12, "Rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer."

1 Peter 3:12, "For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, And His ears are open to their prayers;. . ."

Ephesians 6:18, "With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints."

Revelation 5:8, "When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

Revelation 8:3, "Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to [i]the prayers of all the saints[/b] on the golden altar which was before the throne."

Finally, you tell me, "As for your steak analogy -- I am going to leave that alone, and bid you adieu for now. Not even worthy of a response."

Fine, but when you come back -- please explain the difference. True, steak is flesh from beef, cows. And, according to you, your Eucharist is human flesh, the body of Jesus Christ. Other than the fact that there is a different odor to human flesh; why is one flesh different from another.

And, while I would certainly not want to participate -- there are many who have eaten human flesh. Sorry, not my cup of tea.

VP, I am not trying to insult you nor to denigrate your belief. However, you keep harping on the open forum that, in your Eucharist, the unleavened wafer and grape juice -- ACTUALLY become the human flesh and human blood of Jesus Christ. I do not want to insult your beliefs -- but, do you see how this is insulting to Christian believers?

You are telling us that, our Lord, who came to earth in human flesh, who died a cruel death on the cross to pay your and my sin debts, "paid in full" -- which we could never be able to pay -- and, you are telling us that is not enough. Now, you have to keep putting Him back on the cross; you have to keep crucifying Him in your mass -- and you eat His body and drink His blood. And, you expect Christian believers to just say, "Yea, go man!"

No, Jesus Christ is the most important person in the life of Christian believers -- and we do not want to see Him re-crucified and eaten every week. Even though we realize this is symbolic; even if you do not -- it still is insulting to my Lord and to me.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
Do you know what the Epiclesis says? In Eucharistic Prayer B the dialogue goes thus:

Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Savior Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

Hi Neal/Aude,

Please show us poor uneducated folks who are not as educated in theology as you -- exactly where you find this prayer in the Bible.

Search as I may, I cannot find this prayer in my Bibles. Neal, where do you find it?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

do not want to insult your beliefs -- but, do you see how this is insulting to Christian believers?

No. I do not. What I find insulting is your blasphemy against Jesus, in comparing the Most Blessed Sacrament to raw steak.
I am further insulted by your claim that a priest is "voodoo" or "magic" when he prays the Eucharistic prayer.
and then you say:

"However, you keep harping on the open forum that, in your Eucharist, the unleavened wafer and grape juice -- ACTUALLY become the human flesh and human blood of Jesus Christ. "

Bill, go back and read the posts. You asked me THREE TIMES and I responded the same each time. My answer did not, and never will change. You repeatedly asked me to re-state a belief already clearly stated. And this is "harping"? No, more like badgering.

I thought I had heard it all, but there are no words to describe how utterly disgusted and insulted I am by you and your vile words.
May God have mercy on you. And remember, many of His disciples couldn't/didn't like the concept of consuming the Body and Blood of Christ either, and they LEFT.

I guess you would have left, too, Bill.

Okay, VP,

Let's just make it simple:

In the Eucharist -- are you EATING the "ACTUAL" HUMAN BODY of Jesus Christ -- and are you "ACTUALLY" DRINKING His blood?

Yes or no?

Bill

-- and you eat His body and drink His blood. And, you expect Christian believers to just say, "Yea, go man!"



Bill, do you recognize these words:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I AM the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I AM the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 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 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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

I am so sorry that the words of Christ are offensive to you.

I am self-excommunicating myself from the Church of Bill Gray. I urge true Christians who want to actually engage in debate and not missionary activity for the Church of Bill's Ego to do the same.

He has been shown biblical and the authorities of the Church Fathers, again and again. He has been given history lessons and everything short of a short course in Theology 101 and remains the proverbial boil on the backside.

He is saved. He is right. He is . . . fill in the blanks yourselves, because the censor will get me if I do.

If I wanted to hear a parrot repeat itself, I would buy one and train it for something original not the same of song and dance to defend his own opinions -- minority as they might be in the grand scheme of things -- over obstinate refusal to adequately engage, but to state how correct he is.

May God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have mercy on you and may all the angels and saints pray for your conversion to the faith you claim to affirm.

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
. . .and you eat His body and drink His blood. And, you expect Christian believers to just say, "Yea, go man!"

Bill, do you recognize these words:

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I AM the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I AM the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 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 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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Hi VP,

True, the Jews misunderstood Him -- just as you and all Roman Catholics misunderstand what He was teaching.

But, one day, all who believe and receive His "free gift" of salvation can stand with Him face to face and ask Him specifically what He meant.

I'll be there! How about you?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Aude Sapere:
I am self-excommunicating myself from the Church of Bill Gray. I urge true Christians who want to actually engage in debate and not missionary activity for the Church of Bill's Ego to do the same.

Neal/Aude,

You keep promising to put me on IGNORE -- but, you NEVER DO. Why? Are you that attracted to me and what I write?

Maybe there is hope for you after all; for you keep reading what I write. God does work wonders.

With you I am sort of like the apostle Paul who wanted to go to heaven; but felt that he was needed in his earthly ministry.

And, the same with me. I would love to have you put me on IGNORE -- for then all the silly chatter would cease. But, then, you would not have access to the true Gospel which might do you a world of good. So, do you see my dilemma? I would love IGNORE -- but, do not want to leave you as an orphan.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

In the Eucharist -- are you EATING the "ACTUAL" HUMAN BODY of Jesus Christ -- and are you "ACTUALLY" DRINKING His blood?

Bill. YES! YES YES YES! You actually are. Veep quote the chapter and verse where this is stated! Do you deny the holy words of Christ Himself?

But perhaps I didn't make myself clear: YES! YES it is the actual flesh and blood of the spirit of Christ symbolically and literally ensconced in the bread and wine. When you eat it, you are partaking of Christ Himself.

Baptism is the same process. You are actually washing away the sins in a symbolic but very real way. Again, BOTH are literal representations of invisible and insubstantial phenomenon.

What about this are you incapapble of understanding?

And who are you to say that the entire Roman Catholic Church has it wrong? They've been in steady practice for thousands of years. Your fundamentalist, reality denying chuch has been at it for about 150 years. By that measure, who is closer to the body of Christ?

From St. Ignatius who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle and by Justin Martyr:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.iv.html

Ignatius to the Church at Philadelphia:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasing in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.


Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

I have confidence of you in the Lord, that ye will be of no other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behoves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy



http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaf...01.viii.ii.lxvi.html

Justin Matyr


And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία[ Literally, thanksgiving. See Matt. xxvi. 27.] of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been 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.