Catholics: Is Jesus present in the Eucharist at Lutheran and Anglican Churches?

Berean777 · Jul 5, 2015

Tangible said:
So for you it's just the memory, the awareness, of forgiveness; past tense forgiveness, and not actual present tense forgiveness.

No it is not past tense forgiveness, that is NOT what I said. The church for the last 2000 years from Sait Thomas has been doing this in memory to Christ atoning for our sins throughout all generations past, present and future. 2000 years of performing this act in memory is not an awareness of forgiveness, it is an acknowledgement of forgiveness that we are saved and acknowledge who saved us in a single day. in much the same way you get up every morning and kiss your wife and children to show your love for them. Christianity has done this act of the apostles for the last 2000 years and so in this respect, where do you get the notion of "awareness of forgiveness past tense and not actual present tense".

Orthodoxy believes that Christ was sacrificed once and once only and that was all that was needed and not multiple number of times throughout the last 2000 years. Christ did it once and said it is finished, we as members of his body his church do this in memory to remind ourselves who we are and who we belong to and who atoned our sins from previous, present and future generations on the cross at Calvary, in one single day.

IT IS FINISHED!

Thank you kindly.

Tangible · Jul 6, 2015

I'm sure you promised your wife in your wedding vows to love her and forgive her offenses to you until death do you part. Does that mean that she does not need to hear you tell her on a regular basis that you love her, or each time she has offended you that you forgive her?

It doesn't have to just be a once and done thing. God loves you and has forgiven you all your sins for the sake of Christ when he acted to individually justify you. It truly is finished. But that does not mean that he is finished pouring out his love and forgiveness on us. He still comes to us and gives us the precious gift of love and forgiveness present in Christ's body and blood each and every time we do as he commanded, not because of what we do, but because of what Christ has done. How do we know this? Because it is promised to us in Holy Scripture, and God never breaks his promises.

Berean777 · Jul 6, 2015

Thank you for your reply.

I have captured these words from your statements above and bolded them:

1) Wedding Vows
2) Christ when he ACTED to indivually justify you
3) It is truly finished.

Firstly.................

How many times does one give their marriage vows? Once, however to reaffirm those vows, a husband or a wife shows love to one another in respect and memory of those VOWS once given before the Lord and his witnesses (Priest and two deacons).

Secondly...............

We are talking of the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. This is a one time sacrifice once and for all and was the very ACT OF GOD in all his mercies, when he took upon himself the likeness of man and became himself our sin offering on the cross. I repeat, this is an ACT OF GOD as you stated in 2), therefore a one time monumental occassion and one that cannot be acted out again in a literal sense by a created being like a priest. In the same way a husband and a wife don't ceremonially ACT OUT their wedding vows, because that was a one off monumental occassion in giving themselves to one another to become one flesh.

Thirdly..................

The reason why a priest cannot act it out from a literal sense is that it required the Christ as the chief priest after the order of Melchizedek to offer himself as the sin offering and he needed to be sinless before the eyes of the Father. A priest can not re-perform this ACT because it would be implying the same repeated acts of the old covenant priesthood, when they offered the blood of bulls, goats and sheep. That is why the declaration IT IS FINISHED proclaims an end to literal sacrifices, because this is a one time monumental sacrifice to end all previous old covenant sacrifices.

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself

Notice it states that HE, meaning Christ alone as the high priest offered himself once and for all. This is the ACT OF CHRIST that can never be repeated after the Lord said it is finished.

Now we come to realise that no sinful human being can ACT in God's shoes, to offer what he does not have in the first place and to copycat the very ACT of Christ that has already been finished. If this was the case, then it would be no different to the repeated acts that were continually carried out by the old covenant priesthood.

Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

This is where the orthodox view on the Eucharist is done in memory to reaffirm the blood covenant of the Son of God. We are to take his body and his blood in memory to who we are (Christains), who redeemed us (Christ) and to acknowledge as believers, by this ACT in memory of our Christ. We are showing acceptance in our hearts the very offering that God had once made, as a surety that we are being cleansed day by day by his precious blood that works spiritually in our hearts through the Grace of God the Holy Spirit.

Tangible · Jul 6, 2015

tl;dr. Coming to us and continually forgiving us for our continuing sins is also an act of God. And you keep usin' that word "orthodox". I don't think it means what you think it means. At least in this context. The view you espouse has only existed, except for in ancient recognized heretical groups, for five-hundred years or so.

Berean777 · Jul 6, 2015

Tangible said:
tl;dr. Coming to us and continually forgiving us for our continuing sins is also an act of God. And you keep usin' that word "orthodox". I don't think it means what you think it means. At least in this context. The view you espouse has only existed, except for in ancient recognized heretical groups, for five-hundred years or so.

Good grief, what are you saying?

What does this mean "tl;dr"?

I am sorry that my previous response was too long to your liking and it would take too long for you to invest your time to read. However what I testified is the truth and truth doesn't come overnight, it has to be truth yesterday, today and tomorrow, therefore one sentence summary response will NOT do it justice.

Let me explain to you, that the belief I hold is one founded by Saint Thomas in 34AD, the church in Babylon, also called the church of the East, also called the Persian church, also called the church in Lydia in Turkey which was part of the province of Philadelphia.

1 Peter 5:13-14
13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

You haven't really refuted what I said above in post #143 and resorted to wrongly labelling my beliefs as being part of a heretical group that existed 500 years ago. Can you please provide a name for that group?

You know very well that the accusation you are making is unfounded and I urge you to deligently do your own fact finding before you start throwing meaningless labels around at beliefs that existed for the last almost 2000 years.

If you are to remember one thing and one thing only, please remember this, that before Saint Peter would even entertain the mere thought, to preach to the Gentiles as recorded in Acts 10, he would send his blessings and election to his Semitic Assyrian brothers (Church in Babylon), who according to the prophesy written in Isaiah 19:25 are God's handy work.

The church in Babylon understood that all literal sacrifices ended by that one single sacrifice which is an ACT OF GOD and no human can literally re-enACT that repeatedly on his behalf. It is like a copyright infringement to duplicate what God has already done, once and for all by himself when he entered in the Holy of Holiest with his own blood. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar became the cross at Calvary and not a pulpit some 2000 years later, within the constructs of a priest who would offer this sacrifice once again in a literal sense of the word sacrifice.

I hope I have answered you in a sincere way with love intended.

Berean777 · Jul 6, 2015

Tangible said:
tl;dr. Coming to us and continually forgiving us for our continuing sins is also an act of God. And you keep usin' that word "orthodox". I don't think it means what you think it means. At least in this context. The view you espouse has only existed, except for in ancient recognized heretical groups, for five-hundred years or so.

Thank you kindly.

Berean777 · Jul 6, 2015

Here is a reference and I don't know how reliable it is.

http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/w...ef-in-communion-they-sound-pretty-alike-to-me

Here as I have always stated that the Eucharist is a commemorative service as the quoted below declares, however they change the meaning of commemorative to mean what it promises:

"In dialogues between Lutheran and Catholic theologians in 1968, Lutherans agreed that the celebration of the Eucharist involves a sacrifice of praise and self-offering that unites the believer with the sacrifice of Christ. At the same time, Catholics joined Lutherans in affirming that the sacrifice of the cross was a unique, one-time event that is not “repeated” in the celebration of the Eucharist. Both Lutherans and Catholics affirmed that in the Eucharist Christ is “present wholly and entirely, in his body and blood, under the signs of bread and wine.” This “presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is more than a commemoration; it is an “effective sign” that “communicates what it promises” (“Building Unity,” Ecumenical Series IV, editors Burges and Gros: Paulist Press, 1989)."

The church of the East also commemorates with the acknowledgement that it is tied to the promise that by his body and blood, we are cleansed and regenerated by the power of the Holy Ghost.

That being said it is not a repeated literal sacrifice that a priest performs. Therefore it is commemorative with the belief in the promise, otherwise why would people do it, if they did not believe that the promise to forgive sins is not tied to what Christ did for all of us, once and for all on the cross altar of God.

Tangible · Jul 7, 2015

tl;dr is netspeak for 'too long, didn't read'. Statements in internet discussions are best kept brief and concise. Nobody likes a wall of text.

I realize now that you may have though I was arguing for repeated sacrifice in the mass. This could not be further from the truth. The Lutheran Confessions go to great lengths to reject this theology, as it was taught in the medieval Roman church.

(For a thorough discussion see: http://www.stpaullutheranchurchhamel.org/Revisiting_the_Sacrifice_.htm)

I am arguing in favor of real presence, as opposed to memorialism, and extolling the virtues of God's gift to us of comfort, assurance and forgiveness through the body and blood of Our Lord received in Holy Communion.

No one who espouses real presence denies the memorial aspect of the sacrament, we just believe that there is much more to it than that.

Albion · Jul 7, 2015

Berean777 said:
"In dialogues between Lutheran and Catholic theologians in 1968, Lutherans agreed that the celebration of the Eucharist involves a sacrifice of praise and self-offering that unites the believer with the sacrifice of Christ. At the same time, Catholics joined Lutherans in affirming that the sacrifice of the cross was a unique, one-time event that is not “repeated” in the celebration of the Eucharist. Both Lutherans and Catholics affirmed that in the Eucharist Christ is “present wholly and entirely, in his body and blood, under the signs of bread and wine.” This “presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is more than a commemoration; it is an “effective sign” that “communicates what it promises” (“Building Unity,” Ecumenical Series IV, editors Burges and Gros: Paulist Press, 1989)."

FWIW, the above is a perfect example of how negotiations between opponents can lead to a resolution that resolves nothing. Every word or term in the above that bears upon the historic differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics is carefully chosen so that each side can say that the view it held going in was affirmed. Neither side actually conceded anything to the other and they remain as far apart as before these negotiations started.

Berean777 · Jul 7, 2015

Albion said:
FWIW, the above is a perfect example of how negotiations between opponents can lead to a resolution that resolves nothing. Every word or term in the above that bears upon the historic differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics is carefully chosen so that each side can say that the view it held going in was affirmed. Neither side actually conceded anything to the other and they remain as far apart as before these negotiations started.

I understand.

Thank you kindly.

Berean777 · Jul 7, 2015

Tangible said:
tl;dr is netspeak for 'too long, didn't read'. Statements in internet discussions are best kept brief and concise. Nobody likes a wall of text.

I realize now that you may have though I was arguing for repeated sacrifice in the mass. This could not be further from the truth. The Lutheran Confessions go to great lengths to reject this theology, as it was taught in the medieval Roman church.

(For a thorough discussion see: http://www.stpaullutheranchurchhamel.org/Revisiting_the_Sacrifice_.htm)

I am arguing in favor of real presence, as opposed to memorialism, and extolling the virtues of God's gift to us of comfort, assurance and forgiveness through the body and blood of Our Lord received in Holy Communion.

No one who espouses real presence denies the memorial aspect of the sacrament, we just believe that there is much more to it than that.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was not aware that there was a term called memorialism that taught contrary to the commemorative communion service that is tied to the promise of forgiveness and eternal life. It is also possible that you misunderstood my position as well.

I too testify that there is a real presence in the partaking of the communion and that presence is of the Holy Ghost who in dwells us believers and purges our sins whenever we take part in this commemorative communion in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The presence is of the Lord of the Sabbath in us as believers, we are his body and we are his Holy temple justified and sanctified by his precious blood. As the Lord said the Kingdom is in you.

God bless

Berean777 · Jul 7, 2015

The Holy communion has to be every part of the temple builder God the Holy Spirit, as he is building his living temple, that consists of born again believers. As it is written, where two or more are gathered in my Holy name and in Holy Communion, I am there in the midst of them. This is the presence of the Lord in us, for we are his body and we are his blood that runs deep in our minds, hearts and all our being.

The presence of Christ is in the believers, the living temple that God is building for his dwelling, whenever we are partaking in the commemorative memory of our Lord and saviour, we are reaffirming who we are and where we came from and who saved us by his body and blood on the altar cross of God at Calvary.

Crowns&Laurels · Jul 13, 2015

Pope Pius straight up declared the Anglican communion null and void on all sacraments and rites. That has not changed, the papal bull still stands. And Protestants are heretics according to Catholic ordinance, that has not changed either.

Do not be deceived by soft tongues and swoons from the Roman Church- they still think you're a blasphemer_

Open Heart · Jul 14, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
And Protestants are heretics according to Catholic ordinance, that has not changed either.

The Catholic Church accepts Protestants as true Christians who are attending heretical ecclesial communities. They have heretical beliefs. That doesn't mean they are a proper heretic. To be a heretic you have to have once know and believe the truth, but then teach against it and say that this counter teaching is Catholic teaching, usually on a high level like a scholar or a priest that has a following and publishes books and gives lectures. Furthermore, they have to be tried by the Church and formally found guilty of heresy. None of that is true about Protestants.

Tangible · Jul 15, 2015

The RC church still maintains that justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is a heretical doctrine. Until Trent is repudiated there can be no unity.

Open Heart · Jul 15, 2015

Tangible said:
The RC church still maintains that justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is a heretical doctrine. Until Trent is repudiated there can be no unity.

You are behind the times, and as you are a Lutheran of all things I am quite surprised. You are mistaken about everything but Trent, and I think I'm going to start a thread called Initial Justification to talk about it, since it comonly comes up. I'm going to place it in the General Theology Section.

tz620q · Jul 15, 2015

Tangible said:
The RC church still maintains that justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is a heretical doctrine. Until Trent is repudiated there can be no unity.

Have you read all of Session 6 from the Council of Trent or just Canon IX?

"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Albion · Jul 15, 2015

It sounds like that follow-up only verifies what Tangible was saying. Was that your intention or did I not get the point?

tz620q · Jul 15, 2015

Albion said:
It sounds like that follow-up only verifies what Tangible was saying. Was that your intention or did I not get the point?

Most people only look at the anathemas and don't read the rest of the session. That's kind of like reading the footnotes in the Bible and thinking you have read the actual text. Here is a further quote from the same link:

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

Open Heart · Jul 15, 2015

tz620q said:
"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Have you read the Catholic Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification? The anathema of Trent refers only to ongoing Justification (Santification). It does not refer to Initial Justification. Please refer to my thread in General Theology. http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-the-joint-declaration.7897631/#post-68300534

Catholics: Is Jesus present in the Eucharist at Lutheran and Anglican Churches?

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Facilitator

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads