Defining "Sacred Tradition"

[Albion]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic

So why do Calvinists deny the tradition of the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally?​

​

Well Jack, we do not deny the tradition of the Eucharist at all.

As a matter of fact, we follow the Apostolic Tradition to the letter, just as the early church did.

What we reject, rightly so, is the Roman medieval innovation of transubstantiation, and Rome's claim that if one does not believe it, they are doomed to hell, which is to add conditions to the Gospel that are antithetical to the Gospel of Christ, just as Luther and the Reformers rightly identified.

You're right of course, and thank you for this good answer. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists (plus some Methodists, it is often maintained) all do affirm the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

[/indent]

You're right of course, and thank you for this good answer. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists (plus some Methodists, it is often maintained) all do affirm the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

Of course, that does not mean that we accept the alchemic/Aristotelian dogma of Transubstantiation. That dogma (1551) is unique to a single denomination - the CC.





.

 

[Philothei]

I agree with Josiah we as EO do not accept that dogma either... I do not think any other Prorestants accepted either. We confirm though it is the real body and blood, but we do not call it as transubstantiation....it is a "mystical change" into the body and blood of Christ. We cannot participate in Christ's divinity as we are not of the same essence of God so our participation in that "tranfigured body and blood" is taking place in a way that we can participate and it is the ressurected body of Christ....

 

[namericanboy]

Some how figuring God is over around and through something is a spiritual mystery to me....I don't think it was supposed to be "figured out" and be explained..It's a spiritual concept in a spiritual kingdom that is accepted by faith....

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

[/indent]

You're right of course, and thank you for this good answer. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists (plus some Methodists, it is often maintained) all do affirm the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

With qualifications

Lutheran and Calvinist Eucharistic theology is definitely not the same.



BD

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic

So why do Calvinists deny the tradition of the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally?​

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Well Jack, we do not deny the tradition of the Eucharist at all.

As a matter of fact, we follow the Apostolic Tradition to the letter, just as the early church did.

What we reject, rightly so, is the Roman medieval innovation of transubstantiation, and Rome's claim that if one does not believe it, they are doomed to hell, which is to add conditions to the Gospel that are antithetical to the Gospel of Christ, just as Luther and the Reformers rightly identified.
​

[/indent]

You're right of course, and thank you for this good answer. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists (plus some Methodists, it is often maintained) all do affirm the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

Thanks bro, but you can bet the farm that I will not be holding my breath for any of the Roman illusionists to acknowledge it.

Keeping up the illusion is more important than admitting the truth.

 

[TraderJack]

If Catholics are only supposed to trust roman catholic approved sources, will they even read or check unbiased sources? .. Seems to me you have to take everything said lock, stock and barrel even if it is not fully supported in the sacred scriptures..

And that is exactly what Roman Catholics are required to do, take it on blind faith that what Rome tells them is true.

After all, Rome has declared that Rome is the sole, exclusive mouthpiece of God and that when Rome speaks it is Jesus Himself speaking, and thus does Rome claim that it and it only is God's Prophet on earth.

Jesus, Peter, Paul and all of Scripture AND the early church taught to test those who claim to be prophets to see if they are of God.

1 John 4:1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The problem Roman Catholics have, is they are taught to ignore that, and to take everything Rome tells them as "divine truth" just because Rome says it is, without question.

The Apostle says test.

Rome says do not test.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some how figuring God is over around and through something is a spiritual mystery to me....I don't think it was supposed to be "figured out" and be explained..It's a spiritual concept in a spiritual kingdom that is accepted by faith....

The reason it can't be figured out is because it doesn't make sense & that is faith, but it is blind faith, not spirituality. As mystery-eyed as you may want to wax ecstatic about it, spiriuality is not devoid of pattern & harmony expressed in themes that resonate with iterrelated issues so it can be explained, just not in the conventional sense. Coincidentaly, metaphor is a favorite device of scripture, so Jesus employing it doesn't seem jiggy, exactly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So what have we conclude about "sacred tradition".....Go Obama!.....

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7131625&page=3
2 Timothy 4:1 translation

2 Timothy 4:1 Thru-witnessing then I, before the GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, of the being-about/mellontoV <3195> (5723) to be judging living and dead, according as the appearance/manifestation of Him and the Kingdom of Him [Reve 11:18]

Revelation 10:7 but in the days of the voice of the seventh messenger, whenever he may be being about/mellh <3195> (5725) to be trumpeting, also is finished the Mystery of the God, as He well-messages to-the of-self, bond-servants, the prophets

 

[Anglian]

So what have we conclude about "sacred tradition".....Go Obama!.....

Now that change has come to America, some may understand anew the importance of tradition

Mind you LLOJ, I'm getting worried. If the Tyndale style would be for the Pope to turn his hat round, he wouldn't be able to see - so I hope that isn't the Tyndale style - for we know assuredly what happens when the blind leads the blind

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear TraderJack,

Your interpretation of your snippets neither supports what they say, nor the practice of the early Church. You do understand, I hope, that when someone writes about the 'figure of bread' they mean the same as we would when writing 'piece'; it does not mean 'figuatively speaking' as you appear to think.

If you are going to cite condemned heretics such as Tertullian, you are welcome to his company, but even his words do not bear the construction you place on them.

That Tatain quotation does not deny that Christ's Real presence is in the bread and wine, it just says we're not cannibals; this is so. It was a Roman claim that we were because they, like you, misunderstood the idea of the Real presence; I know why they failed to; what's your own excuse? Just to reiterate so that you don't again misunderstand: there is no point posting claims that say we don't eat flesh or drink blood - that is not what the early Church claims, neither is it what the Catholic or the Orthodox claims.

Or, are you saying that the bread is not actual human flesh?

We are saying what this person quoted here is saying:

26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is My body.
26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you.
26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Where the Orthodox differ from our Catholic brothers and sisters is that we do not think we can explain this ineffable mystery. We have the words of Our Lord. He did not say 'take, eat, this is metaphorically my body' or 'this is like my body' He said what He said and that is what we believe; we neither try to explain it as the notion of Transubstantiation does, nor explain it away as those who claim (on what authority?) that Our Lord did not mean what He said.

Yeah, Mormons do the same thing. The communists in Russia and China do the same thing. The Nazis did the same thing

Has it occured to you, Jack, that comparing Catholic sources with the practice of the Nazis and Communists does what such far-fetched comparisons always do - which is to undermine the credibility of the one making such an offensive comparison?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

With qualifications

Lutheran and Calvinist Eucharistic theology is definitely not the same.

BD

If someone here said that they are, I must have missed it.

What I said was that both Lutherans and Calvinists believe in the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally" -- the language that had been used previously by one who was under the impression that one or both of these did NOT believe in "the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

 

[Albion]

Dear TraderJack,

Your interpretation of your snippets neither supports what they say, nor the practice of the early Church. You do understand, I hope, that when someone writes about the 'figure of bread' they mean the same as we would when writing 'piece'; it does not mean 'figuatively speaking' as you appear to think.

If you are going to cite condemned heretics such as Tertullian,

That's an interesting, if unintended, example of how "Sacred Tradition" works. To you, Tertullian is a heretic whose teachings are to be summarily dismissed. Others in the catholic tradition here have cited him as "proof" of certain doctrines, calling him a "Church Father." So we see again that there is no such animal as "Sacred Tradition;" there are only competing traditions from which each communion or church selects those that it decides to consider "Sacred."

you are welcome to his company, but even his words do not bear the construction you place on them.

 

[Anglian]

If someone here said that they are, I must have missed it.

What I said was that both Lutherans and Calvinists believe in the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally" -- the language that had been used previously by one who was under the impression that one or both of these did NOT believe in "the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

Dear Albion,

Most helpful. When you say 'literally' does that mean that they do believe they are eating real flesh and drinking real blood? That might fall under the remit of our friend Spiritman's snippets.

This is a point on which my own Church says nothing, for we do not understand how the bread and wine are Body and Blood, even if one or two of us long resident in the West occasionally fall into the (bad) habit of saying He is 'in' the bread and wine. For us it is such an ineffable mystery that we seek neither to explain the inexplicable - or deny the undeniable.

I learn, as ever, much from what you and others here say.

peace,

Anglian

added p.s. I see I have been over harsh in my language on Tertullian. I should have said that since he ended in heresy we are adjured to read what he wrote with due caution. That is probably why we tend to use the words 'Orthodox Fathers' rather than the more common ECFs, because both he and Origen were somewhat unorthodox and have to be read with caution.

A

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I learn, as ever, much from what you and others here say.
peace,

Anglian
added p.s. I see I have been over harsh in my language on Tertullian. I should have said that since he ended in heresy we are adjured to read what he wrote with due caution. That is probably why we tend to use the words 'Orthodox Fathers' rather than the more common ECFs, because both he and Origen were somewhat unorthodox and have to be read with caution.

A

Greetings Anglian. As with any commentary/writings of those outside the Sacred Scriptures, we should diligently seek the Truth but be careful to also seperate the "wheat from the chaff", the "gold from the lead" in everything we read. Thoughts? [LLOJ still Solo Scriptura]

Matt 13:30 "Suffer-ye! to be together-growing both until the Harvest. And in the Time of the Harvest I shall be declaring to the Harvesters/Reapers 'together-collect the darnel and bind ye them! into bundles, toward the to burn them. The yet grain together-bring into the place of Me'

John 15:1 I AM the Vine/ampeloV <288> the True, and the Father of Me the Farmer/Vine-Dresser/gewrgoV <1092> is.

Reve 14:15 and another Messenger came out out of the Sanctuary crying out in a voice, great, to the one sitting on the cloud: "Send! the sickle of thee and reap! that came the Hour to reap, that is dried the Harvest of the land. [Joel 3:13/Matt 13:30]

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

If someone here said that they are, I must have missed it.

What I said was that both Lutherans and Calvinists believe in the "Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally" -- the language that had been used previously by one who was under the impression that one or both of these did NOT believe in "the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally."

I suppose now you will have to qualify what literally means for both the Lutheran and Calvinist because it seems the above is much to general. It appears that youre saying they agree with each other.




JTM

 

[Albion]

I suppose now you will have to qualify what literally means for both the Lutheran and Calvinist because it seems the above is much to general. It appears that youre saying they agree with each other.

All right, but all I have said is that the statement we were given ("Eucharist being the Body of Christ, literally") is indeed correct as it stands and could be affirmed by both Lutherans and Calvinists, as also by Catholics and some others.

Lutherans and Calvinists do -- as you noted -- have different views of the meaning of the Real Presence, but both of them believe in the Real Presence, and that's what the statement in question was addressing. The addition of the word "literally" by the author didn't change anything, BTW, since neither church holds that the body of Christ is only present in a symbolic or representational sense. It IS to each, the body of Christ.

To be sure, if the question were worded somewhat differently, if could elicit a different response, but I was just going with what was written. I find that a lot of people think that there are only two possibilities existing with this issue--either transubstantation or, on the other hand, representationalism.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Real Presence" to me is "Transubstantiation-Lite".
Just a de-escalation of the same mistake of not recognizing a metaphor for what it is.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Real Presence" to me is "Transubstantiation-Lite".
Just a de-escalation of the same mistake of not recognizing a metaphor for what it is.

 

[Anglian]

"Real Presence" to me is "Transubstantiation-Lite".
Just a de-escalation of the same mistake of not recognizing a metaphor for what it is.

Dear Rick,

I envy you in being privy to Our Lord's real meaning. We just take what He said and accept it. Some elaborate it to explain it, some elaborate it to explain it away; best just accept what the man said.

peace,

Anglian