Martin Luther

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The REAL PRESENCE is worthy of worship, for this is JESUS HIMSELF before you in the Eucharist.

However, if you believe He is really present, and you worship Him in His presence "in, with and under the bread and wine" you have to bow down to the bread and wine, created elements, also, thus elevating them to the level of divinity.

Sorry, but this is the problem we have with the Lutheran position on the Real Presence and why we can't accept it . . it would result in idolatary of the bread and wine for us, for we worship the Real Presence.

I've really appreciated your posts thus far, but this is simply nonsensical.

When you worship the Eucharistic presence as the body and blood of Christ, are you worshiping the accidents that remain those of bread and wine?

When you worship the Eucharistic presence as the body and blood of Christ, are you worshiping the priest who distributes them?

When you worship the Eucharistic presence as the body and blood of Christ, are you worshiping the altar vestments?

When the inner circle of apostles saw Christ transfigured and were in awe, where they worshiping his clothes?

Just because, according to Lutheran understanding, the bread and wine are still present in the host doesn't mean we're worshiping them.

Although the term 'cosubtantial' or 'consubstantial' may be used in Lutheran theology of both the Trinity and the Eucharist doesn't mean that we mean the same concept. You're assuming that when Lutherans (however rarely) refer to the consubstantiality of the bread and wine with the body and blood, we mean it is of the same substance in the same way the three persons of the Trinity are of the same substance. Even if the terms were interchangable, we're don't mean the same thing by them.

But as it turns out, you're confusing terms. The term for the Trinity is cosubstantial. The same substance. The term for the Eucharist is consubstantial. Two substances with each other- but not producing some new substance.

But this even assumes that we use the term consubstantial. Which we do not. This is just a historical fallicy about Lutheran belief. But even if we did, they're not the same concept. But again, we don't.

The 'in, with, and under' of the sacramental union does not imply a mixing of substances. It certainly does not imply that we worship the bread and wine, and more than worshiping Christ during his earthly ministry means the apostles worshiped his clothing.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You can believe whatever you want! I really don't care!

I would certainly hope that you care. After all, we're supposed to love one another, right?

I do not need your approval regarding where I know God has led me and the truth He has permitted me, at long last, to know.

The thrust of my questioning your assumption of revelation from the Lord in this regard had nothing to do with approval from me or anyone else. That's a red herring.

Be as skeptical as you want!

Skeptical? I'm somewhat surprised. I thought you knew the word of God. The scriptures clearly state:

1 Thess. 5:21 Prove all things;...

It doesn's say some things, or most things, with the exception of those things that feel as though they're of the Lord. As you can see, it clearly states that we are to prove ALL things.

I was simply asking that you appreicate my refusal to blindly accept the claim that the Lord led you where you are. There are also those who demand that the Lord led them into the mormon cult, or into the jehovah's witness cult. If I were to accept all these claims at face value, including yours, then I'd logically be faced with the dilemma of a very fickle God who spins on the axis of senselessness.

Far too many people are quick to blame the Lord for inspirations of their own making. Paul doesn't provide a sure-fire acid test formula for becoming intellectually cognizent of one's own self-deception.

BTW&DM

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It seems that Protestantism is more influenced by Western rationalism than Scripture itself.

Can't argue with you there. Of course, the vatican also has some of those same types of influences that have operated right from the very top of its heirarchy when, for example, john paul declared that evolutionary theory is more scientifically credible than the wording of Genesis, and where that wording leads one. The rcc has reversed itself on a number of issues through the centuries. So, assuming that the rcc is outside the influences of rationalism, well, that's a matter of turning a blind eye to the historic evidence to the contrary.

BTW&DM

 

[BigNorsk]

Thank you Marv.

I perfectly understand why Lutherans do not wish to use the term consubstantiation for the reasons you outlined above.


May I ask you this however, Is not Jesus, who is Really and Truly Present in the Eucharist, wrothy of being worshipped in His Real Presence in the Eucharist?


.

Are not Jesus and the Holy Spirit who live in believers worthy of being worshipped in their real presence in believers?

Marv

 

[BeforeThereWas]

LOLOL! Horsefeathers!
What "dogma" that the earth was flat! ?

"It is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages, but many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers (Schadewald, 1999)."

Also:

"H[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]owever, there is some persistence of flat earth thinking during the pre-medieval times and beyond. Examples include: Lucretius (99-55 BCE); the Bible; Lactantius (245-325 CE); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 CE); St. John Chrysostom (344-408 CE); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (408 CE); Orosius (385-420 CE); Diodorus of Tarsus (394 CE); and Cosmas Indicopleustes (547 CE)("Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200-1687", by Edward Grant, Cambridge University Press, 1996)."[/SIZE][/FONT]

Horsefeathers! He is ruling over the Kings of the earth right now! Din't you know that? What are you talking about "His return to rule with a rod of iron" ???

Rev. 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Now, if I take your words at face value, then the Lord must be wielding a very weak, flimsy, wet-noodle rod, considering that our laws allow the killing of unborn children, and the eventual advent of our government eventually recognizing homosexual marriage.

200 years? Where'd you get that?

BTW&DM

 

[Punchy]

Can't argue with you there. Of course, the vatican also has some of those same types of influences that have operated right from the very top of its heirarchy when, for example, john paul declared that evolutionary theory is more scientifically credible than the wording of Genesis, and where that wording leads one. The rcc has reversed itself on a number of issues through the centuries. So, assuming that the rcc is outside the influences of rationalism, well, that's a matter of turning a blind eye to the historic evidence to the contrary.

BTW&DM

You're assuming that the text of Genesis 1 is literal, rather than allegorical, in nature. The church fathers disagreed as to whether the days of Genesis were 24 hours in duration.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I've really appreciated your posts thus far, but this is simply nonsensical.

When you worship the Eucharistic presence as the body and blood of Christ, are you worshiping the accidents that remain those of bread and wine?

Actually, no it isn't nonsensical . . the accidents have no substance and so there is nothing to worship other than Christ.

When you worship the Eucharistic presence as the body and blood of Christ, are you worshiping the priest who distributes them?

The Eucharist is separate from the priest. . . . in Lutheran theology, the Eucharist is not separate from the substance of bread and wine, but IN and WITH and UNDER the bread and wine . . two different concepts.

When you worship the Eucharistic presence as the body and blood of Christ, are you worshiping the altar vestments?

Same answer.

When the inner circle of apostles saw Christ transfigured and were in awe, where they worshiping his clothes?

Same answer . . how do you know He had clothes in His transformation rather than be clothed with light?

Just because, according to Lutheran understanding, the bread and wine are still present in the host doesn't mean we're worshiping them.

How can you worship the Real Presence IN the bread without including the bread?

The bread is not separate from Christ anymore, it has been joined to Christ in sacramental union according to Lutheran theology.

Although the term 'cosubtantial' or 'consubstantial' may be used in Lutheran theology of both the Trinity and the Eucharist doesn't mean that we mean the same concept.

I understand, however, consubstantial is a theological word used to describe the Trinity and the hypostatsis . .

In fact, let's focus on the hypostatsis for a momment.

The hypostatis is the joining of the Divine nature with the Human nature in Jesus. The God-Man Jesus is God to be worshipped. You would not separate the Human nature and say that when you worship Christ you are only worshipping His divine nature.

But when you speak of the union of the Bread and Wine with the Body and Blood of Christ, the Real Presence, and have no real difficulty speaking of this as consubstantiation, you have no problem separating the elements of bread and wine from the Real Presence when it comes to worship, even though you can't separate them to Partake of Christ.

This presents a real logical disconnect for me.

If Jesus, BODY and BLOOD, Soul and Divinity is to be worshipped in His Human and Divine natures hypostatically joined, how can one worship the Real Presence joined to the bread and wine without worshipping the bread and wine too. . . .

If you can worship the Real Presence without it being really and truly joined to the bread, then how can you really partake of the Real Presence if it isn't really joined to the bread and wine?

It seems to me to be a logical conundrum.

Either the Real Presence is joined to the bread and wine or it is not .. . .


Do you see the dilema?

You're assuming that when Lutherans (however rarely) refer to the consubstantiality of the bread and wine with the body and blood, we mean it is of the same substance in the same way the three persons of the Trinity are of the same substance. Even if the terms were interchangable, we're don't mean the same thing by them.

No, I did not assume that and would never assume that.

However, the use of the theological term would suggest that and so is not a proper term to use, which is one of the reasons why the Lutheran Church doesn't use it any more . . because of the confusion it can engender.

But as it turns out, you're confusing terms. The term for the Trinity is cosubstantial. The same substance. The term for the Eucharist is consubstantial. Two substances with each other- but not producing some new substance.

No, this is splitting semmantical hairs.

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".67

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm​

But this even assumes that we use the term consubstantial. Which we do not. This is just a historical fallicy about Lutheran belief. But even if we did, they're not the same concept. But again, we don't.

It's not historical fallacy . . I have seen Lutheran sites use it .. .

The 'in, with, and under' of the sacramental union does not imply a mixing of substances. It certainly does not imply that we worship the bread and wine, and more than worshiping Christ during his earthly ministry means the apostles worshiped his clothing.

As I said above .. how can you have Christ in the Real Presence joined to the bread and wine in order to partake of Him, but not joined to the bread and wine to worship Him in the Real Presence . . . ?

If He must be joined to the bread and wine in order for you to partake of Him, then He must be equally joined to the bread and wine in order to be worshipped in the Real Presence . . .



.

 

[E.C.]

You're assuming that the text of Genesis 1 is literal, rather than allegorical, in nature. The church fathers disagreed as to whether the days of Genesis were 24 hours in duration.

Well, God did create the earth in seven days, but I have heard that the Hebrew word for "day" also means "a span of time" so while God did create the world in seven days, it was not the 24 hour day we all know and love.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Are not Jesus and the Holy Spirit who live in believers worthy of being worshipped in their real presence in believers?

Marv

Marv, Jesus is not present BODY AND BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY in you or me . . .


You are confusing the spiritual presence of Christ in believers with the REAL PRESENCE. . . . .





.

 

[thereselittleflower]

"It is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages, but many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers (Schadewald, 1999)."

Well, I am glad we cleared up the misconception you promoted earlier that it was a dogma of the Catholic Church that the earth was flat.

It is nice to clear the air isn't it?

And who cares what the Early Church Fathers thought about scientific realities . . . we should be concerning ourselves with THEOLOGICAL ones. And your representaiton of Pope John Paul II on evolution is equally erroneous as your allegation that it was a dogma of the Church that the earth was flat. . . I hope you will stop with the misrepresentations of our faith . If you are going to continue to make such claims, post the proof for it a well. If you can't post the proof, then please don't make the claims.

Also:

"H[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]owever, there is some persistence of flat earth thinking during the pre-medieval times and beyond. Examples include: Lucretius (99-55 BCE); the Bible; Lactantius (245-325 CE); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 CE); St. John Chrysostom (344-408 CE); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (408 CE); Orosius (385-420 CE); Diodorus of Tarsus (394 CE); and Cosmas Indicopleustes (547 CE)("Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200-1687", by Edward Grant, Cambridge University Press, 1996)."[/SIZE][/FONT]

And again? So what? Big deal . . . is this a thread on scientific debate or theological debate?

Rev. 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Now, if I take your words at face value, then the Lord must be wielding a very weak, flimsy, wet-noodle rod, considering that our laws allow the killing of unborn children, and the eventual advent of our government eventually recognizing homosexual marriage.

No. .. you just don't understand what to look for . . And silly me, I didn't look up the verse the first time to make sure you were using it correctly . .

It doesn't even say that CHRIST will rule with a rod of iron . . .

It says he *who overcomes* (meaning the saints - look at the previous verse) will rule with a rod of iron . . .

Rev 2:26 And he that shall overcome and keep my words unto the end, I will give him power over the nations.
Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken:
​

So you are even grossly misusing scripture to make your point. . .

200 years? Where'd you get that?

BTW&DM

From the advent of such doctrines, starting with Darby in the mid 1800's . . . . .



.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well, God did create the earth in seven days, but I have heard that the Hebrew word for "day" also means "a span of time" so while God did create the world in seven days, it was not the 24 hour day we all know and love.

Yes, that is correct, and we didn't even have days and nights until the middle of creation as the Sun, moon and stars were not created until then . . so there could be no such concept of a day during creation. Look:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
Gen 1:6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And god made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And he said: let the earth bring forth green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: Gen 1:15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth, and it was so done.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and The stars.
Gen 1:17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. Gen 1:18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 God also said: let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waaters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.​

"DAY" - the Hebrew word so translated:

H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.​

.

 

[BigNorsk]

Marv, Jesus is not present BODY AND BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY in you or me . . .


You are confusing the spiritual presence of Christ in believers with the REAL PRESENCE. . . . .





.

So at what point after my eating and drinking is Jesus no longer present? And if he is no longer present, then how does the bread make us all one body? Doesn't seem to me to make sense without the real presence. Does it to you?

I didn't realize that the Catholic church taught Christ was trapped in the bread forever but leaves when a person eats. I'll have to do some reading.

Marv

 

[thereselittleflower]

So at what point after my eating and drinking is Jesus no longer present? And if he is no longer present, then how does the bread make us all one body? Doesn't seem to me to make sense without the real presence. Does it to you?

I didn't realize that the Catholic church taught Christ was trapped in the bread forever but leaves when a person eats. I'll have to do some reading.

Marv

Marv, there is no bread! That is the point . . . the bread is transformed . . . it no longer exists . . . Jesus is not "trapped" in bread . .

There is no bread!


.

 

[mike1reynolds]

TLF, I think you're reading too much into the term "in, with, and under". It is just a label to try and put words to what is more traditionally, in Lutheran theology, left a mystery: that the elements indeed ARE the Body and Blood of Christ, while remaining bread and wine.

Indeed, how she gets from “in, with and under” to idol worship of bread is entirely beyond me. The very thought of anyone worshiping bread smacks of silliness! The Stay Puff Dough Boy, maybe, but a piece of bread??

What was important was his insistance that justification by grace through faith WAS and IS the Gospel...

Yes, you should do good works and actually we are saved unto good works but we are not saved nor progressively sanctified through works...

Now here is something that I might be able to sink my teeth into. This suggests that sanctification is a binary state and that one is either sanctified or not, with no in between. It seems much more likely to me that some are more sanctified than others, without those of lesser sanctification necessarily being entirely devoid of sanctification.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Eucharist is separate from the priest. . . . in Lutheran theology, the Eucharist is not separate from the substance of bread and wine, but IN and WITH and UNDER the bread and wine . . two different concepts.

You're totally missing what I'm saying...

When you participate in Eucharistic adoration, you focus your attention in the direction of the altar. That doesn't mean you're worshiping the various other things up on the altar! Just because you're focused in a particular direction in worship doesn't mean you worship everything in that direction.

Same answer . . how do you know He had clothes in His transformation rather than be clothed with light?

What, did his clothes disappear for a few moments there? Was he naked when we went up to the mount and descended?

How can you worship the Real Presence IN the bread without including the bread?

How can worship the transubstatied bread within worshiped the pane of glass and metal that contains it in the holder.

Just because something holds something doesn't mean it's to be equated with it.

The bread is not separate from Christ anymore, it has been joined to Christ in sacramental union according to Lutheran theology.

This is just plain wrong. Every Lutheran on here is telling you that this is just plain wrong.

This is not what we believe. How would you like it is I said you worshipped Mary?

If Jesus, BODY and BLOOD, Soul and Divinity is to be worshipped in His Human and Divine natures hypostatically joined, how can one worship the Real Presence joined to the bread and wine without worshipping the bread and wine too. . .

Because we don't believe in a hypostatic union between Christ and the elements!

Either the Real Presence is joined to the bread and wine or it is not .. . .

Water is in a cup. Is it hypostatically joined to the cup?

I sit on a couch with my brother. Am I hypostatically joined to my brother?

A desk is under the computer. Are the desk and the computer hypostatically joined?

No, this is splitting semmantical hairs.

No, it's really not.

The original Greek term homoousios implies one substance. We would never use this term to refer to the sacramental union.

You're assuming far more than our words grant, and you're claiming to represent Lutheran views in contradiction to every Lutheran on the board.

It's not historical fallacy . . I have seen Lutheran sites use it .. .

Prove it.

As I said above .. how can you have Christ in the Real Presence joined to the bread and wine in order to partake of Him, but not joined to the bread and wine to worship Him in the Real Presence . . . ?

I see a glass of water.

I want to drink the water.

I desire the water.

I adore the water because it is so cool.

And I do, indeed require the glass in order to drink it.

That doesn't mean I want to drink the glass.

That doesn't mean I desire the glass.

That doesn't mean I adore the glass.

If He must be joined to the bread and wine in order for you to partake of Him, then He must be equally joined to the bread and wine in order to be worshipped in the Real Presence . . .

Why? This is simply untrue.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You're totally missing what I'm saying...

No, really, I'm not. You are missing mine.

When you participate in Eucharistic adoration, you focus your attention in the direction of the altar. That doesn't mean you're worshiping the various other things up on the altar! Just because you're focused in a particular direction in worship doesn't mean you worship everything in that direction.

I focus my attention on what is ON the alter - the REAL PRESENCE and I worship the REAL PRESENCE.

The Real Presence is not joined to the altar as He is to the bread in Lutheran theology . . you are not comparing apples to apples, I am trying to help you see this flaw in your logic and reasoning. . .

What, did his clothes disappear for a few moments there? Was he naked when we went up to the mount and descended?

You are either not understanding or not trying to understand as I already addressed this.

How can worship the transubstatied bread within worshiped the pane of glass and metal that contains it in the holder.

THERE IS NO BREAD! I wish I could somehow make this clear. The monstrance is not joined to the REAL PRESENCE . . so there is no worship of the monstrance.

Just because something holds something doesn't mean it's to be equated with it.

Again, we are not talking about what merely holds Him, but what He is JOINED TO . . .For Lutherans He is JOINED TO BREAD . . . that makes the substance of bread essential to receiving Jesus in the Eucharist . . .

If one cannot receive Jesus in the Eucharist without also receiving the real bread He is joined to, then one cannot worship Jesus in the Eucharist without also worshipping the real bread He is joined to. . .. for if He can be separated from the Bread in the Eucharist and is not really joined to it, then He cannot be received in the Eucharist when the Bread is received, for He is not really joined to it. . .

This is just plain wrong. Every Lutheran on here is telling you that this is just plain wrong.

No, I am not wrong . .. Jesus is sacramentally joined to the bread in Lutheran theology . . . it is called Sacramental Union. See what another Lutheran has had to say on this in this thread.

This is not what we believe. How would you like it is I said you worshipped Mary?

red herring . .you are not making logical comparisons . . .

Because we don't believe in a hypostatic union between Christ and the elements!

Never said you did . . but the Lutheran Church teaches the SACRAMENTAL UNION of Jesus with the substance of bread and wine . . .

I have asked the question that has not been answered yet . . .

How can Jesus be separate from the bread and wine so the bread and wine is not worshipped when He is worshipped in the Eucharist, but joined to the bread and wine when the bread and wine is consumed?

Either He is joined to the bread and wine or He is not and then cannot be received with the bread and wine . .

Which is it?

Water is in a cup. Is it hypostatically joined to the cup?

red herring . .

I sit on a couch with my brother. Am I hypostatically joined to my brother?

red herring . . .

A desk is under the computer. Are the desk and the computer hypostatically joined?

red herring .. ..

No, it's really not.

The original Greek term homoousios implies one substance. We would never use this term to refer to the sacramental union.

So you agree that the Lutheran Church teaches Sacramental Union, yet above you told me I was dead wrong to say so . . . which is it?

You're assuming far more than our words grant, and you're claiming to represent Lutheran views in contradiction to every Lutheran on the board.

Again, now you deny what you just affirmed.

Prove it.

sorry, the web has changed in the last 5 years . .. you will simply have to take my word for it or call me a liar.

Your choice.

I see a glass of water.

I want to drink the water.

I desire the water.

I adore the water because it is so cool.

And I do, indeed require the glass in order to drink it.

That doesn't mean I want to drink the glass.

That doesn't mean I desire the glass.

That doesn't mean I adore the glass.

. .. the water is not joined to the glass . . . you don't drink the glass with the water . . .

But the bread is joined to Christ and you eat the bread to eat Christ. . . . .




Again, red herring . . .

Why? This is simply untrue.

He is either joined to the bread or not joined . . .


Which is it?



.

 

[mike1reynolds]

GCC, I am the biggest non-Catholic defender of Catholicism and Orthodoxy on this forum. I am usually arguing with people like CaliforniaJosiah and BrightCandle, yet I don’t think that TLF has a single valid point. I think that most of her points here are ludicrous.

 

[Rion]

I would be a Catholic, if I didn't feel that I would be cast out as a heretic for not believing in Papal Infallibility and not believing that stuff like the Ever-Virginity or Assumption of Mary matter. Before the Orthodox jump on me, I'm just saying I don't think that it is important in matters of faith.

Luther was the fruit of the corrupted Church of his time, and I believe that the Reformation was needed to create the great falling away. Not that Protestants have fallen away, but that it was the excuse people had been seeking to go "look! They don't even agree among themselves!" thereby justifying their rejection of Christ.

 

[mike1reynolds]

I focus my attention on what is ON the alter - the REAL PRESENCE and I worship the REAL PRESENCE.

Correct me if I’m wrong, is there a Christian here that does not?

The Real Presence is not joined to the altar as He is to the bread in Lutheran theology . . you are not comparing apples to apples, I am trying to help you see this flaw in your logic and reasoning. . .

If you have a coherent point, it is about as clear as mud.

You are either not understanding or not trying to understand as I already addressed this.

You are either not making sense or not trying to make any real sense!

THERE IS NO BREAD! I wish I could somehow make this clear. The monstrance is not joined to the REAL PRESENCE . . so there is no worship of the monstrance.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE!

Again, we are not talking about what merely holds Him, but what He is JOINED TO . . .For Lutherans He is JOINED TO BREAD . . .

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Jesus is joined to bread? That is your synopsis of the Lutheran theology of the Real Presence?

If one cannot receive Jesus in the Eucharist without also receiving the real bread He is joined to, then one cannot worship Jesus in the Eucharist without also worshipping the real bread He is joined to. . .. for if He can be separated from the Bread in the Eucharist and is not really joined to it, then He cannot be received in the Eucharist when the Bread is received, for He is not really joined to it. . .

So, your position is that Jesus must be joined at the hip with some bread? You are REALLY obsessed with this JOINED business. Perhaps you could join your arguments with a little straight talk instead of these extremely bizarre arguments.

red herring . .you are not making logical comparisons . . .

Your entire line of reasoning here is nothing but a parade of red herrings.

sorry, the web has changed in the last 5 years . .. you will simply have to take my word for it or call me a liar.

Take your word, without any evidence, about HIS denomination? If you are going to make accusations about the denominations of other Christians you need to be able to back it up. Maybe you aren’t a liar, maybe it just isn’t your denomination and your memory from 5 years ago was of a moment of profound confusion.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Correct me if I’m wrong, is there a Christian here that does not?


If you have a coherent point, it is about as clear as mud.


You are either not making sense or not trying to make any real sense!


THIS MAKES NO SENSE!


What the heck is that supposed to mean? Jesus is joined to bread? That is your synopsis of the Lutheran theology of the Real Presence?


So, your position is that Jesus must be joined at the hip with some bread? You are REALLY obsessed with this JOINED business. Perhaps you could join your arguments with a little straight talk instead of these extremely bizarre arguments.


Your entire line of reasoning here is nothing but a parade of red herrings.


Take your word, without any evidence, about HIS denomination? If you are going to make accusations about the denominations of other Christians you need to be able to back it up. Maybe you aren’t a liar, maybe it just isn’t your denomination and your memory from 5 years ago was of a moment of profound confusion.

Mike, if you would like to join in and have a respectful dialogue with me then do so . . . but that was not it.



.