Catholic Eucharist Actual Blood and Body?

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,445
5,301
✟827,343.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
We could look at the Didache or Clement of Rome, but we need to be clear on RP---it is the teaching that the duly ordained priest at the altar saying the right words changes the bread into flesh.

Did I get that right or not?

The Confessional Lutheran perspective; from the Large Catechism:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php#para4
4] Here also we do not wish to enter into controversy and contend with the traducers and blasphemers of this Sacrament, but to learn first (as we did regarding Baptism) what is of the greatest importance, namely, that the chief point is the Word and ordinance or command of God. For it has not been invented nor introduced by any man, but without any one's counsel and deliberation it has been instituted by Christ. 5] Therefore, just as the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed retain their nature and worth, although you never keep, pray, or believe them, so also does this venerable Sacrament remain undisturbed, so that nothing is detracted or taken from it, even though we employ and dispense it unworthily. 6] What do you think God cares about what we do or believe, so that on that account He should suffer His ordinance to be changed? Why, in all worldly matters every thing remains as God has created and ordered it, no matter how we employ or use it. 7] This must always be urged, for thereby the prating of nearly all the fanatical spirits can be repelled. For they regard the Sacraments, aside from the Word of God, as something that we do.

From the Formula of Concord, Epitome:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part7.8
8] 3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9] 4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. This blessing occurs through the recitation of the words of Christ.

And the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration:
73] Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecration and the common rule, that nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use [or divinely instituted act], we have made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to one another also concerning this matter to the following purport, 74] namely, that not the word or work of any man produces the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ. 75] For the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ which He spake at the first institution were efficacious not only at the first Supper, but they endure, are valid, operate, and are still efficacious [their force, power, and efficacy endure and avail even to the present], so that in all places where the Supper is celebrated according to the institution of Christ, and His words are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received, because of the power and efficacy of the words which Christ spake at the first Supper. For where His institution is observed and His words are spoken over the bread and cup [wine], and the consecrated bread and cup [wine] are distributed, Christ Himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution, through His word, which He wishes to be there repeated. 76] As Chrysostom says (in Serm. de Pass.) in his Sermon concerning the Passion: Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it; for no man makes the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power and grace, by the word, where He speaks: "This is My body," the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper. And just as the declaration, Gen. 1:28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," was spoken only once, but is ever efficacious in nature, so that it is fruitful and multiplies, so also this declaration ["This is My body; this is My blood"] was spoken once, but even to this day and to His advent it is efficacious, and works so that in the Supper of the Church His true body and blood are present.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟66,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I went back to read your posts about Blandina, and I confess that I miss your point. IMO this text doesn´t mean what you want it to mean. The fact that Blandina denied the charge of cannabilism doesn´t mean that she denied the RP in the Eucharist. I don´t get your point.



You have to give us something to back up your theory, or else why should we believe it? Quod gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur. BTW, the Blandina story is a forced interpretation of something we know not much about. \/QUOTE]

I tried to make both of these points earlier as well.

This is Irenaeus folks. He says he is quoting her.

For48164816 “This extract is found in Œcumenius upon 1 Pet. c. iii. p. 198; and the words used by him indicate, as Grabe has justly observed, that he only condensed a longer passage.”—Harvey. when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.xiii.html?highlight=blandina#highlightBlandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?”


Here's another account of the martyrs of Lyons by Marcus Aurelias:

When they seated Attalus in the red-hot iron chair, and his body, burned on all sides, exhaled an abominable odour and smoke, he said to the people in Latin, “It is you who are eaters of men. As to us, we do nothing evil.” They asked him, “What is God’s name?” “God,” said he, “has not a name like a man.” The two martyrs received the coup de grâce, after having exhausted with full knowledge all that was most atrocious that Roman cruelty could invent.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/renan/marcus.xxii.html
 
Upvote 0
Jan 17, 2012
87
8
Spain
✟7,742.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This is Irenaeus folks. He says he is quoting her.

when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?”


Here's another account of the martyrs of Lyons by Marcus Aurelias:

When they seated Attalus in the red-hot iron chair, and his body, burned on all sides, exhaled an abominable odour and smoke, he said to the people in Latin, “It is you who are eaters of men. As to us, we do nothing evil.” They asked him, “What is God’s name?” “God,” said he, “has not a name like a man.” The two martyrs received the coup de grâce, after having exhausted with full knowledge all that was most atrocious that Roman cruelty could invent.

Standing Up, you´ve given us this extract about Blandina three times now, and nobody quite understands WHY. Please explain what it is you´re getting at.

The Martyrdom of Attalus proves nothing concerned with the RP, as far as I can see. Please be more explicit. :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟66,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Standing Up, you´ve given us this extract about Blandina three times now, and nobody quite understands WHY. Please explain what it is you´re getting at.

The Martyrdom of Attalus proves nothing concerned with the RP, as far as I can see. Please be more explicit. :confused:

Not today. See if anyone else sees something.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Julie

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES
Apr 22, 2002
1,086
5
42
Visit site
✟9,327.00
Faith
Christian
How many knew that the Catholics believe the bread and wine they get at the Eucharist is said to be transubstantiated (changed in substance) into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, Lord and God.

This really sounds pagan to me. Is it over the top to any one else? They really think they are drinking Jesus actual blood and eating His flesh!

Sort of sounds like cannibalism to me.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ronald. There are so many theological errors in your post.

Likewise back at you. Catholics are so steaped in traditional rituals and beliefs that it is sad. Discerning whether to read it literally or symbolically, is your problem. Jesus said that what goes into your mouth goes into your stomach and is eliminated. Also what goes into your mouth does not defile you as well. (see Matt.15: 11, 15) This is literal. And likewise, nothing you put in your mouth becomes Jesus body, nor is it spiritual in any way. The bread of life is spiritual food which is what Jesus meant and to remember His sacrifice. The host is not spiritual food, it does not transform into spiritual food. It digests and is excreted along with the wine or grape juice.
Go ahead and believe as you do, it won't invalidate your faith. Many things will be cleared up when you get there ... or maybe you'll have to visit Purgatory first to burn off some venial sins before you are ready to enter heaven... MORE OF THE TRADITIONAL NONSENSE YOU'VE EATEN. There is nothing more to be done with your sins after you die -- Jesus took care of that on the cross -- No burning off addition sins. When a true Christian dies, he is immediately with the Lord. "To be absent the body is to be present with the Lord." There is no transitional place to go. Your sins, (past, present and future) were washed by His blood.


Why would the jews "murmur at him", if the discourse was merely symbolic? Perhaps they got it wrong, thinking Jesus really meant it literally, when it was just a figure of speech...

That was the point, to confound them. They did not have understanding because they took him literally. He knew they would not understand. His spiritual messages weren't received by those who were not his sheep. They did not believe or hear His words, the bread of life. They did not eat the bread of life.
He gave them a hard teaching to get rid of them. He aggravated them, criticized them, saying they were like white-washed tombs and the Devils children which ultimately led them to want to crucify Him.
Eating flesh and drinking blood is symbolic. Thinking of this literally does sound like He was offering His body for cannibalism.

Christ´s Body and Blood given to us in Holy Mass are not the body and blood of a corpse, but the living body and blood of the risen Lord.

So, every time you eat Him, does He become smaller up in heaven? Or maybe he just grows back each bite of his flesh like a chameleon.
This is ridiculous and exactly why God sent Martin Luther to correct many errors in the Catholic church.


Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Water here is not water baptism. It is not a reference to procreation in the womb either. A spiritual birth has us in a passive state and involves God completely -- born from above. It involves the word of God, His cleansing and the Holy Spirit. We read or hear the word and believe and at that time we are cleansed. Water baptism symbolizes this cleansing but physical water saves no one, it's God completely, from above and even our faith is a gift.

As far as the good thief, catholic theology recognizes what is called "baptism of desire". Clearly the good thief desired baptism, although it was too late for such a thing to be done sacramentally.

Where is that is scripture? Another theological assumption!
Really, did the thief even know about baptism? He desired for Jesus to remember Him when He came into His kingdom. He demonstrated belief and faith in Jesus and was saved by faith alone. But, I suppose then anyone just before death can have this last minute baptismal desire and it's granted without the water? The last minute desire before death is to be saved from Hell fire. Question: Do you think Hell fire literal or symbolic?

Baptism is always necessary for salvation
.

Being baptized into His name and by the Holy Spirit does not occur necessarily at the same time water baptism is performed! Usually it happens before one gets water baptised.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,451
26,880
Pacific Northwest
✟731,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Sort of sounds like cannibalism to me.

It sounded that way to the Romans as well who charged our spiritual fore-bearers of the very same. The Romans also charged the ancient Christians of atheism for not recognizing the Roman gods as gods, and also declared Christians enemies of humanity for not abiding by the conventions and social norms of Roman society.

However, we're not cannibals, we're not atheists, and we are not enemies of mankind.

Rather, we receive the Eucharist as our Lord has given it to us, as His body and blood. We recognize but one God, who is Sovereign and Lord over all. We are friends of our fellow man by our self-offering and service to our neighbor by our charity, kindness, and preaching of the Gospel of God which is God's unwavering love for sinners and God reconciling the world to Himself through and in Jesus Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: whitetiger1
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,451
26,880
Pacific Northwest
✟731,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So, every time you eat Him, does He become smaller up in heaven? Or maybe he just grows back each bite of his flesh like a chameleon.
This is ridiculous and exactly why God sent Martin Luther to correct many errors in the Catholic church.

The same Martin Luther whose reforms included the reception of the Holy Eucharist in both kinds because he believed it wrong and cruel to forbid the average Christian from received both the true body as well as true blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you'd like to actually know what Luther's theology was, you're more than welcome to read the Lutheran Confessions and the writings of Luther yourself.

The Radical Reformation had absolutely nothing to do with Luther; throwing out the baby, the tub, along with the bath water. Then burning down the entire house afterwards.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Likewise back at you. Catholics are so steaped in traditional rituals and beliefs that it is sad. Discerning whether to read it literally or symbolically, is your problem.

Straw Man. Learn what a sacrament is and isn't.

Furthermore, sacramental theology is not a solely Vatican Catholic belief.

Jesus said that what goes into your mouth goes into your stomach and is eliminated. Also what goes into your mouth does not defile you as well. (see Matt.15: 11, 15) This is literal. And likewise, nothing you put in your mouth becomes Jesus body, nor is it spiritual in any way.
So many Protestants would disagree with that, particularly Methodists and Calvinists.

The bread of life is spiritual food which is what Jesus meant and to remember His sacrifice. The host is not spiritual food, it does not transform into spiritual food. It digests and is excreted along with the wine or grape juice.
Straw Man. Learn what Transubstantiationism is and is not.

Go ahead and believe as you do, it won't invalidate your faith. Many things will be cleared up when you get there ... or maybe you'll have to visit Purgatory first to burn off some venial sins before you are ready to enter heaven... MORE OF THE TRADITIONAL NONSENSE YOU'VE EATEN.
Purgatory isn't the topic here. More Straw Men.

There is nothing more to be done with your sins after you die -- Jesus took care of that on the cross -- No burning off addition sins. When a true Christian dies, he is immediately with the Lord. "To be absent the body is to be present with the Lord." There is no transitional place to go. Your sins, (past, present and future) were washed by His blood.
Fact: Real Presence. Found in Holy Scripture, found in Holy Tradition, and altogether logical (as we Anglicans would say, Holy Reason).

That was the point, to confound them. They did not have understanding because they took him literally. He knew they would not understand. His spiritual messages weren't received by those who were not his sheep. They did not believe or hear His words, the bread of life. They did not eat the bread of life.
Problem. Compare St. John chapter 3 and chapter 6. Jesus corrects the misunderstanding in chapter 3; He doesn't in chapter 6.

Since we know His character in chapter 3 to correct misunderstanding, then He should have in chapter 6. He doesn't, which means they were right: He was teaching them to partake of Him literally.

He gave them a hard teaching to get rid of them.
See my above. Your interpretation is therefore invalidated. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. p and ~p cannot both be true. That is the nature of truth, unless you reject the idea of absolute truth.

Eating flesh and drinking blood is symbolic. Thinking of this literally does sound like He was offering His body for cannibalism.
The vast majority of Christians, today and throughout time, disagree. As does Jesus. As did the Early Church. We know; we have their writings. We know how they interpreted the Bible. Those ancient schisms that still exist, such as the Assyrian Church of the East, still teach the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion.

So, every time you eat Him, does He become smaller up in heaven? Or maybe he just grows back each bite of his flesh like a chameleon.
He's God. Does God become smaller when He imparts His Holy Spirit everywhere? Does God become smaller despite being Three distinct Persons?

If that is your theology of God, it most certainly isn't at all orthodox.

This is ridiculous and exactly why God sent Martin Luther to correct many errors in the Catholic church.
:doh:

Oh for the love of...

Luther believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion!

Open mouth, insert foot. Honestly!

Water here is not water baptism. It is not a reference to procreation in the womb either. A spiritual birth has us in a passive state and involves God completely -- born from above. It involves the word of God, His cleansing and the Holy Spirit. We read or hear the word and believe and at that time we are cleansed. Water baptism symbolizes this cleansing but physical water saves no one, it's God completely, from above and even our faith is a gift.
See my above. Luther taught the necessity of Holy Baptism as well. Lutheranism to this day teaches it and is very sacramental in its theology.

Where is that is scripture? Another theological assumption!

Actually, it is a rational, logical conclusion of orthodox Baptismal theology.

Really, did the thief even know about baptism?
Given the immense popularity and knowledge of St. John the Baptist, I'd wager St. Dismas knew something of it, yes.

He desired for Jesus to remember Him when He came into His kingdom. He demonstrated belief and faith in Jesus and was saved by faith alone.
Actually, he'd be covered by Baptism by Blood. Another logical, rational conclusion of orthodox Baptismal theology.

...do you ever know what we teach?!

But, I suppose then anyone just before death can have this last minute baptismal desire and it's granted without the water? The last minute desire before death is to be saved from Hell fire. Question: Do you think Hell fire literal or symbolic?
The Early Church didn't believe in literal hellfire. Most Apostolic Christians still don't, and a growing number of Protestants, particular mainline ones, are reembracing the ancient theology..

Being baptized into His name and by the Holy Spirit does not occur necessarily at the same time water baptism is performed! Usually it happens before one gets water baptised.
One word: Didache.

Your position is proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I find it very strange that any Christian would question that the Lords Supper is a form of cannibalism. Our Saviour Jesus Christ gave us the sacrament of Baptism, and the Lords Supper and was pretty clear in his preaching about them. I sometimes feel people have to disagree on doctrine just for the sake of proving their point and not for the greater good of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,451
26,880
Pacific Northwest
✟731,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I find it very strange that any Christian would question that the Lords Supper is a form of cannibalism. Our Saviour Jesus Christ gave us the sacrament of Baptism, and the Lords Supper and was pretty clear in his preaching about them. I sometimes feel people have to disagree on doctrine just for the sake of proving their point and not for the greater good of Christianity.

A lot of people are just honest-to-goodness not educated about our Christian faith. Especially when it comes to our history and past.

I was truly and absolutely turned upside-down when I started to expand my reading and study to something beyond the Evangelical/Pentecostal background I had been raised up in.

It had never occurred to me that anything of any real interest transpired between the last chapter of the Acts and maybe a few hundred years ago.

Then I read a few things, and especially my Bible.

Much of what I had taken as an assumed given was shaken and called into question because I approached Holy Scripture with an open mind and began to look and see what Christianity has historically been.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,445
5,301
✟827,343.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Okay. But you're a Protestant ;)

RP--occurs by God, rather than the duly-ordained priest. After all, RC/EO say P schismed away and no longer have duly-ordained priests.

That's their belief, and they are entitled to it:);):thumbsup:.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jan 17, 2012
87
8
Spain
✟7,742.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
A lot of people are just honest-to-goodness not educated about our Christian faith. Especially when it comes to our history and past.

I was truly and absolutely turned upside-down when I started to expand my reading and study to something beyond the Evangelical/Pentecostal background I had been raised up in.

It had never occurred to me that anything of any real interest transpired between the last chapter of the Acts and maybe a few hundred years ago.

Then I read a few things, and especially my Bible.

Much of what I had taken as an assumed given was shaken and called into question because I approached Holy Scripture with an open mind and began to look and see what Christianity has historically been.

-CryptoLutheran

Well said, ViaCrucis! :thumbsup:

That´s exactly why I became a catholic. I started reading about the benedictine monks who literally rebuilt Europe from the ruins of the Roman Empire. I was shocked to find that these men were profoundly CHRISTIAN, nearly 1000 years before Luther arrived on the scene. I then delved into the Church Fathers, going to the writings of St. Augustine. I didn´t understand lots of it, but I was nevertheless able to appreciate that his faith was genuine and that his theology was VERY different to mine.

I kept going back in time, expecting to find this mystical "corruption" or break with the true faith, that all protestants assume ocurred around the time of Constantine. I never found it. I read some of St. Irenaeus, and then got to the Apostolic Fathers. St. Ignatius blew me away. This guy was the successor of none other than St. Peter in the seat of Antioch!! And the amazing thing was that, as far as I could make out, he was completely catholic in theology and practice.

After that I began to read more modern catholic theology, and I discovered that EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches is rooted in Scripture. Most important of all, I realized that the Bible itself is a catholic book, and only the Catholic Church has the God-given authority to interpret it infallibly. Because there´s no point in having the infallible Word of God, if you are a fallible human being who can get it all wrong. This is where all the protestant sects derail. They interpret Scripture according to their limited (and faulty) understanding, and arrive at the wrong conclusions. But since they have no authority above themselves, it´s very difficult for them to realize they are wrong.

As far as the topic goes, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, if any protestant takes the time to learn just a little Church History (yes, there IS a Church History prior to the 16th century), he can understand that for 1500 years all orthodox christians (that´s excluding gnostics, cathars and other heretics) believed that Christ was really present in the Eucharist.

And that´s the end of my little speech. :preach:
 
Upvote 0

cajunhillbilly

Regular Member
Jul 4, 2004
870
37
71
Dallas, TX
✟16,522.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Politics
US-Republican
Well said, ViaCrucis! :thumbsup:

That´s exactly why I became a catholic. I started reading about the benedictine monks who literally rebuilt Europe from the ruins of the Roman Empire. I was shocked to find that these men were profoundly CHRISTIAN, nearly 1000 years before Luther arrived on the scene. I then delved into the Church Fathers, going to the writings of St. Augustine. I didn´t understand lots of it, but I was nevertheless able to appreciate that his faith was genuine and that his theology was VERY different to mine.

I kept going back in time, expecting to find this mystical "corruption" or break with the true faith, that all protestants assume ocurred around the time of Constantine. I never found it. I read some of St. Irenaeus, and then got to the Apostolic Fathers. St. Ignatius blew me away. This guy was the successor of none other than St. Peter in the seat of Antioch!! And the amazing thing was that, as far as I could make out, he was completely catholic in theology and practice.

After that I began to read more modern catholic theology, and I discovered that EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches is rooted in Scripture. Most important of all, I realized that the Bible itself is a catholic book, and only the Catholic Church has the God-given authority to interpret it infallibly. Because there´s no point in having the infallible Word of God, if you are a fallible human being who can get it all wrong. This is where all the protestant sects derail. They interpret Scripture according to their limited (and faulty) understanding, and arrive at the wrong conclusions. But since they have no authority above themselves, it´s very difficult for them to realize they are wrong.

As far as the topic goes, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, if any protestant takes the time to learn just a little Church History (yes, there IS a Church History prior to the 16th century), he can understand that for 1500 years all orthodox christians (that´s excluding gnostics, cathars and other heretics) believed that Christ was really present in the Eucharist.

And that´s the end of my little speech. :preach:


Heck if they even bothered reading the early Reformers they would see belief in the Real Presence. But you are right, the Real Presence of Christ goes back to the very beginning of the church. There is no one who denied it in the early church, except for Gnostic heretics.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The same Martin Luther whose reforms included the reception of the Holy Eucharist in both kinds because he believed it wrong and cruel to forbid the average Christian from received both the true body as well as true blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I've visited a Luteran church before and found the rituals and communion very similar to the Catholic church. Legalism, tradition and rituals are common in many churches. Task masters instruct the congregations that are orientated towards a semi- liberated theology of one foot in the Old Testament Covenant and one foot in the New. All those rituals under the Law were fulfilled by Christ.
"Behold, days are coming declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant which i will make with the house of israel after those days, decdlares th Lord, I wil put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people". Jer. 31:31-33
The Old Testament Temple contained the Most Holy Place with the Ark of the Covenant and God Himself dwelled, the veil separated it from the Holy Place that contained the Lampstand, Altar of Incense and the Table of Showbread. Outside in the courtyard was the Bronze Laver and Altar for Burnt Offerings. Each one of these parts of the Temple were designed specifically to point to the future Temple in Us. We are the Temple and all the functions of the Old are now symbolic of the New. If you want to see what your invisible design looks like, look at the Old Temple.
Jesus is our High Priest and Sacrificial Lamb who enters into our hearts (Temple) with His word and the veil is lifted. The Most Holy Place is where the Holy Spirit dwells and communes with our new spirit, the Holy Place represents our souls, composed of our mind, will and emotions. The spirit and soul together are the heart of man. The courtyard represents our body. Out soul and body are where sin dwells. The Table of Showbread contained the bread and wine that represents our fellowship (communion) with God. The Lamp stand was always lit and it represents righteousness and since Jesus is the Light, we are enabled to see spiritually. The church is the "body of Christ" represented by the lampstand. The Bronze Laver was used for cleansing before entering the tabernacle to perform sacrifices. It represents the cleansing of the new believer, the baptism by water and our willingness to receive forgivness and spiritual cleansing.
The Old Testament Temple was clearly designed with the New Temple in mind. The parts and functions of the Temple are today symbolic.
The performance and participation of any of those functions today would negate that Jesus fulfilled them. However, we are told to be baptized as an act of obedience and an outward expression of an inward spiritual cleansing. Just like the showbread and wine back then are used symbolically today. Whew!!!!
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've visited a Luteran church before and found the rituals and communion very similar to the Catholic church. Legalism, tradition and rituals are common in many churches.

Legalism...you are accusing Lutherans, of all people, of legalism...

If you think, and it seems like you do, that ritual=legalism, you need to rethink your ideas.

Task masters instruct the congregations that are orientated towards a semi- liberated theology of one foot in the Old Testament Covenant and one foot in the New. All those rituals under the Law were fulfilled by Christ.

:doh:

So now we're Judaizers.

Quite honestly, your ideas are so farfetched, I have no clue where to begin to dismantle them.

<snips the rest of the Straw Man nonsense>

First, if you want to debate what we believe, fine, but get what we believe right.

In addition, I highly suggest you learn what legalism is and isn't, because you are not using the term properly.

Lastly, I think you seriously need to reacquaint yourself with ecclesiastical history.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,445
5,301
✟827,343.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Legalism...you are accusing Lutherans, of all people, of legalism...

If you think, and it seems like you do, that ritual=legalism, you need to rethink your ideas.



:doh:

So now we're Judaizers.

Quite honestly, your ideas are so farfetched, I have no clue where to begin to dismantle them.

<snips the rest of the Straw Man nonsense>

First, if you want to debate what we believe, fine, but get what we believe right.

In addition, I highly suggest you learn what legalism is and isn't, because you are not using the term properly.

Lastly, I think you seriously need to reacquaint yourself with ecclesiastical history.

Well said!

With few exceptions, reformed Protestantism is rife with legalism; more over, most are works oriented. One example is baptism; often times it must be done, and it must be done "just so", yet they consider it "symbolic only" with no efficacy what so ever... I never could get my head around that one.:confused:
 
Upvote 0