Know church history well but stay protestant

Valletta · Apr 8, 2021

Albion said:
The idea was raised in about the ninth century, but it was not made into a dogma until the thirteenth century. Keep in mind that a key element in the doctrine of Transubstantiation is the "ceasing to exist" part of it as concerns the bread and wine, not just the belief that Christ becomes physically present.

John 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 A.D.
Excerpt from Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151 “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”

The Liturgist · Apr 9, 2021

Valletta said:
John 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 A.D.
Excerpt from Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151 “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”

Indeed, the idea that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of our Lord is, based on the liturgical texts themselves, the oldest Eucharistic theology. The only innovation in RC doctrine was to explain it by differentiating on an Aristotelian basis between the substance, which was said to change, and the accidents, which were said not to change.

The main problem I have with transubstantiation is that on exceedingly rare occasions, in both RC and Orthodox contents, there have been reported instances of the perceptual attributes as well as the underlying substance changing, and on strictly Aristotelian terms, Thomistic transubstantiation appears to exclude the possibility of what we might call transaccidentiation. And I also don’t believe in Aristotle’s dichotomy between substance and accidents being pervasive; I think the real change into the actual body and blood is a sacred mystery, an entirely supernatural miracle resulting from the action of the Holy Spirit that transforms ordinary bread and wine into the life-giving, grace-filled body and blood of our Lord, a rational sacrifice of which we are graciously asked to take part.

Francis Drake · Apr 9, 2021

Hope1960 said:
Why is that?

Read church history and you'd understand.

Albion · Apr 9, 2021

Folks, there were individuals in earlier centuries who verbalized their opinions about the Eucharist--in both directions, more mystical and less so.

But transubstantiation by whatever term was not the belief of the church during the ancient era. Only during the Middle Ages, with its fascination about things miraculous, did transubstantiation become an issue. And then it was made into an official doctrine in the 13th century.

tz620q · Apr 9, 2021

Albion said:
Folks, there were individuals in earlier centuries who verbalized their opinions about the Eucharist--in both directions, more mystical and less so.

But transubstantiation by whatever term was not the belief of the church during the ancient era. Only during the Middle Ages, with its fascination about things miraculous, did transubstantiation become an issue. And then it was made into an official doctrine in the 13th century.

Or perhaps the loss of the Greek literature in most of Europe during the early Middle Ages prevented them from using Aristotelian metaphysics for an explanation. One could make the claim that Thomas Aquinas' thoughts were created both in nature and nurture. He obviously had a very probing and questioning mind. That mind was formed at a time when the rediscovery of Ancient Greek literature seemed a path both to the past and to the future.

I understand what you are saying about belief in miracles being high in the Middle Ages; but I don't agree with the implication that it was somehow lower in the early years of the church. In fact, I think the modern viewpoint has challenged and diminished the perception of miracles to a point where they are ridiculed and relegated.

Albion · Apr 9, 2021

tz620q said:
Or perhaps the loss of the Greek literature in most of Europe during the early Middle Ages prevented them from using Aristotelian metaphysics for an explanation.

I don't think that's it. Consider the fact that Transubstantiation is a reversal of Aristotle in that, with Transubstantiation, the substance changes but the accidents do not.

It has been said that Aristotle was held in such high regard by Medieval society that the "miracle" of the Mass was brought home to the believers in part because it inverted Aristotle's position that the accidents could change but not the substance of a thing!

I understand what you are saying about belief in miracles being high in the Middle Ages; but I don't agree with the implication that it was somehow lower in the early years of the church.

Well, I suppose that's going to be difficult to prove one way or the other, but remember that during the era when Transubstantiation was dogmatized, tales of the host miraculously being turned into a real baby were believed, the priest at the altar was likened to an alchemist (for God), turning bread and wine into flesh instead of turning lead into gold, and many other examples, from the the Grail legends to miracle-working relics, and so on.

I understand what you are saying about belief in miracles being high in the Middle Ages; but I don't agree with the implication that it was somehow lower in the early years of the church. In fact, I think the modern viewpoint has challenged and diminished the perception of miracles to a point where they are ridiculed and relegated.

??? But that's a comparison of antiquity with the modern era, not the ancient era with the Middle Ages.

Valletta · Apr 9, 2021

Albion said:
Folks, there were individuals in earlier centuries who verbalized their opinions about the Eucharist--in both directions, more mystical and less so.

But transubstantiation by whatever term was not the belief of the church during the ancient era. Only during the Middle Ages, with its fascination about things miraculous, did transubstantiation become an issue. And then it was made into an official doctrine in the 13th century.

We as a Church can gain a better understanding of what was passed down, debate might be sparked by some heresy or potential heresy.

tz620q · Apr 10, 2021

Albion said:
Well, I suppose that's going to be difficult to prove one way or the other, but remember that during the era when Transubstantiation was dogmatized, tales of the host miraculously being turned into a real baby were believed, the priest at the altar was likened to an alchemist (for God), turning bread and wine into flesh instead of turning lead into gold, and many other examples, from the the Grail legends to miracle-working relics, and so on.

I was just thinking about the need for miracles to canonize a saint in the Catholic Church. The saints are from all ages and many of them had miracles claimed about them. I do think you are right about Eucharistic miracles though.

FaithT · Apr 10, 2021

Albion said:
I don't think that's it. Consider the fact that Transubstantiation is a reversal of Aristotle in that, with Transubstantiation, the substance changes but the accidents do not.

It has been said that Aristotle was held in such high regard by Medieval society that the "miracle" of the Mass was brought home to the believers in part because it inverted Aristotle's position that the accidents could change but not the substance of a thing!

Well, I suppose that's going to be difficult to prove one way or the other, but remember that during the era when Transubstantiation was dogmatized, tales of the host miraculously being turned into a real baby were believed, the priest at the altar was likened to an alchemist (for God), turning bread and wine into flesh instead of turning lead into gold, and many other examples, from the the Grail legends to miracle-working relics, and so on.

??? But that's a comparison of antiquity with the modern era, not the ancient era with the Middle Ages.

Do you believe in Eucharistic miracles, and if not, how do you explain them?

Valletta · Apr 10, 2021

Albion said:
Folks, there were individuals in earlier centuries who verbalized their opinions about the Eucharist--in both directions, more mystical and less so.

But transubstantiation by whatever term was not the belief of the church during the ancient era. Only during the Middle Ages, with its fascination about things miraculous, did transubstantiation become an issue. And then it was made into an official doctrine in the 13th century.

There have been many Eucharistic miracles, in that century there was a priest who doubted, and during the mass blood began to come from the host. As a result the pope eventually declared the Feast of Corpus Christi.

Valletta · Apr 10, 2021

Hope1960 said:
Do you believe in Eucharistic miracles, and if not, how do you explain them?

I certainly believe there are miracles of all kinds. If you believe in prayer asking God for something, perhaps for courage or fortitude or for someone to be safe or cured, to me it follows that you believe in miracles.

Albion · Apr 10, 2021

Hope1960 said:
Do you believe in Eucharistic miracles, and if not, how do you explain them?

I guess that would depend on what's being considered a Eucharistic miracle.

FaithT · Apr 10, 2021

Albion said:
I guess that would depend on what's being considered a Eucharistic miracle.

The miracle of Lanciano.
Or what’s described in post #330.

Albion · Apr 10, 2021

There are many reports of bleeding hosts and weeping icons, etc. I haven't carefully researched any of them or of flowers blooming at the wrong time of year, but you can basically list me as a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of "miracles."

FaithT · Apr 10, 2021

Albion said:
I guess that would depend on what's being considered a Eucharistic miracle.

Albion said:
There are many reports of bleeding hosts and weeping icons, etc. I haven't carefully researched any of them or of flowers blooming at the wrong time of year, but you can basically list me as a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of "miracles."

I would skeptical except for one thing: many of these have been thoroughly investigated and no explanation can be found. I don’t know what to think. Then again, we saw David Copperfield live once and he performed acts that appeared miraculous.

The Liturgist · Apr 11, 2021

Hope1960 said:
I would skeptical except for one thing: many of these have been thoroughly investigated and no explanation can be found. I don’t know what to think. Then again, we saw David Copperfield live once and he performed acts that appeared miraculous.

I myself have had myrhh from myrhhnstreaming icons, and have experienced a miraculous healing through the Eucharist, and witnessed a miraculous healing through Holy Unction.

FaithT · Apr 11, 2021

The Liturgist said:
I myself have had myrhh from myrhhnstreaming icons, and have experienced a miraculous healing through the Eucharist, and witnessed a miraculous healing through Holy Unction.

What type of healing did you experience?

Valletta · Apr 11, 2021

Albion said:
There are many reports of bleeding hosts and weeping icons, etc. I haven't carefully researched any of them or of flowers blooming at the wrong time of year, but you can basically list me as a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of "miracles."

That's how the Catholic Church approaches such stories.

Jesusthekingofking · Apr 15, 2021

Mountainmike said:
You cannot be bible only.
The early church certainly wasn’t and couldn’t be.

What matters is what the bible means, not just what it says. That’s where tradition and authority come in,.

Those starting with the premise bible only have come up with thousands of permutations of conflicting and in some cases polar opposite beliefs. The bible wasn’t written as a manual, and it certainly does not have perspecuity.

The proof that sola scriptura is a complete #fail is that Luther Zwingli and Calvin had very different beliefs, starting with the same bible. How so if sola scriptura works?
Reformationists and Protestants have diverged ever since. Modern day lutherans don’t even hold luthers theology in considerable part.

The New Testament incidentally was chosen in part because it accorded with tradition, the faith handed down “ by word of mouth and letter” it is all there was in the early church.

Catechumens were told to keep early creeds secret and NOT write them down!
The Romans confiscated documents they found. Which were in very short supply anyway. Jesus said “ do this “ and “ teach this” not “ write this “ or “ read this”

Within a mile of my house I can ask several churches how to be saved and the answers are chalk and cheese. No unity whatsoever.

From once saved always saved, saved but can lose it, to not saved to the end. I can be told baptism is the first step, elsewhere ask Jesus into your life, and many disagree on baptismal regeneration , or whether infants can be baptised.

Get the picture?

All because sola scriptura is an utter # fail.
With sola scriptura all are pope of their own sect. They don’t want to abolish the pope, they all presume they are him! But Jesus only appointed one to “ tend his sheep” given the keys!

the more I observe of Protestants is they only agree on one thing: Catholicism is wrong. On All else they disagree!

Is roman Catholic Church got it right all the time? Being protestant merely recognised the church as a group of Jesus believer, we don't need another advocate.

Mountainmike · Apr 15, 2021

Jesusthekingofking said:
Is roman Catholic Church got it right all the time? Being protestant merely recognised the church as a group of Jesus believer, we don't need another advocate.

Jesus said the church needed authority on doctrine ( power to bind and loose) and structure ( succession, office of keys). It’s also clearly reflected in early letters, describing sacraments and episcopal authority.

Indeed the prime Protestant doctrine “ sola scriptura “ is a problem, scripture says the church ( not scripture) is the “foundation of truth” and New Testament canon, was not only a product of the church ( both what was selected and deselected), it wasn’t there for early Christians which “ handed down the faith” “ as Jesus handed to me, I hand down to you”. The present meaning of the word “tradition “ confuses what it really meant “ paradoseis” teachings handed down. The church was not even sola scriptura in Old Testament times. As witness the Mishnah.

Sadly without authority and tradition Protestant churches drift apart, and schism endlessly, they have no means to resolve their differences in interpretation of scripture.

Know church history well but stay protestant

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Returning adventurer.

Facilitator

Regular Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads