Catholic Eucharist Actual Blood and Body?

[Standing Up]

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (John 6:54)

It´s a lot more than an "implication".

Thank you. I understand RC believes the efficacy of the cross is found at their mass. Depending on which RCer, they will say even found solely at their altar with their duly ordained priest.

I was trying to find out whether L believes the same sorta thing.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So, if one doesn't partake of the eucharist with your priest, the efficacy of the cross isn't available? That's the RC and L implication?

Thank you. I understand RC believes the efficacy of the cross is found at their mass. Depending on which RCer, they will say even found solely at their altar with their duly ordained priest.

I was trying to find out whether L believes the same sorta thing.

Lutherans believe that the efficacy of the Eucharist stands alone; it's efficacy is not conditional on who celebrates or administers it. That being said, the authority to forgive sins is given by God to His Church; the duly called and ordained Pastor exercises that authority on behalf of the Church. For the sake of uniformity and good order within our Synod (and most Synods); only an ordained Pastor may administer the Sacrament; as ordination imparts that authority to the individual Pastor. Individual members are part of the Church, but the (visible) Church is a collective of all believers; including Clergy.

We also believe, in the case of reformed protestants, where their Churches and membership deny the real pretense, that the real presence and the efficacy in their Eucharist may be absent because their intent is that it is not there. Notice I said "may". This we do not know.

We do, however, accept that it is there in the RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches.

 

[PaladinValer]

No, not entirely but be honest, examine your church. Even my Four Square Church contained legalism to some extant along with other false doctrines.

My church isn't legalistic in the actual understanding of legalism.

Churches with canon laws are not legalistic. Legalism has to do with the Torah and its application in Christianity where it doesn't belong.

If a denomination is legalistic, it is unorthodox and must be immediately moved away from.

Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Vatican Catholicism are all non-legalistic.

The more you teach the Mosaic Law and enforce the Ten Commandments, the veil covers your head. When you read the New Testament of Grace through faith, the veil gets lifted.

And now since you've known what legalism is and still accused us of it, then that makes your accusation worse, because we're almost into the territory of libel. All we need to prove that is that you knew what we did before hand and you'd be guilty.

"But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."2Cor.3:15,16 NKJV Are you saying that this is farfetched?

I'm saying your ignorance of what our churches and denominations actually teach as well as the misapplication of that passage is farfetched.

Many pastors and their churches contain a theology that is both faith + works = salvation or faith + Law along with a little guilt = salvation.

1. The first example isn't legalism; it is a tautology if defined correctly. Otherwise, it isn't legalistic, but Pelagian or Semipelagian. That's not legalism.
2. If "guilt" in any way, shape, or form is directed towards Vatican Catholicism, sir, with all due respect, you have no CLUE what they teach.

I do. Vatican Catholicism isn't legalistic, Mark's Lutheranism isn't legalistic, and my Anglican Church isn't either. I understand their theologies well enough and my own EXTREMELY well enough along with a schema of ecclesial history and doctrine to know that for absolute certainty.

Continued false accusations will only make your position worse and worse. I'd suggest stop with the accusation of legalism AND LEARN INSTEAD!

The only benefit you have right now in saying this is that we have proof you haven't libeled, although you got thisclose to it.

Examine your church or any denomination, you will find pastors and/or members that are legalistic.

Individuals do not a church or denomination make.

Don't think your church is perfect.

There's a difference between perfection and heresy or unorthodoxy.

Read the seven letters to the seven church in Revelation and you'll find that back when they got started, they had many promblems not just with legalism but sin.

Straw Man, proven with the above.

Only two were without critism, Philadelphia the faithful church and Smyrna, the persecuted. We find a mixture of all these problems in modern churches, with pastors, members all having a little leaven in their bread.

See above.

Here's the crux of the issue: you are using a term incorrectly despite knowing and displaying the knowledge thereof what it means. You've shown to have an extremely inaccurate understanding of our theology and two people have told you that. An honest person would stop and start learning instead of blindly continuing to make false accusations.

Ask away. I am not going to reply to any further insulting false accusations. I will happily teach but do nothing more.

 

[Standing Up]

Lutherans believe that the efficacy of the Eucharist stands alone; it's efficacy is not conditional on who celebrates or administers it. That being said, the authority to forgive sins is given by God to His Church; the duly called and ordained Pastor exercises that authority on behalf of the Church. For the sake of uniformity and good order within our Synod (and most Synods); only an ordained Pastor may administer the Sacrament; as ordination imparts that authority to the individual Pastor. Individual members are part of the Church, but the (visible) Church is a collective of all believers; including Clergy.

We also believe, in the case of reformed protestants, where their Churches and membership deny the real pretense, that the real presence and the efficacy in their Eucharist may be absent because their intent is that it is not there. Notice I said "may". This we do not know.

We do, however, accept that it is there in the RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches.

Is the efficacy of the cross available apart from the eucharist?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is the efficacy of the cross available apart from the eucharist?

Indeed it is, study the 5 Solas; I don't see "Sola Sacramentum".

 

[Standing Up]

Indeed it is, study the 5 Solas; I don't see "Sola Sacramentum".

Finally. So, what was the issue

 

[placidus]

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!

This is really interesting. I remember reading about an unchurched, you might say 'pagan' couple taking communion in a Coptic (Orthodox) Church and responding in disgust remarking that the wine 'tasted like blood' and they would never do it again. Perhaps to those outside the 'body', those who recieve unlawfully, recieve condemnation unto themselves while the rest of us recieve the body and blood 'cloaked' as it were with the taste of the fruit of the vine...........................................................................

 

[Christopher Fleming]

This is really interesting. I remember reading about an unchurched, you might say 'pagan' couple taking communion in a Coptic (Orthodox) Church and responding in disgust remarking that the wine 'tasted like blood' and they would never do it again. Perhaps to those outside the 'body', those who recieve unlawfully, recieve condemnation unto themselves while the rest of us recieve the body and blood 'cloaked' as it were with the taste of the fruit of the vine...........................................................................

Wow! I´d never heard of that.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

This is really interesting. I remember reading about an unchurched, you might say 'pagan' couple taking communion in a Coptic (Orthodox) Church and responding in disgust remarking that the wine 'tasted like blood' and they would never do it again. Perhaps to those outside the 'body', those who recieve unlawfully, recieve condemnation unto themselves while the rest of us recieve the body and blood 'cloaked' as it were with the taste of the fruit of the vine...........................................................................

I'm surprised that they would have been permitted (or they just invited themselves) to commune at a Coptic church. Eastern churches do use red wine mixed with hot water, so the taste is a bit odd.

Brian

 

[GreekOrthodox]

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.

I remember my pastor once told a joke of a Baptist & Lutheran debating the form of baptism.

L: If he is standing in water to his knees, is that baptism?
B: No
L: What about to the waist?
B: No
L: What about up to his neck?
B: No, the top of his head has to be covered.
L: Well, thats what we do, so what's your problem?

Brian

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I remember my pastor once told a joke of a Baptist & Lutheran debating the form of baptism.

L: If he is standing in water to his knees, is that baptism?
B: No
L: What about to the waist?
B: No
L: What about up to his neck?
B: No, the top of his head has to be covered.
L: Well, thats what we do, so what's your problem?

Brian