John Wycliffe the Brave...

[MamaZ]

How can we know Christ in the flesh when He is no longer with us in the flesh?

 

[MrPolo]

How can we know Christ in the flesh when He is no longer with us in the flesh?

Come to the Catholic Church and see (Jn 6:51-56).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Come to the Catholic Church and see (Jn 6:51-56).

Been there, done that. What I saw was a chap wearing a fancy robe passing out round crackers to the faithful, telling them that this is the body of the Lord, when in actual physical fact they remained round crackers. He also gave them a sip of wine from a goblet telling them that this is the blood of Christ when, in physical fact, it remained wine.

I there was any physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at the various masses I have attended I would gladly pay to have them analyzed for their DNA sequence.

 

[MrPolo]

Been there, done that. What I saw was a chap wearing a fancy robe passing out round crackers to the faithful, telling them that this is the body of the Lord, when in actual physical fact they remained round crackers. He also gave them a sip of wine from a goblet telling them that this is the blood of Christ when, in physical fact, it remained wine.

I there was any physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at the various masses I have attended I would gladly pay to have them analyzed for their DNA sequence.

If you knew your Catholic theology on the Eucharist, you would know that Transubstantiation does not effect a physical change but that the accidents of bread and wine remain.

 

[Secundulus]

If you knew your Catholic theology on the Eucharist, you would know that Transubstantiation does not effect a physical change but that the accidents of bread and wine remain.

It's amazing to me how the Sola Scripturists deny scripture to defend their own traditions.

That realization is what led me to where I am today.

 

[lionroar0]

If you knew your Catholic theology on the Eucharist, you would know that Transubstantiation does not effect a physical change but that the accidents of bread and wine remain.

Not always.(miracles)

 

[lionroar0]

Been there, done that. What I saw was a chap wearing a fancy robe passing out round crackers to the faithful, telling them that this is the body of the Lord, when in actual physical fact they remained round crackers. He also gave them a sip of wine from a goblet telling them that this is the blood of Christ when, in physical fact, it remained wine.

I there was any physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at the various masses I have attended I would gladly pay to have them analyzed for their DNA sequence.

Faith doesn't require proof. Such as no eyewitnesses to the ressurection, but we still belive it.

 

[boswd]

Been there, done that. What I saw was a chap wearing a fancy robe passing out round crackers to the faithful, telling them that this is the body of the Lord, when in actual physical fact they remained round crackers. He also gave them a sip of wine from a goblet telling them that this is the blood of Christ when, in physical fact, it remained wine.

I there was any physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at the various masses I have attended I would gladly pay to have them analyzed for their DNA sequence.

statements and the belief system like this is why I could never, ever be an Evangelical Fundy Christian.

Many of the arguments sound like atheist's arguments. Evangelicals are extremely limited.

 

[Ave Maria]

Been there, done that. What I saw was a chap wearing a fancy robe passing out round crackers to the faithful, telling them that this is the body of the Lord, when in actual physical fact they remained round crackers. He also gave them a sip of wine from a goblet telling them that this is the blood of Christ when, in physical fact, it remained wine.

I there was any physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at the various masses I have attended I would gladly pay to have them analyzed for their DNA sequence.

Tell me, if it was not the actual flesh and blood of Christ then how do you explain the many Eucharistic miracles that have happened over the centuries?

 

[MrPolo]

Not always.(miracles)

Miracles like Lanciano notwithstanding, of course.

 

[MamaZ]

Come to the Catholic Church and see (Jn 6:51-56).

We are not to recognize anyone according to the flesh. For His kingdom is not of this world. He came into the world to save His people from their sin. He was in the world but the world new Him not.. We are in this world be we are not of this world..

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you knew your Catholic theology on the Eucharist, you would know that Transubstantiation does not effect a physical change but that the accidents of bread and wine remain.

I do know current Catholic theology on the Eucharist which is why my statement is accurate. Your invitation to come to the Catholic Church and see the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. The only flesh and blood of Jesus Christ there was in the minds of the faithful.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's amazing to me how the Sola Scripturists deny scripture to defend their own traditions.

That realization is what led me to where I am today.

And what scriptures might that be?

Even Mr. Polo readily admits that Catholics are consuming bread and wine (the accidents) and not flesh and blood. Only those who maintain that the bread and wine are physically transformed into flesh and blood and thereby consumed can take a hyper-literal stand on scripture. For the remainder of us it is bread and wine which, in one form or another, is viewed as the body and blood of Christ,

 

[PaladinValer]

We are not to recognize anyone according to the flesh. For His kingdom is not of this world. He came into the world to save His people from their sin. He was in the world but the world new Him not.. We are in this world be we are not of this world..

More Gnosticism's nonsense.

Back to the OP.

Wycliffe's influence lead not to the edification of orthodoxy but the heterodox-at-best Lollards. While it is true that his greatest influence was on a translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English of the time (Middle English; very few people today would be able to read it, least of all get meaning from it), the truth of the matter is that the Holy Bible had already been at least partially translated into Early and Middle English, often with the local support of the bishop.

The real question is whether this actually contributed to Henry VIII's decision of an Authorized Version: The Great Bible of 1539. It is true that the people, having now had a taste of biased English translations (including Wycliffe's [which wasn't even translated from the original languages, one must remember] and Tyndale's), desired an English Bible. The King, in support of the bishops, agreed that it was not unorthodox for there to be an English translation, but it had to be not only translated from the original languages (therefore, non-Wycliffe), but also free from Protestant corruption (therefore, non-Tyndale). Henry VIII was no lightweight either in terms of theology; he was a bit of a scholar himself, having won the title Defender of the Faith for his impressive knowledge of theology. As such, he probably would have known that there was nothing against orthodoxy to have a vernacular Bible.

My conclusion is that Wycliffe is given way to much credit.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not always.(miracles)

And when, pray tell, was the last time that bread and wine were physically altered into flesh and blood?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I do know current Catholic theology on the Eucharist which is why my statement is accurate.

Hmm...

What I saw was a chap wearing a fancy robe passing out round crackers to the faithful, telling them that this is the body of the Lord, when in actual physical fact they remained round crackers. He also gave them a sip of wine from a goblet telling them that this is the blood of Christ when, in physical fact, it remained wine.

If you knew your Catholic theology on the Eucharist, you would know that Transubstantiation does not effect a physical change but that the accidents of bread and wine remain.

Perhaps not as accurate as you might think.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Faith doesn't require proof. Such as no eyewitnesses to the ressurection, but we still belive it.

I am not denying your right to believe anything you wish. The fact was that Mr. Polo issued an invitation to come to the Catholic Church to see the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. I have done so on several occasions and I am in agreement with you and Mr. Polo that the only flesh and blood of Jesus Christ that was present was in the minds of the beholders.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I am in agreement with you and Mr. Polo that the only flesh and blood of Jesus Christ that was present was in the minds of the beholders.

Needs more Aristotle.

 

[bbbbbbb]

statements and the belief system like this is why I could never, ever be an Evangelical Fundy Christian.

Many of the arguments sound like atheist's arguments. Evangelicals are extremely limited.

Perhaps, but Evangelicals and Protestants in general do not forbid participation in the Eucharist to only those who hold their particular theology concerning it nor do they limit salvation only to members of their denomination.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Lutherans do.