Non-denominational view of how to get to heaven.

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, it does.

So, please cite the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which state unambiguously that the bread becomes literal, physical flesh and the wine becomes literal, physical blood. I have looked in vain for any such statement.

Although this has been a consistent traditional view, current thinking has adopted a very nuanced Aristotelian argument which is actually not too distant from the Lutheran understanding.

 

[ebia]

So, please cite the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which state unambiguously that the bread becomes literal, physical flesh and the wine becomes literal, physical blood. I have looked in vain for any such statement.

Although this has been a consistent traditional view, current thinking has adopted a very nuanced Aristotelian argument which is actually not too distant from the Lutheran understanding.

You do realise that the Catechism is not definitive. It's a summary document.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You do realise that the Catechism is not definitive. It's a summary document.

However, it is frequently cited by Catholic posters here as being the definitive document of the Catholic faith. However, I do agree that it is a summary document. Do you know which, if any document, provides a complete discussion of the Catholic faith? If so, please direct me to the portion which states unambiguously that in the Eucharist the bread becomes physical flesh (with verifiable human DNA) and the wine become physical human blood (with verificable human hemoglobin).

 

[wordsoflife]

Here is a section on the Eucharist from the online Catholic catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Scroll down to "SECTION TWO THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" and the Eucharist is the 3rd sacrament down on the list. From reading this excerpt from the Catechism it is somewhat clear that Catholics believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.


Here is the Catechism's selection on the Eucharist from another website:

Catechism

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here is a section on the Eucharist from the online Catholic catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Scroll down to "SECTION TWO THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" and the Eucharist is the 3rd sacrament down on the list. From reading this excerpt from the Catechism it is somewhat clear that Catholics believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.


Here is the Catechism's selection on the Eucharist from another website:

Catechism

I certainly do not disagree that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. My contention is that they do not teach that the bread becomes physical flesh and the wine becomes physical blood. The teaching is metaphysical in nature such that the bread, while retaining all physical aspects of bread, becomes the body of Christ and the wine, while retaining all physical aspects of wine, becomes the blood of Christ.

 

[wordsoflife]

Yes, but no one could tell that you know the difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic POV from the way you've described them.

Martin Luther was a Catholic Monk thus he carried over many of the Catholic traditions into the Lutheran faith. I am a confirmed Catholic but I have been attending a Lutheran Church for some time and as far as I can tell there is little to no difference between the Catholic and Lutheran views of the Eucharist. Both Church bodies view the sacrament as the true body and blood of Christ.

 

[wordsoflife]

I certainly do not disagree that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. My contention is that they do not teach that the bread becomes physical flesh and the wine becomes physical blood. The teaching is metaphysical in nature such that the bread, while retaining all physical aspects of bread, becomes the body of Christ and the wine, while retaining all physical aspects of wine, becomes the blood of Christ.

What you have described is the Lutheran view of the sacrament and it is called "Sacramental Union". I am unsure as to whether or not Catholics hold to the same view. But, if "the bread becomes the body of Christ", isn't this speaking of the physical body?

 

[bbbbbbb]

What you have described is the Lutheran view of the sacrament and it is called "Sacramental Union". I am unsure as to whether or not Catholics hold to the same view. But, if "the bread becomes the body of Christ", isn't this speaking of the physical body?

Traditionally, there was exactly that difference between the Lutheran and Catholic views. The view presented at present is really very close to the Lutheran view, if not the same. The Wikipedia article on transubstantiation defines it thus:

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before.

Here is the link to the entire article - Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think you will find it to be quite helpful.

 

[wordsoflife]

Traditionally, there was exactly that difference between the Lutheran and Catholic views. The view presented at present is really very close to the Lutheran view, if not the same. The Wikipedia article on transubstantiation defines it thus:

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before.

Here is the link to the entire article - Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think you will find it to be quite helpful.

Both the Catholic view of "Transubstantiation" and the Lutheran view of "Sacramental Union" stress the real presence of Christ.

In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ's original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these "elements"—the consecrated bread and wine—really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.


Sacramental union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Martin Luther distinguished this doctrine from that of transubstantiation in this way:
"we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."

 

[wordsoflife]

So this is what I don't like about nondenominational Churches. They do not believe in the real presence:

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

 

[bbbbbbb]

Both the Catholic view of "Transubstantiation" and the Lutheran view of "Sacramental Union" stress the real presence of Christ.

In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ's original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these "elements"—the consecrated bread and wine—really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.


Sacramental union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Martin Luther distinguished this doctrine from that of transubstantiation in this way:
"we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."

Yes, both views emphasize the "real" presence but neither view today states that the bread ceases to be physical bread and the wine ceases to be physical wine. The Lutheran view is that the real presence is eternal and merely becomes apparent in the bread and wine. The Lutheran priest does not transform bread into flesh or wine into blood, as the Catholic Church of the sixteenth century claimed its priests were doing.

Today, the Catholic view of the "real" presence, as I stated previously, is much closer to the Lutheran view. The difference is that the Catholic view maintains that the bread does become the body of Jesus Christ (although not physically) and the wine become the blood of Jesus Christ (although not physically) when the priest intones the mystical words of institution, but the Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are present already in the bread and wine even though neither the bread nor the wine assume the physical attributes of flesh and blood.

What is confusing is the statement "anyone eating and drinking these "elements"—the consecrated bread and wine—really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well." Does that mean that Catholics and Lutherans are cannibals? I think not and they will be the first to deny such a ludicrous charge. The Wikipedia statement seems to be erroneous or misleading because in both churches there is the firm belief today that the bread and wine are or become metaphyscially the body and blood of Jesus Christ so that the communicant feeds upon the metaphysical body and blood which retain the physical attributes of bread and wine.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an officially recognized doctrinal outlet of any church. Perhaps something might be located from an authorized Catholic resource which may clarify things further.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So this is what I don't like about nondenominational Churches. They do not believe in the real presence:

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

If that is all you dislike about non-denominational churches you are doing better than I am. I could list a lot of things I dislike about them.

I think your disagreement is not merely with the vast majority of non-denominational churches on this doctrine, but with every church that maintains Zwinglian theology. This includes virtually all Baptist churches, virtually Anabaptist churches, virtually all Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, to mention but three primary branches of Protestantism.

I think you would like the various Orthodox churches which have their own understanding of the real presence.

 

[ebia]

However, it is frequently cited by Catholic posters here as being the definitive document of the Catholic faith. However, I do agree that it is a summary document. Do you know which, if any document, provides a complete discussion of the Catholic faith?

Such a document does not exist. Which, except it would put all those would-be church lawyers out of work, is probably a good thing.

It's fair to say that it's pretty authoritative in what it does say, but I don't think it's too safe to conclude to much from what it doesn't say.

Certainly the emphasis among theologians has moved away from saying things like "the body is no longer bread" but whether one can yet say much more than that....

 

[wordsoflife]

If that is all you dislike about non-denominational churches you are doing better than I am. I could list a lot of things I dislike about them.

I think your disagreement is not merely with the vast majority of non-denominational churches on this doctrine, but with every church that maintains Zwinglian theology. This includes virtually all Baptist churches, virtually Anabaptist churches, virtually all Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, to mention but three primary branches of Protestantism.

I think you would like the various Orthodox churches which have their own understanding of the real presence.

Yes, I don't care for the Baptist or Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches as well. I have found most nondenominational churches to be lacking in substance and doctrine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I don't care for the Baptist or Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches as well. I have found most nondenominational churches to be lacking in substance and doctrine.

I certainly agree with you that the vast majority of non-denominational church lack in substance and doctrine. Despite the fact that their services focus on lengthy sermons, what substance and doctrine they may possess is not communicated well, if at all, in these sermons.

This is also sadly true in most Traditional churches where the homily varies from ten to twenty minutes and rarely communicates much of substance. In my infrequent attendance at Catholic mass all but one homily was a harangue to give more money. The exception was an interesting homily which began with a stirring defense of justification by faith which oddly segued into a refutation of justification by faith.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Such a document does not exist. Which, except it would put all those would-be church lawyers out of work, is probably a good thing.

It's fair to say that it's pretty authoritative in what it does say, but I don't think it's too safe to conclude to much from what it doesn't say.

Certainly the emphasis among theologians has moved away from saying things like "the body is no longer bread" but whether one can yet say much more than that....

Thanks for the good summary. I think you are quite correct.

 

[wordsoflife]

I certainly agree with you that the vast majority of non-denominational church lack in substance and doctrine. Despite the fact that their services focus on lengthy sermons, what substance and doctrine they may possess is not communicated well, if at all, in these sermons.

This is also sadly true in most Traditional churches where the homily varies from ten to twenty minutes and rarely communicates much of substance. In my infrequent attendance at Catholic mass all but one homily was a harangue to give more money. The exception was an interesting homily which began with a stirring defense of justification by faith which oddly segued into a refutation of justification by faith.

I have attended a lot of Churches, nondenominational and denominational. I have had the best experience with the Lutheran Church. My Pastor preaches the gospel every Sunday and we partake of the Eucharist.

 

[Albion]

My Pastor preaches the gospel every Sunday and we partake of the Eucharist.

All right. That puts it in the camp of only about half of all Christian parishes, regardless of denomination.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have attended a lot of Churches, nondenominational and denominational. I have had the best experience with the Lutheran Church. My Pastor preaches the gospel every Sunday and we partake of the Eucharist.

If that is all your pastor is doing, then you are not too far from the non-denominational camp in which the gospel is preached virtually every Sunday and there is no other teaching. The Christian faith entails teaching. If one does a word study in the New Testament one will find that preaching (there are three or four Greek words which are thus translated) is of the Gospel and is virtually always to unbelievers outside of the church environment. Teaching, on the other hand, is to believers within the church. I submit that if preaching the gospel is being done exclusively, or primarily, to believers within the confines of the church, then the biblical standard is being missed.

 

[wordsoflife]

If that is all your pastor is doing, then you are not too far from the non-denominational camp

Actually, I have found this to be quite different at nondenominational Churches. What I found there was topical sermons for itching ears on Sunday's and not the pure gospel being preached. Look at what the apostle Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.