Refuting Rome

[truebluefan24]

A guy i work with is Catholic and he brought up a point that i have always been curious about myself.

If the Catholic Church is wrong why did it take 1500 years for the reform? And how come none of the early church fathers spoke out against tradition and the catholic eucharist as being the actual flesh of jesus? He even showed me John 6:42-68. This passage talks about how jesus said that it was his actual flesh. And then people got upset and turned away from him and Jesus did nothing to stop them. He even asked the Apostles if they were going to leave. What's up with that? Shouldn't Jesus have clarified that? Didn't he have a duty to clarify that?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

It is not quite that simple.

I've read a fair amount of the Fathers (I still have a lot more to read) and the Fathers are hardly monolithic.

The idea of "how" Christ was present in the Eucharist was debated up until Transubstantion became "the" official position at the 4th Lateran Council.

It's also clear, when reading the Fathers, that thradion was viewed very differently than the current view of the Roman Church (See St. Vincent, Sola Scriptura and Tradition).

The Church has always been involved in reform, for example St. Bernasrd led an important movement of reform. The tragedy the 16th century is that reform came to the church (Protestant and Catholic) only after the church was shattered. Leo X and other High Renaissance were some of the most corrupt Popes in the history of the Church.

Church history and the history of doctrine are pretty complicated subjects that Catholics and Protestants tend to be lack much knowledge about. Both sides tend to give simplistic arguments for their side.

I hope and pray for true Christian Catholicity.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

The Jewish roots have much more meaning. The most literal sense of course means canniblasim, which would mean a barrier to faith in him. Jesus´ hearers of course were shocked at what he said, but they were seeking an excuse for not obeying or coming to repentance.

The metaphor is beautiful...all references to eating and drinking in the book of (Ecc) signify Torah and good works.

The point is that Jewish understanding allows for symobic interpretation of "food and drink". (Try this for size) To eat the flesh of the Som of Man is to absorb his entire way of being and living. (Stern´s JNTC)

Shalom, David.

 

[prodromos]

From Finland.

The Jewish roots have much more meaning. The most literal sense of course means canniblasim, which would mean a barrier to faith in him. Jesus´ hearers of course were shocked at what he said, but they were seeking an excuse for not obeying or coming to repentance.

The metaphor is beautiful...all references to eating and drinking in the book of (Ecc) signify Torah and good works.

The point is that Jewish understanding allows for symobic interpretation of "food and drink". (Try this for size) To eat the flesh of the Som of Man is to absorb his entire way of being and living. (Stern´s JNTC)

Shalom, David.

How does this sit with the fact that the only symbolic meaning of "eating someone's flesh" in the Old Testament has extremely negative connotations?

John

 

[truebluefan24]

He was speaking to mostly Jewish people at the time, They wouldn't of gotten mad at him if it was a symbol like that because the Jewish people he was speaking to were Pharisees and Sadducees. They knew the scripture, they knew the scripture better than anyone. They would have understood a symbol. And then later on the early church fathers practiced the catholic mass to some extent and people still saw them as cannibals. My biggest question is this: Why didn't Jesus or any of the ECFs speak out against the literal meaning? In all the sources i've found they all accepted it without exception for the first few 100 years. And then the only people that refuted it were so far removed from christ that one could argue they just had weak faith. I know Jews and other non-christians refuted this claim to the actual prescence of Jesus in the eucharist. What prominent ECF refuted this claim? Peter didn't, Paul didn't, none of the apostles did. Why didn't they? and if they did, give me some proof. and i mean verifiable proof.

 

[a_ntv]

It is not quite that simple.

I've read a fair amount of the Fathers (I still have a lot more to read) and the Fathers are hardly monolithic.

The idea of "how" Christ was present in the Eucharist was debated up until Transubstantion became "the" official position at the 4th Lateran Council.

It's also clear, when reading the Fathers, that thradion was viewed very differently than the current view of the Roman Church (See St. Vincent, Sola Scriptura and Tradition).

The Church has always been involved in reform, for example St. Bernasrd led an important movement of reform. The tragedy the 16th century is that reform came to the church (Protestant and Catholic) only after the church was shattered. Leo X and other High Renaissance were some of the most corrupt Popes in the history of the Church.

Church history and the history of doctrine are pretty complicated subjects that Catholics and Protestants tend to be lack much knowledge about. Both sides tend to give simplistic arguments for their side.

I hope and pray for true Christian Catholicity.

In Christ,
Kenith

Please...

Trasbustatation is only a way of describe the same fact: the REAL PRESENCE.
Dont you like the word transubstatation? You can use (and Catholic Church accepts) any other description but the firm point is REAL PRESENCE.

It was NOT the 4th Lateran Council (1215) to define the REAL PRESENCE.
It was extremly firmly hold by ALL Fathers (II-III-IV century) and present in ANY very ancient Liturgy.

REAL PRESENCE is NOT a typical Catholic belive: it is held by ALL Apostolic churches, whose main branches are:
- Catholic Church
- Eastern 'Bizantine' Orthodox Churches (EOs)
- Orieantal Orthosdox Churches (OOs, coptic, armenians, syrians, ethipic)
- Assirian Church of the East (ACOE)
Please take note that each of above churches believe the REAL PRESENCE bc of his own Tradition, bc these chuches have completly indipendent tradition back to the Apostles.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Please...

Trasbustatation is only a way of describe the same fact: the REAL PRESENCE.
Dont you like the word transubstatation? You can use (and Catholic Church accepts) any other description but the firm point is REAL PRESENCE.

It was NOT the 4th Lateran Council (1215) to define the REAL PRESENCE.
It was extremly firmly hold by ALL Fathers (II-III-IV century) and present in ANY very ancient Liturgy.

REAL PRESENCE is NOT a typical Catholic belive: it is held by ALL Apostolic churches, whose main branches are:
- Catholic Church
- Eastern 'Bizantine' Orthodox Churches (EOs)
- Orieantal Orthosdox Churches (OOs, coptic, armenians, syrians, ethipic)
- Assirian Church of the East (ACOE)
Please take note that each of above churches believe the REAL PRESENCE bc of his own Tradition, bc these chuches have completly indipendent tradition back to the Apostles.

I too believe in REAL PRESENCE. I believe that I truly partake of Christ in the eucharist. What I don't know and the Scriptures don't say is HOW Christ is truly present (though He certainly is). Transubstantiation is a late theory as to the "HOW" the real presence is there.

I have done a fari amount of readin in the Early Church Fathers and I agree that they believed in the real presence. I don't think that can be easily disputed, but the don't say how. The how gets debated in the Western Church during the Middle Ages ,and the Church turned to Aristotle to explain the "how" part.

I think we wuld be wise to insist on real presence and not try to explain How it is there. The Fourth Lateran Council went beyond the Scriptures and the early tradition of the Church when it decided to make the "how" a matter of orthodoxy.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[a_ntv]

I too believe in REAL PRESENCE. I believe that I truly partake of Christ in the eucharist. What I don't know and the Scriptures don't say is HOW Christ is truly present (though He certainly is). Transubstantiation is a late theory as to the "HOW" the real presence is there.

REAL PRESENCE means real presence in the 'bread' after consacration, not only bc I believe in it, but bc of the sacrament.
REAL PRESENCE means that the 'bread' after consacration is the Boby of Christ even if I do not partake of it.
We believe in REAL PRESENCE, so we kneel, or bow, or anyway we have a huge respect of the conscated bread: we worship it: that means REAL PRESENCE.

I have done a fari amount of readin in the Early Church Fathers and I agree that they believed in the real presence. I don't think that can be easily disputed, but the don't say how. The how gets debated in the Western Church during the Middle Ages ,and the Church turned to Aristotle to explain the "how" part.

Well, the did not used the aritotelic phylosofy to describe it, nor (honestly) the explain the 'how'. But they firmly believed in it. They mainly used the couple words 'typos' 'untypos' that gave the idea (to koine greek speaking) of duplication. 'Untypos' was translated in latin in 'sacramentum'.
ALL early liturgy gave a huge sacrifical meaning to the eucharist. (Malachy prophecy in my signatur was used in most consacration prayers)

I think we wuld be wise to insist on real presence and not try to explain How it is there. The Fourth Lateran Council went beyond the Scriptures and the early tradition of the Church when it decided to make the "how" a matter of orthodoxy.

Well, do not confuse in a dogma:
- the actual fact
- the phylosophy (or language) used to describe it
- the culture that express the wording.

The fact never change, while the other two can and usually change.

So Catholic Church think that orthodoxs have a perfect undestanding and a true faith in the Real Presence, even if do not use the philosofic idea of Transubstatation.
If you believe in Real Presence, even if you do not use the idea of Trasubtation, you can be perfectly catholic.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

REAL PRESENCE means real presence, not only bc I believe in it, but bc of the sacraments.
We believe in REAL PRESENCE, so we kneel, or bow, or anyway have a huge respect of the conscated bread. We worship it: that means REAL PRESENCE

Hello a_ntv,

I agree that bothe the eucharist and baptisms are true sacraments and that they are means of Grace. I worship Christ and I believe Christ is present in the Supper.

Well, the did not used the aritoteli phylosofy to describe it, nor (honestly) the explain the 'how'. But they firmly believed in it. They mainly usd the couple words 'typos' 'untypos' that gave the idea (to koine greek speaking) of duplication. 'Untypos' was translated in latin in 'sacramentum'.
ALL early liturgy give a huge sacrifical meaning to the eucharist. (Malachy prophecy in my signatura was used in most consacration prayer)

Ok. Like I said I believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and that I recieve grace by partaking of Christ in the Eucharist by Faith. If I partake and do not have faith in Christ, then I eat and drink cursings upon myself.

Well, do not confuse in a dogma:
- the actual fact
- the phylosophy (or language) used to describe it
- the culture that express the wording.

The fact never change, while the other two can and usually change.

Ok. Are we agreeing or disagreeing. I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as do all traditional Reformed and Lutheran Protestants.

It is the discussion of "how" that divides us on this issue, but we all agree that we truly feast upon Christ in the Eucharist.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[a_ntv]

...all agree that we truly feast upon Christ in the Eucharist.
..

The 'how it happens' is not a matter of faith for us. That is not a problem. But we shall believe that it happens.

Sorry friend, but our doctrinal believes are quite different.

- Reformed Churches stress the Christ is in me bc I eat the bread. That is not enough. The Bread is the Body of Christ only bc of the consacration prayer of a bishop/priest, indipendently from us. We call 'spiritual communion' what you call 'communion'. Probably the term 'Real Presence' can be misleading. We sd use 'Material Presence'.

- The Eucharist is Not only a supper with Christ: it is mainly the death and risen of Christ.
It is a sacrifice: in the Eucharist, like the Present Bread is the Christ One Historical Body, the Present Sacrifice is the Christ One Historical Sacrifice. Orthodoxes arrive to say that the altar is the tomb of Jesus. And that was extremly evident in the Fathers and in early liturgies.

 

[SeraphimOCA]

Orthodox take the issue a bit more simply:

That there is a change and that the offered bread and wine become the precious and life giving Body and Blood of Christ is the Tradition...the faith passed on to us since apostolic times.

The fact of the Change and the importance of it is revealed to us...the how of this is not revealed to us and it is impious to pry into it beyond what has been revealed or may be reasonably understood from that revelation. The change is real and its made by the Spirit in the midst of the Church. That is all we know of the how.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

A guy i work with is Catholic and he brought up a point that i have always been curious about myself.

If the Catholic Church is wrong why did it take 1500 years for the reform?

Hello brother trueblue. That, and copious prayer, is how I began my journey from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.

As far as Refuting Rome, if we find the Truth, why refute it.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I too believe in REAL PRESENCE. I believe that I truly partake of Christ in the eucharist. What I don't know and the Scriptures don't say is HOW Christ is truly present (though He certainly is). Transubstantiation is a late theory as to the "HOW" the real presence is there.

No, it does not attempt to describe "HOW" the mystery happens. Transubstantiation simply states that the substances which start as the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is the most succinct way of stating the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

No, it does not attempt to describe "HOW" the mystery happens. Transubstantiation simply states that the substances which start as the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is the most succinct way of stating the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist.

On that we will have to disagree. Transubstantiation is the Medieval Churches use of Aristotle to explain the mystery of Christ presence in the Eucharist. There are other possiblities other than Transupstantiation.

The Church was in full agreement that in the Eucharist we partake of Christ. THey did not agree on the how. Tradition varied and there was no agreement. Agreement was impossed 1200 years after the fact and I think it was a mistake to go beyond the Scriptures.

If I did not. This is only one of a number of issues that keep me from returning to Rome.

Even though I disagree with you, I honestly desire greater Church catholicity. I work shift work and when I can not attend my own Church on Sundays, I attend Mass during the week.

I have no bone to pick and worship with my Roman Catholic brethren once or twice a month, but I can not return because I have to say "I believe transubstantiation is correct." If I only had to admit that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that it is a means of grace, then (on this issue I would happily comply). Sadly, that will never happen.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Ps. During the Eucharist I go up with my arms crossed and receive the priest's blessing. I do not partake, because I respect Rome's position, which does not allow me to partake.

 

[a_ntv]

On that we will have to disagree. Transubstantiation is the Medieval Churches use of Aristotle to explain the mystery of Christ presence in the Eucharist. There are other possiblities other than Transupstantiation.

The Church was in full agreement that in the Eucharist we partake of Christ. THey did not agree on the how. Tradition varied and there was no agreement. Agreement was impossed 1200 years after the fact and I think it was a mistake to go beyond the Scriptures.

If I did not. This is only one of a number of issues that keep me from returning to Rome.

Even though I disagree with you, I honestly desire greater Church catholicity. I work shift work and when I can not attend my own Church on Sundays, I attend Mass during the week.

I have no bone to pick and worship with my Roman Catholic brethren once or twice a month, but I can not return because I have to say "I believe transubstantiation is correct." If I only had to admit that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that it is a means of grace, then (on this issue I would happily comply). Sadly, that will never happen.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Ps. During the Eucharist I go up with my arms crossed and receive the priest's blessing. I do not partake, because I respect Rome's position, which does not allow me to partake.

Dont be focalized on the word 'Transubsantation'. Dont confuse an actual fact with the language used to describe it.
You have to believe in the actual change from Bread to Body of Christ, due to the power of the Holy Spirit: that is all.
If you believe it, and you know the Eucharist is a vehicle of grace, I think that you can take the Communion.

 

[dvd_holc]

Just a quick mention on the timing issue...how long was it after Adam that Jesus came? Who long after Noah did Jesus come? Who long after creation did we say that slavery is wrong because God created us to be free?

 

[truebluefan24]

I'm not so sure it is so simple in places like the Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure that Eastern Orthodox and a few other churches are able to recieve it but in the Catholic church you must recieve your first Holy Communion before partaking in an everyday mass or a sunday service.

Catholics understand the eucharist to be the actual change of substance into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. They also believe that it is not a recreation but is rather the exact same sacrifice Jesus made at the Last Supper and at Calvary. Catholics believe that since God knows no time every mass is the actual real sacrifice at calvary and not a representation or a rememberation. Since the Catholic Church believes all of that they believe strongly in the fact that the Eucharist bares in it the New Covenant that Jesus established with all of man-kind. And since we are actually partaking of Jesus and recieving his saving love there is also consequences to any covenant. If we do not hold up our end of the covenant and we dishonor the actual prescence of christ in the eucharist which should be revered as the most holy of holies, we are actually calling upon the lord to curse us. Because when we take part in the covenant we are saying to our lord "Jesus Christ, i take part in you and you in me so i can grow to be a part of you and you in me. I'm recieving your saving graces and your most holy body that you sacrificed so that i may see life." Since we call upon God's name or upon Jesus' name we are invoking his mercy and justice. If we break the covenant God, being the just God he is will hold up his end of the bargain and invoke the curses, w/e that may be, on us in the eucharist. That is why Rome does not want people that have not fulfilled the correct Sacraments or do not actually believe in Jesus' real prescence.

 

[dvd_holc]

"He even showed me John 6:42-68. This passage talks about how jesus said that it was his actual flesh."

No, it did not say it was his actual flesh...and if you look into the passover meal you might find something else...if you look at the passover meal where the euchirst came from then you might find something more...

 

[truebluefan24]

the last line should read "That is why Rome does not want people that have not fulfilled the correct Sacraments or do not actually believe in Jesus' real prescence to consume the actual prescence of Jesus Christ.

 

[truebluefan24]

and i quote from the most Holy Bible:

"47Amen, Amen i saay to you, whoever believes has eternal life.48I am the bread of life.49 Your ancestors ate the manne in the desert but they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 i am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that i will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The jews quarreled among themselves, saying, " How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (John 6:47-56) and the bible goes on to tell us that people left him because they couldn't handle this divine truth and he even asked the apostles if they were going to leave and Jesus nor his apostles did anything to stop the non-believers.

I don't see where Jesus says anything but calling his flesh the bread of life and telling us that we must eat of it to have life. If you fast forward to the Last supper Jesus says That he is giving the body of christ and then the blood of christ.

If you want to go back to the passover we can examine the facts there too. At the passover in order for the Israelite first borns to have life they had to take a spotless male lamb. With no broken bones. And slaughter it. They had to take the blood and smear it on the wooden doorposts and then THEY HAD TO PARTAKE IN A FAMILY SACRIFICIAL MEAL. They had to take the lamb that had just been slaughtered and actually eat of it's flesh! It was not just the slaughtering of the lamb that saved them. If they did not take part in this feast then the angel of death would have visited their house that night. In the old and new testament i'm finding the same reasoning that it is the actual true prescence of jesus Christ. I believe that firmly.

And if i am wrong please tell me and give me some proof but you are not going to convince me by just telling me that i am wrong and pointing me to the passover. If anything the passover emphasizes and solidifies the true prescence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist. It certainly does nothing to disprove it.