What do you Reformed Brethren make of this thread in CF ?

[cygnusx1]

I was amazed to read this thread , what is your opinion Brethren ?

http://www.christianforums.com/t735603

 

[oworm]

Pharisaic springs to mind

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it's in OBOB, since the RCC is sacramental and sacradotal, and has put strict restrictions on the material content of the bread, it seems to follow that the majority viewpoint=wine is sufficent, is consistent with their theology.

irrelevant to us, 1-reformed are not transsubstantiation in the Lord's supper 2-reformed are not sacradotal 3-if the RCC is not a true church then the issue is moot.

besides we strain at gnats enough within our own churches *grin* no need to go looking elsewhere for examples.

 

[cygnusx1]

it's in OBOB, since the RCC is sacramental and sacradotal, and has put strict restrictions on the material content of the bread, it seems to follow that the majority viewpoint=wine is sufficent, is consistent with their theology.

irrelevant to us, 1-reformed are not transsubstantiation in the Lord's supper 2-reformed are not sacradotal 3-if the RCC is not a true church then the issue is moot.

besides we strain at gnats enough within our own churches *grin* no need to go looking elsewhere for examples.

maybe so , but can we not learn from this ?

Is there not a danger that a misunderstood passage like "this is my body" can result in wild contorted theories that can happen to anyone ?

I must confess I find it shocking and bizarre........just where a mistake can lead to...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

maybe so , but can we not learn from this ?

Is there not a danger that a misunderstood passage like "this is my body" can result in wild contorted theories that can happen to anyone ?

I must confess I find it shocking and bizarre........just where a mistake can lead to...

when i consider the effects of superstitution and ignorance i am reminded of
hocus pocus......




for those who don't know----

1. Nonsense words or phrases used as a formula by quack conjurers.
2. A trick performed by a magician or juggler; sleight-of-hand.
3. Foolishness or empty pretense used especially to disguise deception or chicanery.


tr.v. ho·cus-po·cused, or ho·cus-po·cussed ho·cus-po·cus·ing, or ho·cus-po·cus·sing ho·cus-po·cus·es or ho·cus-po·cus·ses

To play tricks on; deceive.


[Possibly from an alteration of Latin hoc est corpus (meum), this is (my) body (words used in the Eucharist at the time of transubstantiation).]

 

[WashedClean]

Yikes! :o

I don't get it... If the bread/host becomes the literal body of Christ, then what difference do the original elements make????

Guess I should ask this question over there, but the truth is, I don't really care to know.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yikes! :o

I don't get it... If the bread/host becomes the literal body of Christ, then what difference do the original elements make????

Guess I should ask this question over there, but the truth is, I don't really care to know.

even Catholics have a major game trying to explain transubstansation , "it changes but it doesn't ", yada yada yada , in the end they get tired of the game and say "it is a miracle and must be accepted by faith.......interesting that they believe that without it they cannot have the fulness of Christ , and even with it they are not sure of heaven ...........

 

[WashedClean]

even Catholics have a major game trying to explain transubstansation , "it changes but it doesn't ", yada yada yada , in the end they get tired of the game and say "it is a miracle and must be accepted by faith.......interesting that they believe that without it they cannot have the fulness of Christ , and even with it they are not sure of heaven ...........

True Cygnusx1. They don't see it that way though. My husband's family is Roman Catholic and I love them dearly. I just wish they wouldn't follow their churches teachings so blindly.

 

[cygnusx1]

True Cygnusx1. They don't see it that way though. My husband's family is Roman Catholic and I love them dearly. I just wish they wouldn't follow their churches teachings so blindly.

well , I think it is down to Dogma and fear .....2 strong components.

 

[Acceptance]

Awww, I can't get that link to work, it gives me a message:

No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the webmaster

But I'm assuming that the thread discusses the Catholic theology of transsubstantiation. Transsubstantiation is not confusing, it is simply the belief that the bread and wine change into the actual flesh and blood of Christ but keeps it's appearance/taste of bread and wine (essentially so we can injest it without being sick). Catholics believe this to be the actual body and blood because, in part, of the following:

John 6:34-59 (cut down for length, but please read in context) --
"...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.' The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him..."

It then goes on to say (John 6:60-71):

"Then many of his disciples who were listening said, 'This saying is hard; who can accept it?' Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them 'Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?...' As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

People hearing Christ himself explain what the Eucharist is are physically sickened, they are so grossed out at the thought of eating human flesh and blood that they not only question what's said, but many leave Christ's following because of it. But Christ does not call them back saying "you misunderstood, it's just a symbol of my flesh and blood you need to eat", but rather he reinforces that they have not misheard; that his flesh is in fact real food. Other places in the bible when people misunderstood Christ's message (i.e. when he says a parable) it is explained to them. Here, Christ let's these people leave from his following (which is HUGE).


Hope this clarifies something...as I said I couldn't actually access the thread in question so I hope I didn't come from left field with this explaination.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Roman Catholics are not the only ones who believe that Christ is literally present in the Eucharist.

Lutherans, hold to the ubiquitous nature of Christ body since His ascension. They too believe that Christ body and blood are literally present in the bread and wine. They deny that the bread and wine are changed, but they do believe that Christ body and blood are present in the Supper.

Calvin too believed that we truly partake of Christ in the Supper by faith.

I think it is clear that ALL the Church Fathers believed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist in some way. None (that I know of) held to the Zwinglian/baptistic memorialist view that is the norm in Evangelical circles today.

As a general rule, Reformed Christians have always believed that we truly partake of Christ spiritually when we take of the Lord's Supper, and we believe that it is a means of grace.

R.L. Dabney is a Reformed Presbyterian who denied the traditional Calvinistic view, and his ideas have had lots of influence. I love Dabney's work but I think he was wrong here.

The RCC finally turned to Aristotle to explain their view. I think that was a bad idea. Still I think it is important to remember that Most Protestants and Catholics (East and West) have believe that Christ is truly present in the Supper in some way.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Filia Mariae]

Yikes! :o

I don't get it... If the bread/host becomes the literal body of Christ, then what difference do the original elements make????

Guess I should ask this question over there, but the truth is, I don't really care to know.

Clearly. Perhaps it would make sense for you to understand something before discussing it?

 

[tigersnare]

Clearly. Perhaps it would make sense for you to understand something before discussing it?

Perhaps it would make sense for you to realize that not everyone has the time or resources to study all the material it takes to fully understand your faith.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Perhaps it would make sense for you to realize that not everyone has the time or resources to study all the material it takes to fully understand your faith.

Certainly. But then it would behoove them not to attack that which they don't understand. Further, no one asked them to fully understand the Catholic faith. That's not going to happen on this earth. I simply invited Washed Clean to obtain a basic understanding of what is the issue here.