ICTHUS ICTHUS ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 9 2004, 01:15 AM'] ICTHUS, I ask you in all seriousness and with respect-- who else is part of the catholic church (in your view)? [/quote]
I will let the Westminster Confession answer this for me.

[quote]I[b]. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6][/b]
III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14][/quote]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2004, 07:50 PM'] Nope. [/quote]
Oh? Since when did you become a traddie, Cmom? I thought Protestants were part of the Church, but incompletely, or some other nonsense.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Luthien' date='Dec 9 2004, 02:23 PM'] Its not a wafer of bread, its the Body of Christ. [/quote]
I understand and agree with that, Laura. However, what I object to is Rome's conception that Christ is [i]substantially[/i] present (hence, tran[b]substantiation[/b]).

I tend to agree with the Eastern Orthodox who say (if I understand them correctly) that the mode of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is a holy mystery, and not to be probed into further than to affirm that He is indeed present.

[Justified Saint]

Transubstantiation is simply a matter of observation. That the bread and wine still look like bread and wine and still taste like it. The EO would mean the same thing but of course not admit it in words since it seems like some of them like to split hairs when it comes to Catholicism and reunion.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:39 PM'] Transubstantiation is simply a matter of observation. That the bread and wine still look like bread and wine and still taste like it. The EO would mean the same thing but of course not admit it in words since it seems like some of them like to split hairs when it comes to Catholicism and reunion. [/quote]
Well, I heard of a girl who got sick from gluten in communion bread. If no bread remained, no wheat remained in the bread, and therefore no gluten.

Since the girl got sick, there was gluten in the communion bread. Therefore, transubstantiation is false, proven wrong by science and plain reason.

[Justified Saint]

No, its chemical effects are still accidential to the bread or gluten which remain. And "remain" is the word that EOs tend to get all worked up over.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 10 2004, 08:24 PM'] No, its chemical effects are still accidential to the bread. [/quote]
Offly convenient.

Can you point me to such a miracle occuring in Scripture, as a precedent? (i.e. where something turned into something else, but still looked like the thing it was before it was turned, and retained the original things chemical properties?)

Otherwise I shall have to maintain that your doctrine is repugnant to Holy Writ and plain reason.

Edited December 11, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Justified Saint]

Yeah, it's usually referred to as the Last Supper.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 10 2004, 09:09 PM'] Yeah, it's usually referred to as the Last Supper. [/quote]
Amen!

Ichtus, do you really think that when Christ declared to his disciples that the bread was His Flesh and the wine His Blood that they took on the physical charitaristics of flesh and blood? If they didn't, was Christ lying when he said that? The presence does not have to change the physical charictaristics of the host to be present in it. Does a canteen turn into water when water is poured into it?

Peace,

Tim

[cooltuba]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 8 2004, 06:50 PM'] Well, what would you have me call you? Catholic? No, for to do so would be to affirm that in you subsists the catholic Church, which I will never do - you are apostate, and as such, have abandoned the catholic faith and the Holy Gospel. [/quote]
Crusader_4 was trying to help you, not disagree with you. The person (sorry, I don't know if you're male or female, so I'll have to refer to you androgenously) was saying that the early Church fathers were not all Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic refers to a rite of the Catholic church, and in the early days of the Church, there were three rites: The Roman rite, the Antiochian Rite, and the Alexandrian Rite. So, you were right when you said that the early Church Fathers were not Roman Catholic; sort of. You meant it in another way, but the statement was techinacally correct.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 11 2004, 02:18 AM'] Amen!

Ichtus, do you really think that when Christ declared to his disciples that the bread was His Flesh and the wine His Blood that they took on the physical charitaristics of flesh and blood? If they didn't, was Christ lying when he said that? The presence does not have to change the physical charictaristics of the host to be present in it. Does a canteen turn into water when water is poured into it?

Peace,

Tim [/quote]
Or, we could reject your doctrine completely and affirm something like Augustine and Calvin's "spiritual presence" doctrine. The latter fits in nicely with Christ's words at the Last Supper and in John 6, without any of those nasty logic issues inherent in transubstantiation.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Previous']Can you point me to such a miracle occuring in Scripture, as a precedent? (i.e. where something turned into something else, but still looked like the thing it was before it was turned, and retained the original things chemical properties?)[/quote]

[quote]Yeah, it's usually referred to as the Last Supper.[/quote] Logical fallacy - you are begging the question by assuming transubstantiation, when the very veracity of that doctrine is the issue under dispute.

[Justified Saint]

No, I am just assuming the accuracy of Jesus's words and refusing to believe him to be a liar.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 12 2004, 12:01 AM'] No, I am just assuming the accuracy of Jesus's words and refusing to believe him to be a liar. [/quote]
I do not presume Him to be a liar either, I just don't see the need to interpret His words as a substantial presence, as Rome does. As I said, you beg the question by assuming transubstantiation.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 12 2004, 12:04 PM'] I just don't see the need to interpret His words as a substantial presence, as Rome does. [/quote]
There is no room for interpretation. Jesus said "THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD." You either beilieve that the bread either changed into actual flesh and blood, or that His presence was poured into the bread and wine, while they remained physically unchanged. There is no doubt that the bread and wine were made into His flesh and blood that day, only wether they retained the physical properties of bread and wine.

This is a cyclical debate, though. We both believe what we believe so strongly that we will never change each other's mind. I respect your opinion, even though I respectfully disagree, and I thank my Lord and Savior for the miracle that I witness at every Mass I attend.

Peace,

Tim

[Paladin D]

For all we know, Jesus could've been using Wonder Bread at the Last Supper.

He [b]is[/b] God, He could just grab something from the future and use it in the present.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 13 2004, 12:25 AM'] There is no room for interpretation.  Jesus said "THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD."  You either beilieve that the bread either changed into actual flesh and blood, or that His presence was poured into the bread and wine, while they remained physically unchanged.  There is no doubt that the bread and wine were made into His flesh and blood that day, only wether they retained the physical properties of bread and wine. 

This is a cyclical debate, though.  We both believe what we believe so strongly that we will never change each other's mind.  I respect your opinion, even though I respectfully disagree, and I thank my Lord and Savior for the miracle that I witness at every Mass I attend. 

Peace,

Tim [/quote]
No. As said above, you beg the question by assuming the veracity of the doctrine that it is the object of this dialogue to prove. This is a classic example of Roman Catholic eisegesis.

"Spiritual presence" can still hold true with Jesus' words "this is my body"

Edited December 13, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Phazzan]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 13 2004, 08:34 AM'] "Spiritual presence" can still hold true with Jesus' words "this is my body" [/quote]
This is true.

Some of the Early Church Fathers interpreted "this is my body, this is my blood" (whatever order) in a symbolic sense, without denying the Real Presence. How can protestants deny 1500 years of Tradition on a grammatical technicality? It doesn't make any sense, and to suggest it does you are forced to admit the Christian churchwas in error (among other things) from the Apostolic era till the reformation. Rational thought goes a long way...

Edited December 13, 2004 by Phazzan

[Phazzan]

I also find it strange protestants are happy to declare all doctrines that have been believed since apostolic times (i.e. Trinity, salvation) as essential for salvation yet those that were changed due to the circumstances of the reformation (i.e. baptism, Real Presence) just happen to be non-essentials that don't require adherence.

Edited December 13, 2004 by Phazzan

[AaronDavid]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Dec 13 2004, 11:14 AM'] I also find it strange protestants are happy to declare all doctrines that have been believed since apostolic times (i.e. Trinity, salvation) as essential for salvation yet those that were changed due to the circumstances of the reformation (i.e. baptism, Real Presence) just happen to be non-essentials that don't require adherence. [/quote]
This is exactly why the "reforms" took place. It's in the very nature of the PROTESTants (note the emphasis) to selectively pick and choose the aspects they like (and which not to adhere to) of the teachings handed down to us from the early Church.

Much as Brigham Young, or someone, decided that he didn't like monogamy so he chose to relocate and start his faith.

Edited December 13, 2004 by AaronDavid