Scripture To Think About...

[Socrates]

Here's some more Scripture to think about:
[quote]For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: "Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me." In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me."
For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord[/b]. [/quote] 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

All the writings on the Eucharist from the early Church Fathers show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510frs.asp"]Here's a list of quotes from the Church Fathers on the Real Presence.[/url]

Who should we trust, the early Church, or people centuries later, who deny the Eucharist?
Why are we to think that people living over 1500 years after Christ have a better grasp of what Christ really taught than the early Church Fathers?

Elsewhere, Budge criticizes Catholics for being too "modern" and liberal with interpretation of Scripture, and not being "Biblical" enough. Yet here, apparently, we take the Bible too seriously for her tastes, and are too old-fashioned and strict in our beliefs.
"This saying is hard; and who can hear it?" ~ John 6:61

Some things never change.

[journeyman]

Like one of the other posters in this thread, the Eucharist was a key factor in my acceptance of Catholicism. I don't understand it, I can't really explain it . . . the closest I've been able to get is that Jesus reached out of the ciborium and dragged me kicking and screaming into the Church.

Budge, I don't have the grasp of substance and accident like Aloysius and the other philosopher types that drop in, or the Early Fathers library like Socrates, but your basic point seems to be that natural is natural. You need to remember that God is supernatural . . . creating heaven and earth from the void and darkness is not natural, you and I can't do it, neither can modern science - there is historical evidence of other supernatural events - the incorruptible bodies of saints, the precious blood that flows every year (in France? Spain?) but then coagulates and doesn't move for the rest of the year, other miracles (many of which involve either the bread or the wine). It is a fundamental belief (dogma) in the Catholic Church that through God's (supernatural) intervention, the bread and wine become, as Jesus said they would, as he said they must, His body and blood.

One definition of faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof - Merriam Webster online 2(b) [url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith"]http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith[/url]

If faith is God working in us, if it changes us and gives us a new birth from God, makes us adopted children of God through Jesus . . . why is it so hard to believe there might be some aspect of the bread or wine that we are not yet capable of seeing, identifying, categorizing?

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039112' date='Aug 7 2006, 10:37 AM']
wow talk about PRIDE...

the concept of ACCIDENTS was disproven centuries ago.

Every miracle in the Bible showed something happening. Same for Jesus, it was obvious and knowable that He was not like other men and divine...[miracles and more]

Human beings also have souls. They arent inanimate objects like bread.

Bread has no "inner reality" [substance] to be changed.

It is cooked dough.
[/quote]

The concept of accidents is a common Thomistic description of transubstantiation, but it is not the official Church description/definition of the miracle.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Budge]

[quote]
All the writings on the Eucharist from the early Church Fathers show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[/quote]

So what?

The apostles themselves warned of early deceivers during THEIR time, why is it so hard to believe that 100 ad, 200 ad and 300 ad will have their fill of them as well?

Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

I believe many of the Catholic Church early Church fathers fit in that category. Some were ok Christians Rome claimed for itself but others were not like Constantine's pal Eusebius. Reading that man's work over on Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham Univerity, online was quite a lesson.


[quote]
Who should we trust, the early Church, or people centuries later, who deny the Eucharist?
Why are we to think that people living over 1500 years after Christ have a better grasp of what Christ really taught than the early Church Fathers?[/quote]

We should trust Gods Word. Not men who just because they come from ancient times, are considering as all knowing. Everyone had an opinion in 200 ad just as they do know. Using ECFs as your foundation instead of Gods Word is the same as going to Family Bible store and picking 20 books written by theologians and claiming they are all substantiative and form the foundation of your belief.

As for John 6 that chapter is so abused and twisted by Rome its not even funny.

Ive asked Catholics what does this verse mean to you? I never get an answer.
[font="Arial Black"]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/font]
[quote]
Like one of the other posters in this thread, the Eucharist was a key factor in my acceptance of Catholicism. I don't understand it, I can't really explain it . . . the closest I've been able to get is that Jesus reached out of the ciborium and dragged me kicking and screaming into the Church.[/quote]

Another Jesus drew you kicking and streaming. Look Catholicism know that the wafer forms the foundation of the delusion. If we can teach that we are the only church that really has "god" [the wafer that is really god, that is how they win converts and seek to discredit all other Christian churches.[quote]

Budge, I don't have the grasp of substance and accident like Aloysius and the other philosopher types that drop in, or the Early Fathers library like Socrates, but your basic point seems to be that natural is natural. You need to remember that God is supernatural . . . creating heaven and earth from the void and darkness is not natural, you and I can't do it, neither can modern science - there is historical evidence of other supernatural events - the incorruptible bodies of saints, the precious blood that flows every year (in France? Spain?) but then coagulates and doesn't move for the rest of the year, other miracles (many of which involve either the bread or the wine). It is a fundamental belief (dogma) in the Catholic Church that through God's (supernatural) intervention, the bread and wine become, as Jesus said they would, as he said they must, His body and blood.[/quote]

Do me a favor and name one "miracle" in the Bible where NOTHING happens, that is able to be seen or felt or heard by any of the people talked about in the Bible.

The Eucharist "miracle" is akin to the Israelites swimming across the Red Sea and then getting out and saying...It really was parted, our clothes only appear wet but are really dry.

The bloody Eucharist miracles are from Satan, they are so gruesome, that even posting some of those pictures on TV would earn censorship. They make horror movies seem tame.

[quote]

. why is it so hard to believe there might be some aspect of the bread or wine that we are not yet capable of seeing, identifying, categorizing?[/quote]

The problem is your focus is on bread.

We are supposed to worship in Spirit and in truth, that means a focus on Jesus Christ.

[quote]
The concept of accidents is a common Thomistic description of transubstantiation, but it is not the official Church description/definition of the miracle.
[/quote]

What is the official description of the "miracle?"

[Justified Saint]

Budge,

The Church usually uses the term "apperances", stressing the complete transformation despite appearances. This is similar to the substance/accident description, but it is subtly different and distinct.

As to your other comments, I am thankful that many Protestants understand the value of the Eucharist to the early church and its present need for authentic Biblical worship.

In many ways your conception of Christianity and its place in history is so diametrically at odds with ours that it makes discussion on this point (and many others) fruitless.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039672' date='Aug 8 2006, 10:57 AM']
So what?
The bloody Eucharist miracles are from Satan, they are so gruesome, that even posting some of those pictures on TV would earn censorship. They make horror movies seem tame.
[/quote]

People said that the miracles Jesus performed were from demons too. Also, the Catholic Church is known for doing successful exorcisms and you can't really cast out demons with the help of demons.

[journeyman]

Budge, you didn't respond to the "supernatural" or "mystery" aspect at all. If we could understand all that God is and does, then He wouldn't be God and we wouldn't be His creatures.

If you're going to try to drag God down to the human level, so you can understand Him . . . there's an old phrase that seems to apply . . . 'any old stick will do to beat the Church of Rome, and if it breaks, you've got two!'

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039672' date='Aug 8 2006, 08:57 AM']
So what?

The apostles themselves warned of early deceivers during THEIR time, why is it so hard to believe that 100 ad, 200 ad and 300 ad will have their fill of them as well?

Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision.

I believe many of the Catholic Church early Church fathers fit in that category. Some were ok Christians Rome claimed for itself but others were not like Constantine's pal Eusebius. Reading that man's work over on Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham Univerity, online was quite a lesson.
We should trust Gods Word. Not men who just because they come from ancient times, are considering as all knowing. Everyone had an opinion in 200 ad just as they do know. Using ECFs as your foundation instead of Gods Word is the same as going to Family Bible store and picking 20 books written by theologians and claiming they are all substantiative and form the foundation of your belief.[/quote]
If the Early Church Fathers were "vain talkers and deceivers," who were the "real Christians" of this time? Where were they hiding? Could you give some names? Do we have any of their writings?
The deceivers repeatedly warned against in the New Testament were in fact the Gnostics and other heretics, who did teach doctrines contrary to the true Gospels, and were condemned by the Church.
Those were the folks who gave us such "masterpieces" as the "Gospel of Judas" and the "Gospel of Mary Magdalen" among others.

[b]This brings up the question: How do we know what writings are God's Word? How do we know which are not?
There were many religious writings circulating around at the time of the Early Church. How are we to know which writings are indeed God's Word, and which are vain deceptions?
Where did the Bible, God's Word itself, come from?
From what authority are we to believe that the books contained in the Bible are indeed God's Word?[/b]

I have asked you this question earlier in the thread, Budge, and you have roundly avoided answering. (I'd appreciate a straight answer to that question, not a tangential rant on the evils of Romish Popery.)

The Early Church Fathers' words are of value because they show what the Church did indeed believe in its early years. You have thus far given no reason why we are to give greater credence to the ideas and interpretations 16th-20th century century protestants over the Christians of the first several centuries of the Church (other than that they happen to support your own beliefs, or, rather, lack thereof).

[quote]As for John 6 that chapter is so abused and twisted by Rome its not even funny.[/quote]
And I would answer it is rather the protestants who have abused and twisted this passage.

Scripture backs Catholic beliefs. We have given plenty of Scripture Verses backing belief in the Real Presence. Saint Paul himself in his Epistles shows belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist. You have provided nothing convincing to deny it.

Why should we trust your own "interpretation" of Scripture over that consistantly taught by Church for 20 centuries?

By what authority are we to believe yours, or anyone else's personal interpretation of Scripture is correct?

The thousands of non-Catholic denominations cannot all agree among themselves about the correct interpretation of any passage of Scripture, including those on the Eucharist. Some preach transubstantiation like the Catholic Church, others preach co-substantiation, others say Christ becomes spiritually present among the beleivers, others say it is merely a memorial.

What makes your particular interpretation so authoritative?

[quote]Ive asked Catholics what does this verse mean to you? I never get an answer.
[font="Arial Black"]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/font][/quote]
When read in context, it is clear that this has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Christ was preaching that it was a man's heart, not whether he observed the dietary and cleanliness laws of the Pharisees, that made him clean or unclean.
[quote]But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.[/quote]Matthew 15:18-20.

[quote]Another Jesus drew you kicking and streaming. Look Catholicism know that the wafer forms the foundation of the delusion. If we can teach that we are the only church that really has "god" [the wafer that is really god, that is how they win converts and seek to discredit all other Christian churches.[/quote]
[b]"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him." [/b] John 6:56-57.

[quote]Do me a favor and name one "miracle" in the Bible where NOTHING happens, that is able to be seen or felt or heard by any of the people talked about in the Bible.[/quote]
And where in the Bible does it say that God's presence must be shown by external signs and miracles?
[quote]"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet." And he left them, and went away.[/quote]Matthew 16:4

Edited August 9, 2006 by Socrates

[Birgitta Noel]

Wait Pham, I've figured it out! Budge IS Jack Chick!

[Budge]

Yeah you caught me!

Oh no!!!!!!!!!

[Aloysius]

"name one miracle where nothing [apparently] happens" (added "apparently" because it was clear from your context)

The Incarnation.

God does not perform verifiable miracles on an ordinary basis, as it would destroy all hopes of supernatural God-given grace. He only performs such indisputable miracles extra-ordinarily as a supplement to faith.

The Passion of the Christ was so greusome it got rated R. I guess the bleeding Lord Jesus Christ must have been from Satan, huh? good logic, dude.

[Budge]

[quote]"name one miracle where nothing [apparently] happens" (added "apparently" because it was clear from your context)

The Incarnation.[/quote]

Nope wrong.

You are forgetting something...

The RESURRECTION.

{and Jesus did many things in view of folks that a normal person COULD NOT DO}

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Budge' post='1040087' date='Aug 9 2006, 07:25 AM']
Nope wrong.

You are forgetting something...

The RESURRECTION.

{and Jesus did many things in view of folks that a normal person COULD NOT DO}


[/quote]


Ummm, that doesn't meet your own criteria that "nothing happens". In the resurrection HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD, in my book that's something. In the incarnation God BECAME Man, but there's no visible proof that Jesus is God....

[mortify]

If we want to learn about Jesus it makes sense to turn to the Apostles, and if want to understand what the Apostles said and wrote, it makes sense to the turn their successors. And what we find is, that the early Christians *did* believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Sacrament.

I'm thinking of St Ignatius' letters in particular (~105 AD)

It is a belief that no only goes back to the beginning, but is universally held by the Western and Eastern Churchs which are apostolic. That alone should make any contemporary innovator stop and think.

Thus we are not worshipping a graven image, no more than the Aaronite priests were worshipping a graven image when God commanded them to construct the ark WITH THREE DIMENSIONAL STATUES OF ANGELS.


Gotta use the the ol' pea in the head sometimes.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039672' date='Aug 8 2006, 08:57 AM']



Do me a favor and name one "miracle" in the Bible where NOTHING happens, that is able to be seen or felt or heard by any of the people talked about in the Bible.


[/quote]


Genesis 1:3-5

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day.

Every day you wake up to a miracle, every night you go to bed to another . . . and most people, in the Bible, in the world today . . . see it, but think nothing unusual is happening