Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1252257319' post='1961836'] So what if some people in the past believed the actual event was made present? That doesn't make it any more true than what a few popes have opined on abortion! "He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body" (Gregory VI, circa 1000) and Gregory XIII said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn't yet human (circa 1500). [/quote] This is really a tangent, but I'm not going to let you get away with this. At that time, the science of those days could not detect the beginning of life or examine the moment of conception. The first indication anyone had of life was movement, brought about by the soul. Pope Gregory was not excusing abortion, as you would purport. He was saying that murder, which is defined as the unjust taking of human life, could not apply where there is no life, that is no soul. The problem is that the earliest indication of a soul in those times was a few months into pregnancy, giving the impression that Gregory approved of early abortions. In fact, he didn't, he would have been against them for the same reason we are against contraception, e.g. that it defies God's designs for life, he simply wouldn't have classified early abortion as murder because he wasn't aware that the soul was already in the child at that point. Had he been aware of the scientific information we now have, he would have been very clear that abortion is always murder.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1252257319' post='1961836'] Roman Catholics must face the fact that their church has inexcusably [i][u]transubstantiated[/u] [/i] all the attributes of the Holy Spirit and turned them into the alleged benefits to be received by swallowing the Eucharist. [/quote] Are you trying to say that the Catholic Church changed the substance of the attributes of the Holy Spirit? Somehow, I really don't think you know what the word "transubstantiation" means.
Apotheoun Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) I thought that I would post this brief speech addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to Pope Benedict XVI during the latters visit to the Phanar in November 2006, because it shows that the ancient apostolic Churches (i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) hold a common faith as it concerns the nature of the liturgy and that they all (i.e., the ancient Churches) believe that - through the prayer of invocation - the Eucharistic elements become the true body and blood of Christ, "the medicine of immorality" as St. Ignatios called them in his letter to the Ephesians. Here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch said about the divine liturgy: [size="3"]With the grace of God, Your Holiness, we have been blessed to enter the joy of the Kingdom, to "see the true light and receive the heavenly Spirit." [i]Every celebration of the Divine Liturgy is a powerful and inspiring con-celebration of heaven and of history[/i]. Every Divine Liturgy is both an [i][b]anamnesis[/b][/i] of the past and an anticipation of the Kingdom. We are convinced that during this Divine Liturgy, we have once again been transferred spiritually in three directions: [i]toward the kingdom of heaven where the angels celebrate; toward the celebration of the liturgy through the centuries; and toward the heavenly kingdom to come[/i]. This overwhelming continuity with heaven as well as with history means that the Orthodox liturgy is the mystical experience and profound conviction that "Christ was, is, and ever shall be in our midst!" For in Christ, there is a deep connection between past, present, and future. [i]In this way, the liturgy is more than merely the recollection of Christ's words and acts. It is the realization of the very presence of Christ Himself, who has promised to be wherever two or three are gathered in His name[/i]. At the same time, we recognize that the rule of prayer is the rule of faith, that the doctrines of the Person of Christ and of the Holy Trinity have left an indelible mark on the liturgy, which comprises one of the undefined doctrines, "revealed to us in mystery," of which St. Basil the Great so eloquently spoke. This is why, in liturgy, we are reminded of the need to reach unity in faith as well as in prayer. Therefore, we kneel in humility and repentance before the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious Name we bear and yet at the same time whose seamless garment we have divided. We confess in sorrow that we are not yet able to celebrate the holy sacraments in unity. And we pray that the day may come when this sacramental unity will be realized in its fullness. And yet, Your Holiness and beloved brother in Christ, this con-celebration of heaven and earth, of history and time, brings us closer to each other today through the blessing of the presence, together with all the saints, of the predecessors of our Modesty, namely St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. We are honored to venerate the relics of these two spiritual giants after the solemn restoration of their sacred relics in this holy church two years ago when they were graciously returned to us by the venerable Pope John Paul II. Just as, at that time, during our Thronal Feast, we welcomed and placed their saintly relics on the Patriarchal Throne, chanting "Behold your throne!" So, today we gather in their living presence and eternal memory as we celebrate the Liturgy named in honor of St. John Chrysostom. [i]Thus our worship coincides with the same joyous worship in heaven and throughout history[/i]. Indeed, as St. John Chrysostom himself affirms: "[i]Those in heaven and those on earth form a single festival, a shared thanksgiving, one choir[/i]" (PG 56.97). Heaven and earth offer one prayer, one feast, and one doxology. The Divine Liturgy is at once the heavenly kingdom and our home, "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21.1), the ground and center where all things find their true meaning. The Liturgy teaches us to broaden our horizon and vision, to speak the language of love and communion, but also to learn that we must be with one another in spite of our differences and even divisions. In its spacious embrace, it includes the whole world, the communion of saints, and all of God's creation. The entire universe becomes "a cosmic liturgy", to recall the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor. This kind of Liturgy can never grow old or outdated. The only appropriate response to this showering of divine benefits and compassionate mercy is gratitude ([i]eucharistia[/i]). Indeed, thanksgiving and glory are the only fitting response of human beings to their Creator. For to Him belong all glory, honor, and worship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.[/size] Edited September 6, 2009 by Apotheoun
MIKolbe Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' date='06 September 2009 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1252258196' post='1961849'] Somehow, I really don't think you know what the word "transubstantiation" means. [/quote] I think Apot referenced this earlier, and it seems like a really valid request now. I cannot find Storm's answer... Storm- define transubstantiation. (or link me to your post where you have defined it) pax, MIKolbe
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' date='06 September 2009 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1252257248' post='1961834'] I want to jump on with this and try to put something in simple terms. Storm, you repeatedly accuse us of saying that the Eucharist is somehow a time-traveling host. This, of course, is incorrect. Rather, it would be correct to say that the Mass makes the Christian faithful present to God in such a way that we are, at least to some extent, within His time frame. All moments throughout history are the present to God, who knows neither past nor future. Because He is not subject to time, Adam and Eve are as present to Him now in their earthly lives as we are present to Him. In the Mass, we step into Kairos, the Greek term for "God's time" (for lack of a better term). The Eucharist is Jesus, and therefore God. All His life is present to Him, and in receiving Him, all His life is present to us. The Mass makes present for us the events of the temporal past and future in a mystical way. Neither the Eucharist nor the congregation time travels; rather, we come into communion with God, for whom all time is the present. [/quote] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]Raphael,[/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I will try to get to the epistle you posted to me as soon as I can.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Second, I never said the Eucharist was a time traveling Host. I merely conveyed what the Catholic Church voices at every Mass; namely that they pray that the Lord will send His angel to somehow carry (in a way not specified) the sacrifice of Christ to Heaven's altar. Needless to say, this is nothing but wishful thinking.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Third, you are indeed a noble opponent. But I must tell you that your armchair theological gymnastics attempting to validate the "present tense mode of the Calvary event" are unconvincing. Adam and Eve are DEAD---and hopefully in Heaven. To suggest that they are present to God in their EARTHLY lives in exactly the same way we are present to Him now in the year 2009, is unforgivably illogical. [i]"The former things have passed away!" [/i](Rev 21:4). And of course, you ran to that old stand-by escape hatch by pinning your hopes for the Calvary episode being [u]actually[/u] present at Mass (literally), by turning to that ever popular excuse, it being done in "a mystical way". I understand what you are saying about the eternity of God to the extent you have defined it and some of it is true. But you push too far by vindicating the Mass in saying, "For Him, all time is present". This is nothing but phyilosophical mumbo jumbo. You are a mere man trying to describe the Creator of the Universe whose ways are higher than ours, "who can know Him fully?"---so say the Psalms. We MUST stay within biblical guard rails and not venture out into the fantasy world of the earthly Adam & Eve being just as much present to Him as Calvary----or any other event in history. There is simply no evidence for this and I am quite certain He would not wish us to speculate in such a vain fashion----just as those at the Pontifical Acadamy of Science were speculating on life on other planets and what we might need to do to evangelize them. SPARE ME! Evangelizing life on other planets is none of our business. In any case, as we said in the essay,[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]____________________________________________________________________________________[/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]when we take God's character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Transubstantiation is an allegedly "invisible" miracle that cannot be seen. We object. The wafer looks, tastes, smells and feels like a wafer--- and that is exactly what it is. How can we forget water changing into wine, a rod being changed into a serpent, the sea being split down the middle, the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and even dry bones are changed into an army of men, all to the amazement of the onlookers {Ezekiel 37:5-10}. And John the Baptist said that God could of these very stones, raise up children to Abraham {Matt 3:9}. But if He did, they would no longer retain the appearance of stones! Moreover, lest we forget that [i]Jesus turned water into wine, [/i]we are reminded that the guests did [u]not[/u] say, "Why are you serving us water?". Neither did Jesus respond, "It may look and taste like water, but it is actually wine under the appearance of water." No, in fact the guests considered the wine to [u]be[/u] the finest served that night" (John 2:1-10). Consequently, we must conclude that invisible miracles such as disguising Himself "under the form of bread and wine" is saying something about God which is incorrect {Job 42:8}. [/size][color="#ff0000"] [/color] [/color][/size][/font]
Slappo Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 ughh... You just don't listen or read do you? You're ignoring half the posts and then confusing logic. And if I were Rexi I'd say you can't spell... "phyilosophical" clearly it is philosophical...
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' date='06 September 2009 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1252259226' post='1961864'] I think Apot referenced this earlier, and it seems like a really valid request now. I cannot find Storm's answer... Storm- define transubstantiation. (or link me to your post where you have defined it) pax, MIKolbe [/quote]
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is: I've been asking the same question for 20 years that no Catholic can answer and neither will YOU be able to answer it because it will expose your hypocrisy. The question is, If, as you say, I do not understand Catholicism, then kindly point out to me just ONE Protestant on planet Earth who DOES understand it---and REJECTS it at the same time. Then I will check their writings and see if I agree. Chances are, I will. I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS".
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Slappo' date='06 September 2009 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1252261759' post='1961918'] ughh... You just don't listen or read do you? You're ignoring half the posts and then confusing logic. And if I were Rexi I'd say you can't spell... "phyilosophical" clearly it is philosophical... [/quote]
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Slappo.....I am very tempted to say you deserve a slap, but I won't. If the only relevent thing you have to say is to point out a spelling error, you clearly are incapable of giving a defence of your faith. And your comment that I am confusing logic without giving an example, is reprehensible.
mortify Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929'] What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. [/quote] At least if you were ignorant you would have an excuse, but now that you *know* and *understand* the teaching, you are guilty for rejecting it and are properly called a heretic. You're walking through the wide gate to hell my friend, and you better humble yourself and seriously consider the universal belief of all early Christians, that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, otherwise you will have a sad end.
homeschoolmom Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929']I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? [/quote] Exactly which Prestestant point of view do you mean? (there are many) (See how I posted your quote with my response in the same post? Why are you not doing likewise?)
Apotheoun Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929'] What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is: I've been asking the same question for 20 years that no Catholic can answer and neither will YOU be able to answer it because it will expose your hypocrisy. The question is, If, as you say, I do not understand Catholicism, then kindly point out to me just ONE Protestant on planet Earth who DOES understand it---and REJECTS it at the same time. Then I will check their writings and see if I agree. Chances are, I will. I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS". [/quote] There is no reason to be evasive. The fact that I, and several other posters, have asked you to define the word "transubstantiation," which is an act that does not require that you believe in what the term is meant to convey, does not impugn your intelligence, nor does it imply that I, or the others who have asked this of you, think that Protestants are inherently incapable of properly defining the word while simultaneously rejecting its theological validity. Now with that out of the way, I can say that the only reason why I have asked that you define the word is because some of your comments betray a physicalist rather than a substantialist understanding of the term, and so by giving a concise definition it would help to clarify whether you really are confused on this point or not. Edited September 6, 2009 by Apotheoun
Marie-Therese Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929'] What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is: I've been asking the same question for 20 years that no Catholic can answer and neither will YOU be able to answer it because it will expose your hypocrisy. The question is, If, as you say, I do not understand Catholicism, then kindly point out to me just ONE Protestant on planet Earth who DOES understand it---and REJECTS it at the same time. Then I will check their writings and see if I agree. Chances are, I will. I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS". [/quote] Stormstopper, I have read carefully each and every post you have posted here. I have carefully weighed your arguments. I find it interesting that since I made it clear that I was once Protestant (for over 30 years) and have since converted, you have responded to none of my posts. Instead you continue to post disconnected diatribes that provide no theological substance to reinforce your point; you offer nothing more than your personal conjecture supported by innumerable and unnamed others you refer to as "we" in your posts. Anyone can take selected Scripture and make a case to support just about anything, including murder. Catholics reject emphatically this cafeteria-style treatment of Holy Writ. What I see is a person who is clinging desperately to his point of view and is trying to reinforce his mistaken theology by tearing others down. You cannot offer a reasoned, fair, anger-free discourse here. Instead you try to ram your theological view down the collective Catholic throat by trying to intimidate us into agreement. In one of your previous posts you make the statement that "your theology is constantly running afoul of biblical parameters--and I am not going to be taken in by it." If you are so certain of your perspective, how could you be "taken in" by our argument? That, to be honest, sounds like a statement something akin to a small child plugging his ears and saying "na na na na na" in order to avoid hearing something. Truth is truth. It has a way of being persuasive. You continue to make this assertion that somewhere there is a mystical Protestant who completely comprehends Catholic theology and rejects it. The fact is, Protestants who completely comprehend Catholic theology don't reject it, they become Catholics. Truth, once received and understood, is difficult to reject. Protestants reject Catholic theology mainly because they have never attended a Catholic Mass, never received education from Catholic teachers...so they have no real context for the information they receive. Have you, Stormstopper, ever attended a Catholic Mass? Ever had someone teach you the meaning of the liturgy? Aside from that, as your posts demonstrate, you do NOT have a correct understanding or interpretation of Catholic dogma. I have read very little in your argument that represents the teaching of the Church on what the Eucharist is. So...that mystical Protestant who is the ultimate refutation of Catholicism? To answer, they don't exist. I have a hard time continuing to try to compose insightful and considerate responses to a person who is determined to be caustic and completely unreceptive to dialogue. Dialogue, for your future reference, is the flow of conversation between two parties, NOT the insistent shouting of one party resulting in the submission of another. May our Lord Jesus Christ give you His grace and peace.
mommas_boy Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1252255509' post='1961813'] Mr. Apo.... Other than your belief that the wafer is a symbol of something which really IZZZZ what it signifies, can you give me an example of something in "real time" ----or ANY time for that matter, where a symbol really izzzzzz, "in some kind of way" what it signifies? You cannot use something like the flag is a symbol for liberty and freedom, because one is an actual object and the other are conceptualized ideas. The Catholic Church teaches that the elements ARE the body of Christ, and you would need to demonstrate that object 1 is equal to object 2. I submit you cannot do this and are hiding behind a symantic word game. As we said in the essay: [/quote] Dear Stormstopper, Welcome to Phatmass. I've been briefly skimming your posts, and this one jumped out at me, because it really gets to what we as Catholics call the [i]sensis fidelis[/i], or sense of the Faith. I think that one of your frustrations in speaking with us has been partly caused by the fact that we as Catholics have an entirely different way of seeing the world, and the Christian Faith -- it is this sensis fidelis. Part of this sensis fidelis is the difference between the words "sacrament" and "symbol". A symbol is merely a representation of an idea. But a sacrament is what we call an "efficacious symbol"; that is to say, it actually [b]accomplishes[/b] (or has the [b]effect[/b], hence the phrase [b]efficacious[/b] symbol) what it symbolizes (this is different from saying that it [b]is[/b] what it symbolizes). Because Christ most often teaches us about our relationship with God in terms of marriage, I will speak to you of sacraments also in marital terms: [b]It is like a kiss[/b]. Now, the thing about a kiss is that yes, it does symbolize love. But a kiss does more than [i]just[/i] symbolize love. It actually makes love present, and felt. A kiss does not just symbolize love, it is an active "I love you" -- it is a gift, a choice, that accomplishes love. I am reminded of one evening with my girlfriend (ironically, the same day that I had taken her to look at engagement rings), where she had a fever that spiked to 104*F. I had to get her fever back down, using ice packs, cold compresses, etc. Now, my girlfriend has a mood disorder called premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), which causes her to sometimes have wild mood swings during her period. The high fever somehow messed with her brain chemistry, and the PMDD reared its very ugly head. This was the first time that I had seen her in her throws of PMDD, and Emily later told me that this episode was among the more dramatic that she's ever had. During the episode, she expressed concern that now I had seen her PMDD, I wouldn't love her anymore. I thought about this very deeply in the brief moment that passed. We had just that day looked at engagement rings so that I could get an idea for what I would surprise her with later, and had talked and planned very intimately after that. Yet, this situation made the choice of getting married very real for me. It brought the words of the wedding vow "in sickness and in health" into full reality for me. And then I made a choice. She was sweaty from the fever, her nose running, and she was babbling incoherently about her insecurities brought on by the PMDD. I interrupted her babbling, and kissed her. That kiss not only [i]symbolized[/i] love, but was in itself an [i]act[/i] of love. This is an important, albeit subtle, distinction: while a kiss by itself is merely a symbol of love, the [b]gift[/b] of the kiss accomplishes love. The is so important, I will say it again: while a kiss by itself is merely a symbol of love, the [b]gift[/b] of the kiss accomplishes love. In other words, the kiss was precisely what Emily needed in order to regain confidence in herself and in my love for her. By kissing her, her confidence was restored, and that [b]gift[/b] was itself love. [b]It is like the marital embrace[/b]. Sex is itself a sign of love, but just like the kiss, actually has the effect of making that love present. So present, in fact, that nine months later, you have to give that love a name. Blessings, Kris Edited September 6, 2009 by mommas_boy
MIKolbe Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929'] What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is: I've been asking the same question for 20 years that no Catholic can answer and neither will YOU be able to answer it because it will expose your hypocrisy. The question is, If, as you say, I do not understand Catholicism, then kindly point out to me just ONE Protestant on planet Earth who DOES understand it---and REJECTS it at the same time. Then I will check their writings and see if I agree. Chances are, I will. I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS". [/quote] WOW.. That is a pretty tough question, Mr. Storm. Please know I did not mean to insult you. Those who know me will testify to the fact that if I were to insult you, you would definately know it. Mostly all of the protestants I know, who understood the Catholic Faith, converted to catholicism. But there is one. My Father-In-Law. He was a catholic growing up. He knows what we believe; and rejects it...not all of it, but parts (the Eucharist he does not agree, he agrees with the intercession of saints, he believes baptism is of the Word (eph 5:26) not of water, he rejects pennance, and really has no opinion of holy orders other than priests are a good thing to have to minister to the people.) He goes to an evangelical church, I do not know the name of it. He hasn't written any books, other than a few letters to his grand daughters. So again, I ask. Define transubstantiation.
Selah Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote]I warned him before I invited him. Just for the record. I think that he's so convinced no Catholics know their faith that he didn't take me seriously. [/quote] He and Budge would get along
Slappo Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1252262533' post='1961936'] Slappo.....I am very tempted to say you deserve a slap, but I won't. If the only relevent thing you have to say is to point out a spelling error, you clearly are incapable of giving a defence of your faith. And your comment that I am confusing logic without giving an example, is reprehensible. [/quote] Actually... the relevant thing I said is that [b]you don't listen or read do you? And that you don't follow logic.[/b] By the way, "relevent" is spelled with an a. edited for charity Edited September 6, 2009 by Slappo
Selah Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) I think what you need to understand, Storm, is that Transubstansiation is a very old belief, going back to the early days of the Church. All the Church fathers (and sisters) believed in it. So much so that the Pagans called them cannibals. Read John 6:55: my flesh is real food. My blood is true drink. How much more blunt can Jesus be? He said that if you do not eat his flesh or drink his blood, you have no life in you. Former disiples left him because it was a "hard saying." And Jesus did nothing to stop them. He never clairified, "I meant that it's a symbol." He held to His word. "My flesh is REAL FOOD. My blood is true drink." The idea that it is merely symbolic didn't come along until after the Reformation. I can give you quotes if you want me to from dozens of Church Fathers going back to only a few years after the ascension of Christ. I can show you the evidence that Jesus's apostles took Him very seriously. If it was just meant to be a symbol, it would mean absolutly nothing. It's Salvation. And it's far more meaningful than a memorial or, "pray a prayer and you'll be saved." Edited September 6, 2009 by Selah
mommas_boy Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Selah' date='06 September 2009 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1252269397' post='1962010'] I think what you need to understand, Storm, is that Transubstansiation is a very old belief, going back to the early days of the Church. All the Church fathers (and sisters) believed in it. So much so that the Pagans called them cannibals. Read John 6:55: my flesh is real food. My blood is true drink. How much more blunt can Jesus be? He said that if you do not eat his flesh or drink his blood, you have no life in you. Former disiples left him because it was a "hard saying." And Jesus did nothing to stop them. He never clairified, "I meant that it's a symbol." He held to His word. "My flesh is REAL FOOD. My blood is true drink." [b]The idea that it is merely symbolic didn't come along until after the Reformation.[/b] [b]I can give you quotes if you want me to from dozens of Church Fathers going back to only a few years after the ascension of Christ.[/b] I can show you the evidence that Jesus's apostles took Him very seriously. If it was just meant to be a symbol, it would mean absolutly nothing. It's Salvation. And it's far more meaningful than a memorial or, "pray a prayer and you'll be saved." [/quote] Yeah, let's go there: [indent] The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71). The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440). From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98). "Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12). Ignatius of Antioch "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). Clement of Alexandria "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). Tertullian "[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). Hippolytus "‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]). Origen "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]). Council of Nicaea I "It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]). Aphraahat the Persian Sage "After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). Cyril of Jerusalem "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). Ambrose of Milan "Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). Theodore of Mopsuestia "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). Augustine "Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). ... "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272). Council of Ephesus "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]). [/indent]
Recommended Posts