Opie,

Take a look under my funny hat… Your eyes are getting sleepy… sleepy… Opie, you must come to the RCC…. Come to the RCC…




[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/24/2005 9:07p).]

notafraid, you should change your name to notacommedian!

quote:

---

notafraid, you should change your name to notacommedian!

---

Come on man… the gig is up… we all know there is a hypno-device under the funny hats!

LOL! Well certainly if a device is concealed, the Orthodox head gear has moe space for such, apart from the papal crown.


XUSCR,

quote:

---

titan, jump in here if I miss anything, but I would also point out to Opie that when Luther broke with the RCC, he retained many of the ideas of the RC Sacrament of the Eucharist.

---

I don't see anything awry, and your point about them is true. In fact, Zwingli did go further and discard most of the attributes, and it lead to a famous argument with Luther. More to the point though, Luther's opinion was not `out of the head' idea, but corresponded to a minority viewpoint that as far as I know had never been rejected outright.

Regarding Augustine and Acquinas, the highly elaborated transubstantiation doctrine adopted was dervied from but differed from the Real Prescence as understood earlier. The Orthodox also thought it went a bit far in defining what was Holy Mystery. That's where some of the "just discovered it in the 13th C" charges stem from, not realizing the context of the time requiring definitions.

I’m not really reading this thread, but just to touch on what Titan was saying, and to say some things in a simple kind of way. Luther was more of a Reformation lite when compared to the Calvinistic Reformation which was more thorough, and then there was at the opposite extreme the Radical Reformation.

Opie- As SiValleyAg, XUSCR, & titan have already pointed out, just because the term transubstantiation wasn't formally used until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 that the belief behind the term was not one held by the Church early on. The following two links have quotes from early Church Fathers that show that the belief of the real presence of Christ is not some medieval invention by the Catholic Church.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

Also came across this article tonight, it might help you get a better handle on how Catholics view the mass and the Eucharist -
In Memory of Christ by Leon J. Suprenant, Jr
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=27135

Notafraid- I chuckled, but the funny hats are sort of disappearing from the Chruch. I don't recall the last time I saw a priest wear biretta. It is one of those pieces of clerical garb only seen in movies any more.

quote:

---

The following two links have quotes from early Church Fathers that show that the belief of the real presence of Christ is not some medieval invention by the Catholic Church.

---

It looks to me like they are simply speaking of the signs as the scriptures do. That the elements themselves are so closely tied to the spiritual reality that the language is used interchangeably. There is no need to point to Church Fathers if you want to hear language that speaks of the elements like they are the reality, Jesus Himself said “this is my body, this is my blood”, even as He offered the bread and wine to them. Of course we know that it was figurative, because he was standing there in his body, offering the bread and wine. Just as He was , and even proclaimed Himself the “lamb of God” and yet all the lambs that were offered over the years did not transubstantiate into Jesus. It was a Passover meal that He and the disciples were having. In case you don’t remember it, it was where God passed over those whom the blood of the “lamb without blemish” covered their homes doorposts… And so, God passes over us for judgment, because Jesus (who's blood covers us) was a propitiation for our sins.
As far as Him being a sacrifice right there, He was simply speaking of His sacrifice that was to come… You know, the whole “cross” thing… He was not setting up a whole perpetuial sacrafice in the mass as you guys teach. Anyway, I know this Biblical doctrine stuff carries no weight when it goes against the teachings of mother church, so I will just leave it at this, and wait for the great defenders of those who have faith in her.



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/25/2005 8:50a).]

Notafraid- sigh, I guess we read the same words but do not attach the same meaning to them or see them in the same context. I personally do not understand how anyone can read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and come to any other conclusion than the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but obviously intelligent and knowlegeable people do.

Notafraid,

quote:

---

Anyway, I know this Biblical doctrine stuff carries no weight when it goes against the teachings of mother church, so I will just leave it at this, and wait for the great defenders of those who have faith in her.

---

When talking about the Real Prescence, one is talking about the views of post-apostolic age even before there was the collected Bible. Those people *were* consulting those scriptures and coming to that view.

However, transubstantiation, the formal technical declaration, is indeed a somewhat different take. As I said, the Orthodox thought it went too far in any categorizing or defining of what Christ meant. And it is that which Reformation writers are arguing against, perhaps even correctly.

The problem is when it is projected too far back and denies that some such notion was held by the ante-Nicene Christians.

It strains credulity to think that any sentient being could read the quotes from the church fathers at the sites posted above by jk and come away with anything other than a clear conviction that they clearly believed in the salvific nature of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

To do otherwise is to intentionally blind one's self to the truth of the matter at hand: that the early church believed that the bread and wine was made into the body and blood of Christ by the recitation of prayers over them in accordance with the tradition handed down to them by the apostles. A tradition that is totally 4 square in keeping with the Scriptures.

quote:

---

I personally do not understand how anyone can read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and come to any other conclusion than the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist;

---

jkag89, I agree that the conclusion should be obvious since our Savior is making the comments, but I just don't think that He is talking about the "real presence" in these Words. No "human" being can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus Christ and to believe that can happen represents a real problem IMO.

quote:

---

No "human" being can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus Christ and to believe that can happen represents a real problem IMO.

---

WHOOP ALPHA AND OMEGA

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPP!!!!

quote:

---

No "human" being can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus Christ and to believe that can happen represents a real problem IMO.

---

We believe that it is by the grace of God that an apostolically ordained priest/bishop is able to miraculously bring about the real presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The priest/bishop is merely a conduit for the miraculous conversion of bread and wine into what is, in substance, the body and blood of Christ.

If Christ can convert water to wine and rise from the dead, why can he not give us a means by which to comply with his mandate to "do this in memory of me"? Why did the early church so clearly believe in the real presence and the salvific nature of the Eucharist? Why does Paul warn us not to partake of the body and blood of the Lord, lest we profane the same? What does Jesus say to his disciples when they say "This is a hard lesson to follow" in response to his discourse in John 6? Does he say "Come on guys, it's just symbolism, take it easy."

A&O,

quote:

---

No "human" being can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus Christ and to believe that can happen represents a real problem IMO.

---

Since your statement is fixating on the actual change, incredulous that it would be claimed, let me say what it is not.

First, the belief was held, from almost the veritable get-go. But second, it doesn't mean literally, concretely turned into, even though yes, it does mean in a real sense literally so.

I will explain the apparent contradiction; its not literal in this sense: when I go eat a wafer, and drink the wine, it is NOT tasting like a slice of meat, or tasting like blood from a cut wound. The first tastes almost like, well paper or hard to say what, and the second like wine.

So in the `literal' sense a modern scientist would prefer, it is NOT being changed. It refers to a spiritual/sacramental sense of change. Better imagined in sci-fi terms as a change in its `code' but not outward shell I guess.

Let me add this comment from XUSCR's post just seen:

quote:

---

We believe that it is by the grace of God that an apostolically ordained priest/bishop is able to miraculously bring about the real presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The priest/bishop is merely a conduit for the miraculous conversion of bread and wine into what is, in substance, the body and blood of Christ.

---

"Bring about the Real Prescence in" is a great way to describe the ante-Nicene (or for that matter ante-Middle Ages) view as more loosely understood. And the belief this was done by an apostolically ordained preist or bishop also demonstrably dates to the mid-2nd century and surely earlier. What he wrote there is the basic idea in its simplest form.

To go further, to say that its actually changed, was not strictly necessary. It could also be taken that "bring about" meant form the conduit for, or to visualize `put a halo around' the offering, if I may invent a picture idea of what all the writing is trying to say. The Orthodox view seems more like that, but they don't contradict in principle.

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 1/25/2005 11:18a).]

quote:

---

I personally do not understand how anyone can read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 and come to any other conclusion than the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but obviously intelligent and knowlegeable people do.

---

Oh, I do believe that we really feed on Christ when we partake of the Lord’s supper, spiritually thought, not physically. So in that regard He is present in it. We are spiritually nourished, when looking to the signs in faith.

Notafraid,

quote:

---

Oh, I do believe that we really feed on Christ when we partake of the Lord’s supper, spiritually thought, not physically. So in that regard He is present in it. We are spiritually nourished, when looking to the signs in faith.

---

Key words is "really feed on" and "spiritually nourished". In other words, not just a "belief" like thought saw a ghost. But an *event*, right? If so, I see no unreconcilable conflict between the ante-Nicene view of the RP and your own there. With the 13th C definition, that's another matter, but I already said that's problematical as pressed.

quote:

---

When talking about the Real Prescence, one is talking about the views of post-apostolic age even before there was the collected Bible. Those people *were* consulting those scriptures and coming to that view.

---

What I question is the modern Roman Catholic interpretation of what they meant when they spoke of the elements the same way that Christ did. Once can argue that when John the Baptist said “behold the Lamb of God” that Jesus transubstantiated into a lamb based on the way signs that pointed to the reality have been used even in the scriptures. I believe that they were just doing the same.

quote:

---

However, transubstantiation, the formal technical declaration, is indeed a somewhat different take. As I said, the Orthodox thought it went too far in any categorizing or defining of what Christ meant. And it is that which Reformation writers are arguing against, perhaps even correctly.

The problem is when it is projected too far back and denies that some such notion was held by the ante-Nicene Christians.

---

Right, now apply this to the post Trent Roman Catholic attempts to do this, and your right they have a problem. Scripture is full of signs and shadows and types that point to spiritual realities, that are so closely associated with the realities in language that the signs are even spoken of as the spiritual reality.

Notafraid,

Bearing in mind the prior post, which showed the congruence of thinking,

quote:

---

What I question is the modern Roman Catholic interpretation of what they meant when they spoke of the elements the same way that Christ did.

---

and,

quote:

---

Right, now apply this to the post Trent Roman Catholic attempts to do this, and your right they have a problem. Scripture is full of signs and shadows and types that point to spiritual realities, that are so closely associated with the realities in language that the signs are even spoken of as the spiritual reality.

---

I see nothing wrong with conceding either of those concepts as held. That particular questioning seems to me at least, particularly valid. Its not on the same plane of some of the `no Real P' arguments. Alot of Mystery was defined that maybe should not have been, but that in turn, came in response to growing attacks on the basic premise, so makes sense in that context.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No "human" being can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus Christ and to believe that can happen represents a real problem IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




WHOOP ALPHA AND OMEGA

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPP!!!!

---

opie- the next time you attend mass with your gf, please pay close attention to the Eucharistic Prayer. There is a portion of it called the epiclesis in which the priest prays for the gathered community that Father send his Holy Spirit over the bread and wine so that they may become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore it is the Father who consecrates through his Spirit. The priest merely says the prayer, in the name of the community. The consecration is not some kind of magic worked by the priest. It is God who works the change, though the Church teaches only an ordained priest may validly lead the congregation.

Here are some Church fathers takes on it that deny Transubstantiation. Augustine also appears to make my same arguments :


Tertullian


“Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure....In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." (Against Marcion, 4:40)


Theodoret

"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)

Gelasius

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (cited in Philip Schaff, 95)

Augustine

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/25/2005 12:29p).]

quote:

---

opie- the next time you attend mass with your gf, please pay close attention to the Eucharistic Prayer. There is a portion of it called the epiclesis in which the priest prays for the gathered community that Father send his Holy Spirit over the bread and wine so that they may become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore it is the Father who consecrates through his Spirit. The priest merely says the prayer, in the name of the community. The consecration is not some kind of magic worked by the priest. It is God who works the change, though the Church teaches only an ordained priest may validly lead the congregation.

---

So jkag89, so when the priest calls upon God Almighty to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Savior, are you saying that God Almighty then actually changes the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ? Or is the changing only symbolic?

EDIT: Going to the lake, see you guys in a couple of days.

[This message has been edited by Alpha and Omega (edited 1/25/2005 12:27p).]

Titan,

Posts were flying so fast, I got confused, and never saw this one…

quote:

---

Key words is "really feed on" and "spiritually nourished". In other words, not just a "belief" like thought saw a ghost. But an *event*, right? If so, I see no unreconcilable conflict between the ante-Nicene view of the RP and your own there. With the 13th C definition, that's another matter, but I already said that's problematical as pressed.

---

I think I follow you. When I say spiritually nourished, I believe that we do feed on Christ in the Lord’s supper, in that we look to the elements in faith, and are Spiritually nourished in them by our participation, and looking to all He is to us. I’m hesitant to over define this mystery as the RCC has done, because I might go wrong as I believe they have done… I am content just to leave it a mystery, and look to it for what it is.

A&O- It is the belief of the Church that at the Last Supper Jesus did not give his apostles just blessed bread and wine. He was giving His whole life– Body, Blood, and Divinity. He was giving His very self. It is believed that by the will of the Father, the work of the Holy Spirit, and through the words of consecration prayed by the priest, that bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The bread and wine do not change in characteristics– they still look the same, taste and smell the same, and hold the same shape. However, the reality, the what it is, the substance does change. We do not receive mere bread and wine; we receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

I think titan said it very well in his 11:11a post-

quote:

---

I will explain the apparent contradiction; its not literal in this sense: when I go eat a wafer, and drink the wine, it is NOT tasting like a slice of meat, or tasting like blood from a cut wound. The first tastes almost like, well paper or hard to say what, and the second like wine.

So in the `literal' sense a modern scientist would prefer, it is NOT being changed. It refers to a spiritual/sacramental sense of change. Better imagined in sci-fi terms as a change in its `code' but not outward shell I guess.

---

I have a feeling this response is not going to help much. Do I understand the mystery of the Euchrist and how it is the Body & Blood of Christ? No, but I do believe it. Sorry I can't explain it better.

Augustine

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

======================================


I think it’s very important what he is saying here is that Christ was offered once for all (meaning on the cross), and that if you asked the priest if he is offered up in the sacrament of the Eucharist, he would say "yes". Augustine explains however that it’s because the sacrament has such a resemblance to the reality, and by virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble and point to.

His true follower in this is none other than Calvin, with Rome rejecting this view that Trent defined in stating that the body and blood, or the words of sacrifice actually become, or are those things which they are said by Augustine to simply point to, and resemble in likeness so as to bear the same name.



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/25/2005 3:12p).]

Notafraid,

quote:

---

think I follow you. When I say spiritually nourished, I believe that we do feed on Christ in the Lord’s supper, in that we look to the elements in faith, and are Spiritually nourished in them by our participation, and looking to all He is to us. I’m hesitant to over define this mystery as the RCC has done, because I might go wrong as I believe they have done… I am content just to leave it a mystery, and look to it for what it is.

---

Again, pretty apt to the point. The recognition spiritually nourished by our participation is the common theme. The hesitancy to overdefine it is good, In fact, your conclusion is much like the Orthodox verdict on the 13th C action. Perhaps you will yet have to get one of those funny tall hats!

People, it is NOT THIS COMPLICATED! A mere child can understand Jesus, what He did, why He did it, believe it, and go to Heaven. I have a steadfast knowledge that God did not make salvation, church, communion, etc. this complex. Apparantly, it takes a room full of scholars, volumes of literature, a few conferences, Papal edicts, and hundreds of years of development and study to explain just ONE of the Catholic rites.

He said "Do this in remembrance of me." At communion, I forgive those around me, ask forgiveness for myself, take the bread and the wine (representing what occured in the Upper Room), remember what Jesus did in his sacrifice for us, and have done all that Jesus asked of us at the Last Supper. Short, sweet, simple.

"I used to think the brain was the most wonderful part of the human body, but then I thought, 'Who's telling me this?'"

"We believe the priest/bishop facilitates this 'miracle' of transubstantiation." Who told you this? Oh, yeah, it was the priest/bishop.

quote:

---

I’m hesitant to over define this mystery as the RCC has done, because I might go wrong as I believe they have done… I am content just to leave it a mystery, and look to it for what it is.

---

I personally refuse to do anything within the walls of the Church that I do not firmly believe and understand. I doubt 99% of Catholics could hold the discussion we have just held, yet it seems that all would end up with the above quoted conclusion. I personally am not satisfied with leaving a sacred act a mystery.

What IS a mystery is how anyone with a double digit IQ, let alone a college education (which I assume most of you have), could believe all this.

titan,

quote:

---

Again, pretty apt to the point. The recognition spiritually nourished by our participation is the common theme. The hesitancy to overdefine it is good, In fact, your conclusion is much like the Orthodox verdict on the 13th C action. Perhaps you will yet have to get one of those funny tall hats!

---

Ha! I like the whole incense swinging thing, and your right, they do have cooler hats, but you know I’d turn to Rome before I’d turn to the East. Really I don’t think they would take me. They would be stupid to want me, because I would just set about to dismantle it, and probably wind up getting excommunicated.


opie03

quote:

---

I personally refuse to do anything within the walls of the Church that I do not firmly believe and understand. I doubt 99% of Catholics could hold the discussion we have just held, yet it seems that all would end up with the above quoted conclusion. I personally am not satisfied with leaving a sacred act a mystery.

What IS a mystery is how anyone with a double digit IQ, let alone a college education (which I assume most of you have), could believe all this.

---

Double digit IQ’s? That’s funny! Just FYI, I hope you don’t think I’m Roman Catholic or anything… I’m a Presbyterian.

Opie03,

What's the purpose of prayer?

Do you think you fully understand it, or is some of it a mystery?

I think the better point to make is to say that I don't have to fully understand the why or the how of some of God's commandments to know that I should do it. If God says do it, then I'm gonna do it. Just like he said to. Debating the how and why is all good and well, but our first priority should be to obey.

I don't fully understand why I need to pray or how it works. That doesn't mean I'm not going to do it.





[This message has been edited by jdbar (edited 1/25/2005 6:03p).]

Notafraid,

quote:

---

Ha! I like the whole incense swinging thing, and your right, they do have cooler hats, but you know I’d turn to Rome before I’d turn to the East. Really I don’t think they would take me. They would be stupid to want me, because I would just set about to dismantle it, and probably wind up getting excommunicated.

---

LOL. Actually, Catholics would be counted most fortunate to have one of your zeal and dedication, should it transpire you become persuaded it was the place to stand.

quote:

---

LOL. Actually, Catholics would be counted most fortunate to have one of your zeal and dedication, should it transpire you become persuaded it was the place to stand.

---

Well thanks, No comment...

opie03, It’s amazing how simple God made it. That’s why anyone can automatically understand and accept what God wants us to do and to be, even a child or even someone retarded. But then why is it that the world is like it is.

I guess we are all too smart for our own good. We have to argue and pick sides and disagree with the one on the other side, twisting whatever they say into an argument, regardless.

quote:

---

"We believe the priest/bishop facilitates this 'miracle' of transubstantiation." Who told you this? Oh, yeah, it was the priest/bishop.

---

You are implying that anything one says pertaining to oneself is automatically falsely self serving. With that same logic you would quote Jesus saying that He is the Son of God, and then say, " Who told you this? Oh, yeah, it was Jesus”.

quote:

---

I personally refuse to do anything within the walls of the Church that I do not firmly believe and understand. I doubt 99% of Catholics could hold the discussion we have just held, yet it seems that all would end up with the above quoted conclusion. I personally am not satisfied with leaving a sacred act a mystery.

---

First, what’s so sacred about the “walls of the church”? Are you not concerned about theology of everyday life?
You really claim to understand everything there is about Christianity? Do you realize that claim is either very arrogant or very naïve, or both.

quote:

---

He said "Do this in remembrance of me." At communion, I forgive those around me, ask forgiveness for myself, take the bread and the wine (representing what occured in the Upper Room), remember what Jesus did in his sacrifice for us, and have done all that Jesus asked of us at the Last Supper. Short, sweet, simple.

---

That’s true – what you do is just representing what occurred in the Upper Room “on the night He was betrayed”. That is because it is not consecrated.

But for us who believe what Jesus said, He becomes present to us in a more eminent way. I can’t speak for every Catholic, but for me personally, His eminent presence is sometimes overwhelming. I KNOW of His presence in the Eucharist. Whatever words they have tried to use to explain it fall way short of the experience. I don’t need a priest to explain transubstantiation to believe what I have experienced. Jesus is real, and He’s there.

Explain how God, who is omni-present and timeless (Who is outside of His creation) can step into time and take the form of a man? We sometimes take that as a given, but for the Jews who didn’t accept Jesus the Messiah, that was the main stumbling block. It is no more difficult for God to put His body into a wafer of bread (or many wafers) than it is to put Himself into a human body.


Why would He do such a thing – either thing? Because He loves us. The reasoning is a mystery

notafraid, or rather, notacomedian, I read all your quotes, especially Augustine’s, (even though I question the accuracy of the translation from Latin to English) and I see them making my point. St Augustine certainly believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

quote:

---

As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (emphasis mine)

---

Of course, having taken communion in your denomination, that was not consecrated, you were deprived of His real presence. So never having experienced His Real Presence, you should feel compelled to argue as you do.

quote:

---

notafraid, or rather, notacomedian, I read all your quotes, especially Augustine’s, (even though I question the accuracy of the translation from Latin to English) and I see them making my point. St Augustine certainly believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

---

I understand. You question the accuracy of the ones that plainly refute your positions, and you see support in the more complex statement… You need to read the whole piece as Him explaining how the holiday is called by a name, but that it does so simply pointing back to the singular event by which it is named. He then makes the same point with the “sacrifice” of Christ in the Eucharist, saying it points back to the “once for all sacrifice on the cross” , and is simply named because they in “likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble”. He then makes the same point of the sacrament of Christ’s body, the sacrament of Christ’s blood, and of the sacrament of faith.

quote:

---

Of course, having taken communion in your denomination, that was not consecrated, you were deprived of His real presence. So never having experienced His Real Presence, you should feel compelled to argue as you do.

---

What a strange faith you have. Perhaps it is as in error as your reading of Augustine has been?

Opie, given your position of "simplicity", I was wondering if you could simply explain the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth for me? I seem to be having trouble getting to a clear understanding of these "simple" fundamentals of our faith.

Thanks in advance.

XUSCR,

I figured someone would throw down this gauntlet. I apologise for my lack of structure in my response, but you have asked quite a broad question.

I will do my best to utilize only one of the tools that we as flawed and sinful humans have, the Bible. My other tools include prayer, faith, and my steadfast beliefs that are based on faith, research, and council. I will try not use Papal edicts, quotes from Catholic Certified Saints (unless said Saints are also authors in the Bible), or "tradition" as explinations.

The Trinity: Two of the more explicitly Trinitarian passages are Matthew 28:18-19 and John 1:1-14. In the first passage, the Lord said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice that Christ uses the singular form “name,” not the plural “names,” when He gives this directive. This usage implies the unity of the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity.

John 1:1-14 says, “In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God and the Word was God.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” Paul echoed this theme that Christ is true God, the Second Person of the Trinity, when he wrote that He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15) and the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of His nature” (Heb 1:3).

Simply, I believe in the Trinity because Jesus said so. "...Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Incarnation: John 1:3 "Who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God." [In several ancient Latin manuscripts this reads: "who was born not of blood or the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God."] John 6:42 "They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I have come down from heaven?'"

"who was born... ...but of God." It's in the Bible. Plain and simple.
Here is a list of verses that pretty much say the same thing: http://wbsa.logos.com/article.asp?id=4364

What's next? Oh, Virgin Birth:

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Lu. 1:31, 34).

"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”" (Matt. 1:18).

"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
(Matt. 1:25)

How can all this happen? God said so. He made the world and existance, so He can change the rules and governing laws of nature, physics, reason, etc.

Matthew ties it all together with "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”–which means, “God with us.” (Matt 1:22).

God said so. Simple.