Posted on 10/12/2002 1:43:32 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
The Presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper Is Christ really, truly, personally present with us in the sacrament? Do we therein covenant and commune with him in person, touch to touch, immediately and really; or is this only a show, a symbol of something absent and different from what it seems?
The gross perversions of the Romanists and Ritualists, who have made it altogether a question of the local presence of Christ's flesh and blood, have occasioned much confusion of thought and many prejudices on the subject. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, every believer knows that Christ is present in the sacrament - that he has, as a matter of fact, experienced his presence. If he is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us. It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine, or the minister or our fellow-communicants by our side. If it means that Christ is present only as he is represented by the Holy Ghost, it is not wholly true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Ghost another, and it is Christ who is personally present. The Holy Ghost doubtless is coactive in that presence and in all Christ's mediatorial work, but this leads into depths beyond our possible understanding. It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present.
When Christ promises to his disciples, "LO, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world-age," and, "Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," he means, of course, that he, the Godman Mediator they loved, trusted, and obeyed, would be with them. His humanity is just as essential as his divinity, otherwise his incarnation would not have been a necessity. His sympathy, his love, his special helpful tenderness are human. He is able to be our perfect High Priest, "being touched with the feeling of our infirmities," because he "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
But what do we mean by "presence" ? It is a great mistake to confuse the idea of "presence" with that of nearness in space. This may be a condition of presence, or it may not, but it is never "presence" itself. If you walk abroad at noonday in the tropics, the most overwhelmingly present thing to you in the universe is the intolerable sun, although it is ninety-three millions of miles distance. If another person is only one foot distant, but separated from you by a wall which cuts off sight and sound, he is as absent as if in the center of a distant star. But if the same person, a hundred feet from you in an audience-room, sees you face to face, and hears every vibration of your voice, he is as truly present as if he touched you at every point. When Whitefield's preaching was fully heard and its power felt across the Delaware River, he was present really and truly wherever was heard and his matchless eloquence felt. "Presence," therefore, is not a question of space; it is a relation. Personal presence is such a relation of persons that they are conscious of each other as immediate objects of perception and sources of influence. We know nothing as to the ultimate nature of the union our souls and bodies, yet we are no less certain of the fact. So we need not speculate how it is that Christ, the whole God-man, body, soul, and divinity, is present in the sacrament, but we are absolutely certain of the fact. He has promised it. We have hundreds of times experienced it. We can neither see his face, nor hear his voice with our bodily senses; nevertheless, when we exercise faith, he, the whole Christ, speaks to us, and we hear him; we speak to him, and he hears us; he takes all we give him, he gives us and we receive all of himself. This is real, because he is present. And this is not confined to the sacrament. He makes manifest to our faith the reality of his presence with us, and communicates the same grace to us, on many other occasions and at other times, here and now and in this breaking of bread we have a personal appointment to meet our Lord. And he never disappoints those who thus seek him with faith and love.
` A.A. Hodge
The Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestant Reformation by calling a great council, the Council of Trent. In a series of sessions they dealt with various doctrines (some of which are not Protestant, and are truly heretical). The sixth session was dedicated to the doctrine of justification. First they explain the Roman Catholic teaching on this subject in a series of chapters. Then, they include a series of 'canons', to reject and condemn various doctrines. Their aim was principally the doctrine of justification as taught by Protestants.
The decrees of the Council of Trent issued in 1563, are still official Catholic doctrine today. The New Catholic Catechism of 1994 refers to Trent approximately 100 times, and in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the conclusions of Trent "naturally maintain all their value."
The canons and anathema's were written by infallible men according to Roman Catholic Church, thus never having been rescinded and only being reaffirmed by more recent ecumenical councils. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also affirms this in paragraph 1367.
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." Canon 12
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema. CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honor of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
This one is for you mar...
"If anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted, by Christ our Lord, Prince of all the Apostles and visible Head of all the Church Militant [i.e., Church on earth]; or that he [Peter] directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema."2
BTW Mar
'Anathema' means accursed, and to be cursed is the very opposite of to be blessed.A man is blessed by salvation; cursed by damnation in hell....and some say we protestants are not loving:>))
Poly are works a part of your salvation ?How much? 10% 20% 50% 90%
How much is works and how much is grace? Is God your debtor? Does he owe you salvation because of your works?
Bingo! It is not that sin puts us in hell it is not being covered by the blood of the lamb...
Becky
All the great Protestant reformers believed in the real presence — Luther, Calvin, and Wesley (for example). And why not — they were catholic; and so were their churches. Alas, the new Protestant churches split and split again. Many of the new offshoots were so repulsed at everything Catholic that they abandoned everything “catholic” including, gradually and tragically, the real presence. Now, gradually, evangelical Christians are sensing that they have been missing out on something wonderful.
A God who creates and consigns his children to Hell automatically is not a loving God.
No, they did not walk away because they were never intended to stay. Your belief is something straight out of the Stepford Wives. They walked away because they did not understand what Jesus was teaching, they were disgusted by it. They did not trust in Him.
Once again, you are imposing your own belief on Jesus Christ's plain words. You walk away from His words because you do not understand.
And now you want me to relinquish my memento --- is that the Catholic definition of a "gift" --- a present with strings attached == the Church giveth and the Church taketh back. Nowhere was there written on it any disclaimer that if it was not eaten, it had to be returned or if it turned into stale bread, it had to be brought back.
That little piece of wheat wafer is being what it was grown, ground, and manufactured to be -- a simple piece of bread now turned stale. No consecration or magic words changed that. Despite all the pressure in the Church to try to be what it is not, it is now and has been free to be what God intended it to be -- a remembrance, a memorial, a piece of bread that brings back memories, some good, some bad.
Now TM, to you. Your CF has called me a liar -- that 's fine. Now prove it. I dare you or any of your forum to step up to the plate and prove that Woodkirk is a liar. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: "PROVE ALL THINGS". An accusation has been made -- prove it. Go to Mass, pick up a host and test it. Prove to yourself and others that the host is the flesh of God, or better yet, the more simpler task, prove that there is no bread in it after its consecration. It is easy to do -- I dare you to prove what your church claims to be true or false. It is provable -- do it.
In the meantime I will continue to treasure my little piece of stale bread as a remembrance of one who died. And the next time that some poor soul posts another feloniously offensive story of the Miraculous Eucharist of Lanciano that bleeds all over the plate, I trust that you will remember Woodkirk's Wheat Wafer -- the real substance behind the magisterium' ludicrous claims. If you doubt it, prove me wrong -- I challenge you.
I am covered by the blood of the Lamb...I have no concern about my eternity ...or woodkirks...neither of us believe in the witchcraft curses laid on us by Rome...But we are both concerned for those that abandoned Grace and Faith for works and self help....
I have called you a liar because I don't believe for one minute that you have any consecrated hosts in a "container."
It's up to you to prove that you do. It's also up to you to prove that some weirdo friend of yours didn't steal unconsecrated hosts from the sacristy of a Catholic Church.
I know where they are in my church, and I could grab a handful on any Saturday that I lector.
I don't believe you, and will never believe you.
You're trying to change the subject by arguing the Real Presence. I challenge you to prove you have the physical matter at all.
Colleen what did Jesus say about those that walked away? Go back and read John
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jesus was NOT surprised..He knew those that were His..
Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Jhn 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Colleen you may not like it but no one left that day that was not supposed to leave
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.