Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Holy Communion Real or Symbolic?
Catholic in the Ozarks ^ | June 2, 2014 | Shane Schaetzel

Posted on 06/02/2014 3:21:30 PM PDT by NYer

by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, available from http://fssp.org
One of the greatest tragedies of the Reformation is the loss of authentic holy orders in Protestant communities, and as a subsequent result of that, the loss of the real presence in Holy Communion. Of course this is not a problem for a large number of Protestants who no longer believe in the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion anyway.

Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine elements in communion, really and truly, become the actual body (flesh) and blood of Jesus Christ once they are consecrated by an authentic priest in the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist (or "Holy Mass"). The appearance of bread and wine remain, but this is just an appearance. What really exists is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. This belief was held by the ancient Church (see below) and is maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Click Image to Enlarge
This chart explains the major divisions of Protestant denominations that occurred during and after the 16th century. (Please click the image to enlarge.) Only two Protestant denominations retained some belief in the transubstantiation. The first is Anglicanism, which is hit and miss.  Some Anglicans still believe in the transubstantiation and some do not.  The second is Lutheranism, which has modified the belief into "consubstantiation," that is to say that the real presence of Christ exists in Holy Communion, but together in unison with real bread and real wine.  Not all Lutherans hold to this view, but it is a widely held belief. For the most part, the remainder of all Protestant denominations no longer believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion. Rather, they believe the act of Holy Communion is totally symbolic, and the elements of bread and wine do not change into anything. They simply remain bread and wine.

From an Orthodox and Catholic perspective, the belief of most Protestants is true -- that is, for most Protestants -- because you see the sacrament of holy orders (legitimate ordination) was lost for nearly all Protestants after the Reformation period. Therefore it is impossible for them to properly consecrate the elements, and therefore the transubstantiation cannot be completed. So when they say their communion elements remain simply bread and wine, they are right. THEIR communion elements really do remain bread and wine -- nothing more.

The real question is not what happens during Protestant communion, for we know they are right, nothing happens. The real question: is what happens during Catholic and Orthodox communion? For Catholic and Orthodox, the presence of Christ is real and literal -- body and blood, soul and divinity. To be clear, the Orthodox do not usually use the word "transubstantiation" but prefer instead to reflect on the "mystery" of the sacrament. However, while the wording is often different, it is sometimes the same, as is the essential belief, in that something happens, there is a change...
He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. 
But truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. 
-- Orthodox Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1672)
I cite this only to point out similarities in beliefs between Catholic and Orthodox, not to make an apologetic case for one tradition over another. My comparison between Catholic and Orthodox teaching on Holy Communion ends here, and from this point I will simply discuss matters in terms of the Catholic tradition, which is as follows from the Catechism of the Catholic Church...
1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church: in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name," in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species." 
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." 
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: 
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered. 
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion: 
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature. 
1376 The Council of Trent summarises the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." 
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
Again, to clarify, this is both the sacrificed and risen Lord Jesus Christ who is made present in the Eucharist (Greek: thanksgiving) of Holy Communion. Thus it is an error, and a blasphemy, to say that Christ is "re-sacrificed" over and over again in the Eucharistic liturgy. For Christ was sacrificed once and for all time at Calvary. Rather, it is more accurate to say that the one-time sacrifice of Calvary is made present, in Christ's risen and living form, during the Eucharistic liturgy, over and over again. I'm afraid it is important to stress this, because a few Protestants have gone out and, in their attempt to disprove the transubstantiation, accused the Catholic Church of attempting to "re-sacrifice" Jesus Christ in the liturgy of the mass. That is to say; "kill him over and over again." Such accusations are absurd but sadly need to be addressed for clarity's sake.

Some Catholics prefer to use the illustration of a "time machine" in an attempt to explain the transubstantiation, in that the body and blood of Christ are brought to us (as through a time machine) from Calvary to the present day.  Personally, I see a lot of problems with this illustration, and prefer instead to use the example of the Jewish Passover sacrifice as an illustration.

In ancient Judaism, every sacrifice had two parts: (1) the offering, and (2) the consumption.

The offering was when the sacrifice was brought to the priest and slain. Before slaying the sacrifice, the priest would lay his hands on the sacrificial lamb, symbolically transferring the sins of sinner onto the sacrificial lamb. Then the lamb was slain. Once slain, the blood was taken to be sprinkled on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant., then the entrails were burned and the lamb was roasted. The meat was given back to the sinner where it was to be taken home and consumed.

The consumption of the sacrifice is most clearly illustrated in the ancient Jewish passover Seder, wherein the entire meat of the lamb was to be consumed in one night by the entire family. Thus members of the family would have a first helping, then go back for a second, then a third, and so on, until the meat of the lamb was completely consumed. (This is different from the modern passover Seder which does not use lamb meat, but rather the shank bone of a chicken to symbolise the ancient practise.)

Now the offering of an ancient Jewish sacrifice was a one time event. A lamb can only be slain once. However, the consumption of the sacrifice was an ongoing event that didn't stop until all the meat of the lamb was gone.

So it is this illustration I prefer to use in explaining Holy Communion. Jesus Christ is God's passover lamb. He was slain one time on the cross, just as the Jewish passover lambs were slain one time. Then the consumption of Jesus, who is God's Passover Lamb, is ongoing in the Eucharist, as the whole of humanity is fed by this miraculous transubstantiation. Just as the ancient Jews returned for second and third helpings of their Passover lambs, so all of humanity is fed with the Lamb of God through the Eucharist. The first part of the sacrifice, the offering, was a one time event. The second part of the sacrifice, the consumption, is ongoing forever.

Now it is extremely common for many Protestants to deny the doctrine of the transubstantiation altogether, saying the communion elements are only symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. Again, I want to remind the reader, that in the case of their own celebration of communion this is true, because they do not have valid holy orders and therefore cannot have a valid consecration of the Eucharist. However, they go beyond this in saying that Catholic communion is just symbolic as well, and that Catholics engage in idolatry by believing the bread and wine literally become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This is where we must make a vigorous defence.

First and foremost, it is important to point out that the New Testament nowhere says the Eucharist is only symbolic. Indeed, many Protestants reinterpret the Bible to suggest that it is, but such reinterpretations are wrong. Let's take a look at what the Scriptures actually say...

Saint Paul said to the Corinthians...
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practise of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 
-- 1st Corinthians 10:16-18
Here Saint Paul plainly stated the bread IS the body of Christ, and the cup of wine IS the blood of Christ. He didn't say it was symbolic or merely representative, but rather "IS." We cannot impose a meaning on Scripture that is not plainly written therein. Yet there is more -- much more. Saint Paul continued...
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. 
-- 1st Corinthians 11:23-29
If what Saint Paul declared wasn't clear enough in the first citation, it certainly should be in the second. Again, quoting Jesus Christ, he said "this IS my body," and "this IS my blood."  It should be plain to see here that "is" means "is."  It does not mean "represents." Imposing that meaning on this quotation does violence to the text. Yet if that were not clear enough, Jesus Christ himself forcefully proclaims the doctrine of the transubstantiation in Saint John's gospel...
Then Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’ 
Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’ 
Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ 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”?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Do not complain among yourselves. No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” Everyone who has heard and learnt from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ 
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’ He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. 
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’ But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, ‘Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’ 
Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’ He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. 
-- John 6:32-71
The text is clear. Jesus told his disciples they must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. There is no mistaking his meaning here, for his own disciples (those who were with him) interpreted what he said as cannibalism, so they left him. Now, did Jesus run after them and say: "No wait, I was only speaking symbolically, you misunderstood." It would be cruel to suggest that Jesus deliberately allowed his disciples to be deceived into a false interpretation of his teaching on this matter. Furthermore, he didn't confide in his closest disciples later, telling them the secret meaning of his "flesh and blood" teaching. The Gospel is clear. Jesus told his disciples that they must literally consume his flesh and blood, and then he moved on, making no further explanation.

Some will zero in on this passage: "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe." (John 6:63-64)  They use this as some kind of "proof text" to disprove the entire sixth chapter of John, saying that when Jesus said his words were "spirit" he intended that to mean "symbolic." Thus, they contend, Jesus never intended his words in this chapter to be taken literally. However, in saying this, they've made a critical error. The word "spirit" does not mean "symbolic." Is the Holy Spirit just symbolic? Are spiritual beings, like angles are demons, merely symbolic? They're spiritual. If spiritual means symbolic then we have some very serious theological problems. Obviously, "spiritual" does not mean symbolic. Rather it means the exact opposite. It means "real," but it is a "higher reality" (more real than the natural world) which cannot be easily perceived with the natural senses. We believe the Holy Spirit is real, even though we cannot usually perceive Him with our natural senses -- because He is Spirit (higher reality). We believe angels and demons are real, even though we cannot usually perceive them with our natural senses -- because they are spirit (higher reality). We believe we ourselves have immortal souls, even though we cannot perceive or measure them, because they are spirit (higher reality). So Jesus Christ told his disciples the same thing. The words he spoke were spirit (higher reality) and he was explaining to them the mystery and miracle of the transubstantiation in Holy Communion. What he said was real, not at all symbolic, but rather the exact opposite of symbolic (spirit) which is a higher reality than what we can usually perceive through our natural senses. To use this passage as some kind of "proof text" that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, is to do two things. First, it imposes on the text a meaning for the word "spirit" that is not accurate, which creates all sorts of theological problems. Second, it uses a single verse to effectively negate an entire chapter. It's as if to say, Jesus created an allegory that didn't work, and then he said "just kidding" at the end. If we interpret the word "spirit" as symbolic, we have some serious problems as Christians. However, if we interpret the word "spirit" as higher reality, which is what it really means (indeed what it has always meant), then we fall back to a literal interpretation of what Jesus said. Again, this appears to be exactly what Jesus intended, because many of his disciples interpreted it literally, leaving him because of it, and he let them go.

Still, there are those who persist, saying that Jesus also called himself "the gate" in John 10:9. So does that mean that Jesus is a literal gate with hinges and a latch? Such tactics are an act of desperation and reveal an unwillingness to take in the full context and sense of the Scriptures. For example; in John 10:6 Saint John clearly explained the whole thing was a "figure of speech." As the chapter progresses, Jesus opened up a multifaceted illustration -- an allegory -- using many representations to illustrate a point. First, he likened himself to a "gate" which Saint John just said above was a "figure of speech."  Then he compared himself to a shepherd. We know Jesus was not really a shepherd, rather he was a carpenter by trade, so we can clearly see this is an allegory, for the implication is that the "sheep" who enter through the gate and are called by the shepherd, are none other than his followers. Again, Saint John plainly said that all of this was a "figure of speech," or an allegory. When allegories are used, they are explained by Christ later. He gives his disciples the proverbial "keys" they need to "unlock" them. These are plainly spelt out in the New Testament. Yet in John 6, in regards to Jesus' teaching on consuming his literal flesh and blood, no allegorical "keys" were given. He did not explain any hidden meanings, nor did he make comparisons to other things. He simply asked his closest disciples: "Do you also wish to go away?" (John 6:67) To which they responded through Peter: "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68-69)  That's it. No further explanations are given. The reader is left to simply take Jesus' word as is. We must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Most Protestants cannot handle this. They simply ignore it. They insist the text in John 6 is merely symbolic, in spite of no proof to that effect, and then just move on.  In fact, most of the time, they would rather change the subject, and talk about some other Catholic teaching they find less difficult to argue. Yet it's important to keep them on topic, because this is a vital teaching of the Christian faith, that should effect every single aspect of their Christian worship. For we learn from the Scriptures that the early Christians received Holy Communion often, in their regular weekly worship (Acts 2:46 & Acts 20:7), not just once a month or on special occasions. Furthermore, we learn from the Gospel of John, that refusal to believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (transubstantiation) is in fact a refusal to follow Christ: "Because of this [Jesus' teaching on the Eucharist] many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him." (John 6:66) It's a very serious matter. Certainly, the early Christians took it seriously, as we will see in these citations from their writings.  Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop in the early Church. He was ordained by the Apostle John and made a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is what he had to say regarding this matter...
"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." -- Ignatius of Antioch, 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." -- Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110] 
Then we have these quotes from other early Church fathers...
"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 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" -- Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]

"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 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?" -- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]
There is nothing in Christian antiquity that suggests the early Christians believed Holy Communion (the Eucharistic "body" and "blood") was merely symbolic. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the Protestants when they say otherwise. A "symbolic meaning" is a new doctrine to Christianity, less than 500 years old, which was held by nobody prior to the 16th century Reformation other than those the early Christians considered heterodox (heretics). So again, I say the burden of proof is on the Protestants to demonstrate why Holy Communion is supposed to be merely symbolic. We have nothing in Scripture that tells us that. Likewise, we have nothing in the writings of Christian antiquity that tell us that. So how do the Protestants derive at that conclusion? This is the real question that must be asked. It seems to me however, that when interpreting Scripture on matters such as this, the meaning should be plain and simple. One shouldn't have to go into elaborate explanations to explain why something is meant to be understood as symbolic when there is nothing in the text to suggest that.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: orthodox; protestant; transubstantiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,091 next last

1 posted on 06/02/2014 3:21:30 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 06/02/2014 3:21:51 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“There is nothing in Christian antiquity that suggests the early Christians believed Holy Communion (the Eucharistic “body” and “blood”) was merely symbolic. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the Protestants when they say otherwise. “

The wording in the Bible is clear. It is a remembrance until He comes again. It doesn’t turn into anything. It doesn’t bestow any “extra” grace.


3 posted on 06/02/2014 3:27:29 PM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nutcake.


4 posted on 06/02/2014 3:28:57 PM PDT by JT Hatter (Who is Barack Obama? And What is He Really Up To?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

symbolic


5 posted on 06/02/2014 3:30:03 PM PDT by svcw (Not 'hope and change' but 'dopes in chains')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So, “do this in remembrance of Me” actually means, “Hire a guy in a bathrobe to say some hocus pocus words and then it will become my actual body and blood.” Can you give us the passage that makes this important connection?


6 posted on 06/02/2014 3:31:07 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

HOC EST CORPUS MEUM
Actually


7 posted on 06/02/2014 3:37:02 PM PDT by Ouchthatonehurt ("When you're going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Great chart, except am I missing the Orthodox split?


8 posted on 06/02/2014 3:41:57 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Real.


9 posted on 06/02/2014 3:44:12 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Bathrobe, really? You sound foolish.


10 posted on 06/02/2014 3:45:38 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

“There is nothing in Christian antiquity that suggests the early Christians believed Holy Communion (the Eucharistic “body” and “blood”) was merely symbolic. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the Protestants when they say otherwise. “

The wording in the Bible is clear. It is a remembrance until He comes again. It doesn’t turn into anything. It doesn’t bestow any “extra” grace.


Yep. I strongly support YOPIOS on my part because my relationship is with Jesus. I don’t interpret it in a vacuum. In fact, as I read the perspective of others on the Word of God, I sometimes change my position as I more thoroughly study a subject. e.g. I went from pre-trib to “mid trib”, or believing the bible teaches, regarding the lost in eternity, annihilation over eternal suffering.


11 posted on 06/02/2014 3:45:51 PM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Good point. That chart is only illustrating the splits after the “Reformation” though. So I imagine the Orthodox split is kind of assumed there. Or one could perhaps view them as still part of the Catholic Church for the purposes of this discussion (the body and blood of Jesus as the Eucharist).


12 posted on 06/02/2014 3:47:14 PM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Following their Anglican forefathers, Methodists also believe in the Real Presence, though they reject transubstantiation and prefer to leave the manner or to state that it is spiritual.
13 posted on 06/02/2014 3:56:34 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

That should read “and prefer to leave the manner undefined or to state that it is spiritual.”


14 posted on 06/02/2014 3:57:28 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

REAL


15 posted on 06/02/2014 3:59:00 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

John 6:63, it’s quoted in the long passage.

Jesus says he is speaking spiritually.

They ask, how can we eat you etc...

Jesus says in answer, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

Jesus Himself says he is speaking spiritually.


16 posted on 06/02/2014 4:00:57 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

All Christians know the Real Presence.

Transubstantiation is not Biblical and simply odd as often presented as literal.

Given the increases in understanding of chemistry and physiology it just sounds odd and goes way beyond anything the early believers would have thought or been able to consider.

What is strange is the adherence to this literal interpretation that somehow the wafer or bread, a food, becomes actual literal human flesh contrasted with rather non-literal interpretations of other Biblical passages, eg being fine with evolution or other things.

Odd double standards.


17 posted on 06/02/2014 4:07:08 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He said this is my body and my blood—the night BEFORE He died. Was it the real body and blood BEFORE He even died? Or, wasn’t he speaking symbolically?


18 posted on 06/02/2014 4:07:49 PM PDT by Keli Kilohana (Editor, ZARR CHASM CHRONICAL [sic], Sore, WV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
When will I stop coming on “Holy Communion” threads only to find out that the majority of posters are Protestants with a real hate-on towards Catholicism? It's like constantly opening a box of chocolates only to have it explode in my face!
19 posted on 06/02/2014 4:12:06 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
John 6 "51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

It cannot get any clearer than this. The Holy Eucharist is indeed Jesus's actual flesh. Nothing symbolic. And it doesn't bestow "extra grace," but rather it bestows life itself.

20 posted on 06/02/2014 4:12:53 PM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

http://www.therealpresence.org/


21 posted on 06/02/2014 4:13:16 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("Truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keli Kilohana

Yes. And more importantly he did not only say, this is my body, this is my blood, he said this is my body BROKEN, this is my blood POURED OUT FOR YOU.

Then he stresses to remember and break break and share wine in remembrance of Him.


22 posted on 06/02/2014 4:13:49 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
The wording in the Bible is clear.

I agree!

This is my Body; this is my Blood. DO THIS!

You can't get any clearer than that.

A "symbolic meaning" is a new doctrine to Christianity, less than 500 years old, which was held by nobody prior to the 16th century Reformation other than those the early Christians considered heterodox (heretics).

23 posted on 06/02/2014 4:14:28 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

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]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


24 posted on 06/02/2014 4:17:10 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("Truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic who has said the wine tasted like blood. The next one will be the first.


25 posted on 06/02/2014 4:17:47 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

I have no hate on, but this doctrine does not make sense.

Even as presented it is presented by the Catholics as symbolic, ie it looks like bread, but is really flesh, looks like wine but is really blood.

That’s symbolic.

This is not a stumbling block issue and Catholics should not insist on this odd difficult to explain doctrine to others, as others should not worry of the Catholic thought process on this.


26 posted on 06/02/2014 4:18:13 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Keli Kilohana

Christ knew he would die. He offered the Last Supper, the forerunner of the Liturgy of the Eucharist so that he could be with us always as he promised in the Gospel of John.


27 posted on 06/02/2014 4:18:57 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Up until the time of Luther the only thing was “The Real Presence.”


28 posted on 06/02/2014 4:20:45 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Yes, spam always is the best way to engage in discussion.


29 posted on 06/02/2014 4:21:23 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

“Few Americans hate the Catholic Church,. but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church.” —Bishop Fulton Sheen


30 posted on 06/02/2014 4:21:49 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
There is nothing in Christian antiquity that suggests the early Christians believed Holy Communion (the Eucharistic "body" and "blood") was merely symbolic.

That was because early Christians knew it was symbolic. It's one of those things that is so obvious, there is no need to mention it.

31 posted on 06/02/2014 4:22:42 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein; NYer

What’s interesting in that the first paragraph of this has a big distortion, or lie or whatever one wants to call it:

“Of course this is not a problem for a large number of Protestants who no longer believe in the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion anyway.”

I guess the author feels he can get away with such an insult on a technicality. That real presence means something technical in Catholic Doctrine.

In Internet parlance, the author is trolling.

But it is not capitalized and is presented as an attack and insult on Protestant’s beliefs.


32 posted on 06/02/2014 4:27:44 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
The Holy Eucharist is indeed Jesus's actual flesh. Nothing symbolic.

Then why didn't Jesus just cut off part of his flesh and cut himself so he would actually be serving real flesh and blood?

33 posted on 06/02/2014 4:28:19 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

If the robe fits....


34 posted on 06/02/2014 4:29:22 PM PDT by The Bard (http://www.myfbc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Seriously, why do you bother your pretty little head about it?


35 posted on 06/02/2014 4:30:08 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Do you really understand transubstantiation?

trans=transfer
substantiation=substance.

Thus the substance of wine is transferred to spiritual Blood, but still appears as wine to the human eye.

Also the substance of the host (bread) is transferred to spiritual Bread, but still appears as a host to the communicant.

Believe.


36 posted on 06/02/2014 4:31:05 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Bard

Ah, the Shavian wit crowd is out and about!


37 posted on 06/02/2014 4:32:14 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer
‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’1 Corinthians 11:24

Why would we have to remember Jesus if He is really present in the elements?

38 posted on 06/02/2014 4:32:24 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Hardly symbolic. Read about the Eucharistic miracles.

‘Bleeding’ Eucharist at Primary School in Moruga [Trinidad]
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy (The Body and Blood of Christ) [Catholic Caucus]
Do You Believe in Eucharistic Miracles?
Eucharistic Miracle at St. Stephen's in New Boston MI.(Catholic Caucas)
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES

[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle (Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena)
Eucharistic Miracle: 2009?
Possible Eucharistic Miracle in Poland
The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)
Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles
Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon
BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'
Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.

39 posted on 06/02/2014 4:32:35 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer
My Presbyterian friend REALLY believes that she is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus with her Presbyterian communion.
When she said this I said nothing.

No reason to tell her that it's just CATHOLICS, Roman or Orthodox, who receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Why rain on her parade?

40 posted on 06/02/2014 4:33:23 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

I married into a Catholic family. I still say they are wrong about communion. They say I’m wrong about communion. You know what? We still get together on Christmas and Easter to celebrate as a family the birth, death, burial and resurrection. No hate here.


41 posted on 06/02/2014 4:34:54 PM PDT by The Bard (http://www.myfbc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
"...It's one of those things that is so obvious, there is no need to mention it."

Same as the sinlessness of Mary then?

42 posted on 06/02/2014 4:36:45 PM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Bard

I didn’t say you were a hater. I said you were the epitome of Shavian wit.


43 posted on 06/02/2014 4:36:56 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NYer

When our church takes Communion, time is spent reflecting upon our lives. Those who take Communion unworthily sin against the Lord and can actually die a premature death.

Communion is a solemn ceremony to remember what Christ did for us on Calvary. He gave His all for us. We should never take Him lightly.


44 posted on 06/02/2014 4:45:20 PM PDT by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

The Bible says Mary was “highly favored”, not sinless.


45 posted on 06/02/2014 4:45:20 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

And the Bible says Jesus’s flesh is food indeed, not food in symbol.


46 posted on 06/02/2014 4:47:23 PM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Shaving Witt... I take that as a mixed compliment.


47 posted on 06/02/2014 4:48:51 PM PDT by The Bard (http://www.myfbc.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: The Bard

Phew. Don’t even try. Pathetic.


48 posted on 06/02/2014 4:51:17 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

“full of grace” would mean no sin within her.

You are using a modern translation of the Bible.


49 posted on 06/02/2014 4:54:45 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Most think Sheen was a kook. And, thus the sentiment for the Roman Church is real.


50 posted on 06/02/2014 4:56:20 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,091 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson