- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ecumenism - Is it happening??
Posted on 9/18/24 at 11:27 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
Posted on 9/18/24 at 11:27 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:Thank you; I appreciate the kindness in which you present your disagreement.
I’m a supportive friend here but I believe you, and others, are twisting yourselves into knots with John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, and the three synoptic gospel accounts of the Last Supper.
quote:While I appreciate your explanation, I can't agree with it.
Without doubt Jesus used word pictures to metaphorically present himself as living water or a door.
It seems clear John had in mind framing Jesus’s discourse in chapter 6 in the context of the Passover/Last Supper (v. 4) and Jesus’s language speaking of his body and his blood is pointed, graphic to the point of shocking believers, and not metaphorical.
St.Paul, St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke all recounted the Passover/Last Supper and Jesus’s institution of Holy Communion and his High Priestly blessing and consecration of the bread and wine.
In the accounts Jesus does not use metaphorical language. Unless we are willing to parse language like Bill Clinton, is means is. This is my body. This is my blood. Is means is.
John doesn't write about Jesus' speaking of His flesh and blood in chapter 6 within the context of the sacrament but within the context of the unbelief of the crowd that followed Jesus seeking more food. It closely relates to the women at the well where Jesus uses a metaphor to address what His audience (the crowd and the woman) is seeking without seeing that He is speaking of Himself and the life He gives.
On top of that, John doesn't even mention the sacrament in his gospel account. If John was providing some context or preparation for the Eucharist, it seems odd that he would neglect its institution altogether.
All of the other metaphors Jesus uses about Himself (the door, the vine, living water, etc.) all point to Him being the Messiah that offers eternal life, however only the usage of bread as His body is taken to be literal while the others are understood as speaking to His mission as the God-man sent to save His people.
As a non-Catholic, I don't approach John 6 with Catholic tradition in mind but only the Scriptures. Because of that, I don't see the necessity of seeing Jesus' words as being literal, especially in the context of the book of John where He uses metaphors regularly the same way He does in chapter 6. It's only by first assuming the "real presence" that one must interpret chapter 6 as a proof text for the "real presence".
quote:I agree. The spiritual reality is what is most important. Jesus' body was broken and blood shed on the cross to take away sin of those who trust in Him by faith.
My personal opinion is that that no priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, theologian, or the bishop of Rome himself can explain a divine, holy, mystery by insisting on transubstantiation and thereby dividing Christ’s Church, his Body that he bled and died to redeem.
quote:I believe the Scriptures should always be interpreted based on the context they present, using Scripture itself as its own interpreter. Doing so, I don't see the necessity of interpreting Jesus' words as literal, especially given that we are told in the Scriptures that Jesus' sacrifice was once for all and therefore He is not to be re-sacrificed each time Christians come together in Communion. I also believe that Jesus' has a real body, though glorified now, and His body is in Heaven right now where He is seated at the right hand of the Father. Therefore I don't believe His body can be divided and He can be physically in the bread or wine in the Eucharist.
Likewise, Protestants who claim to have a high view of Holy Scripture should give great weight to what Jesus said and what the synoptic gospels and St. Paul wrote about the first Holy Communion. Is means is.
Instead, I believe Jesus gave the bread and wine of the Passover and reconstituted them as signs of His real and literal death on the cross, so that as we partake of the sacrament, we remember what He has done for us. It is a memorial, but not just a memorial, as it is a means of grace to us when we partake by faith, "discerning the body" of Christ rather than merely filling our bellies as the crowds were wanting in John 6.
quote:I certainly do consider the ancient creeds and I do believe that there is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. I just don't believe the church of Rome has exclusive rights to that, but actually I believe she has apostatized by proclaiming another gospel than what was delivered by Christ.
This, of course, should also give Protestants pause and allow them to consider anew the nature of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church referenced in the Creeds and the nature of Sacraments and Sacramental worship.
quote:I believe the biggest divide is the view of authority. Protestants are defined by a belief that Scripture is our highest authority while Catholics hold to Scripture and oral tradition as defined by the Magisterium as equal in authority. All of the differences about the Pope, Mary, meritorious works, and the sacraments, among other things, stem from this primary difference of authority.
The disputes respecting the nature of the Church and Sacraments divides Jesus’s Church more deeply than whether we call a man Pope or the Bishop of Rome.
1
Posted on 9/18/24 at 11:46 pm to Stitches
quote:They abstained because they were repulsed by the idea that Jesus physically died on the cross and shed blood. They were dualists and thought the body was evil while the spirit was good. The thought that Jesus had a real body was offensive to them, and therefore they refused to partake in the sacrament that commemorated something that they didn't believe actually happened. It wasn't that they rejected that the bread and wine was Jesus' literal body and blood, but that the entire meal was representing a lie of Jesus' physical death when He had no real body in the first place.
The man literally immediately goes on to say the Docetists incur death because they reject the Eucharist (which he calls a gift from God), which is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So the entire theme is spiritual death incurred by abstaining from the Eucharist. They abstain because they do not believe it to be the body and blood of our Lord. They do not believe it to be the body and blood of the Lord, because they do not believe He had a real physical body.
That is transubstantiation to its core. Ignatius might not have called it that, but the theology is absolutely the same, though more developed today.
Ignatius was putting and emphasis on Jesus' flesh and blood, not because he was teaching some miraculous transfiguration from one substance to another, but because he was opposing a group of heretics that denied the very basis of the Christian faith: namely that Jesus died in His physical body to take away sin. No death, no salvation.
As someone that doesn't believe in transubstantiation, I can say the exact same words as Ignatius, Paul, and Jesus, referring to the bread as Jesus' flesh/body and the wine as His blood.
quote:Another falsehood and anachronism of Roman Catholics. When the early Church referred to the catholic church, they were using the word in it's actual meaning: "universal". They were referring to the one Church of Jesus Christ against heretical sects like the Docetists, Monatists, Sabellianists, Gnostics, etc.
The issue is not whether Ignatius believed in the St. Thomas' formulation of the Real Presence. That makes no sense historically. Another, better way of asking the question is this: If Ignatius of Antioch were introduced to St. Thomas's way of articulating the doctrine, would he have recognized it as capturing what he affirmed, or would he have sided with those who denied transubstantiation?
The answer to that question should be obvious. He would side with the Catholic church, you know....the one mentioned by name in Chapter 8 of the same letter....the same Chapter where he mentions the three-fold structure of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which is in opposition to
Roman Catholics still believe that they are the one, true Church and therefore they think that the Fathers like Ignatius were talking about the same thing that modern Catholics believe when the modern Catholic church is much, much different than the Fathers witnessed and understood.
Also, Ignatius doesn't mention anything about priests. He says to honor the bishop, which in the Scriptures is equated with the presbyters (elders). He says to honor the bishop and the presbyters as well as the deacons. Ignatius seems to be giving prominence to the local teaching elder above the other elders. That happened pretty early on, where one man began taking prominence among the other elders and then that developed into the papacy.
quote:As a Calvinist, I disagree wholeheartedly, but I'm certainly curious why you would say such a thing.
But this is the only comment I'll be contributing to this thread, because frankly, Calvinism in nothing more than modern gnosticism with a heavy dose of presuppositionalism added in.
This post was edited on 9/20/24 at 12:21 am
Posted on 9/18/24 at 11:49 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:What am I twisting? I gave you the specific context of the passage. You're the one forcing tradition into the text to justify your beliefs.
Your twisting of John 6 doesn’t negate the actual words of Jesus. There are dozens of versus where Christ talks about the Eucharist and he never once tries to calm the concerns about what he is saying.
quote:I have read them. I did an analysis of Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnians in this very thread. Even if a belief in the real presence developed early on, it doesn't mean it was biblical and true. The apostle Paul was correcting error that was creeping into the churches in Corinth, for instance, while he was still alive. You don't think error came in after the apostles had all died?
That aside, take a look at what the early church taught. Read Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, or Ireneous and you will find an early church who believed the the Eucharist was the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Mass was participation in the last supper.
I appreciate your openness and not flaming, but truly read some first and second century church writings and it may blow you away.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 5:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
While I appreciate your explanation, I can't agree with it.
I understand. There is a lot of meat in your reply. Probably too much to give it justice in a PT thread.
So as not to fly under false colors, I’m not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I’m a Reformed Anglican that believes he is Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed. I was 22 and a Southern Baptist when I began this pilgrimage and I’m pushing 72 now and am settled in comfortably with the Holy Scriptures, our Prayer Book, and liturgical sacramental worship.
quote:St. John was a clever writer. His clarity in expressing Jesus’s Divinity and humanity is sublime and often provocative. “The word became flesh and tabernacled among us”, evoking The Almighty One inhabiting the Tent in the wilderness traveling with and among his people. “Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world”, putting all who hear on notice that thousands of years of bloody sacrifices done over and over again to turn aside the wrath of a righteous God are about to be superceeded by a final perfect sacrifice. Jesus, playing all roles in the final drama. God, Man, Prophet, High Priest, King, scapegoat, and spotless sacrificial lamb.
John doesn't write about Jesus' speaking of His flesh and blood in chapter 6 within the context of the sacrament but within the context of the unbelief of the crowd that followed Jesus seeking more food.
I too take only Holy Scripture to frame and understand St. John’s gospel-chapter 6 included.
Verse four of John 6-“The Passover, a feast of the Jews was at hand”. This isn’t detail for the sake of authenticity like Jesus scribbling in the dirt while the adulterous woman waited to be stoned by her accusers. It is teeing up the ball for the rest of the chapter. Which is, as you note, much about unbelief and faith. But, I can’t see that it’s only about that. It’s very much also about real meat and real drink, real flesh and real blood sent down from God in heaven to us in the person of Jesus. Is means is.
quote:I don’t see it that way. St. John’s gospel is flat out different and unique. Given all the discourse in Chapter 6 regarding eating and drinking Jesus’s flesh and blood given a context that gives some weight to a Passover context referencing verse 4-St. John devoted his Passover narrative focusing on Jesus’s prayers and teaching during the meal. The Holy Spirit evidently decided to hand to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke. and the Apostle Paul the task of relating the first Eucharist. Is means is.
On top of that, John doesn't even mention the sacrament in his gospel account. If John was providing some context or preparation for the Eucharist, it seems odd that he would neglect its institution altogether.
I don’t need Roman Catholic or any other tradition to come to a belief that in some very mysterious way, the bread and wine of Holy Communion are Jesus’s flesh and blood. His “Real Presence”. Holy Scripture is sufficient.
My aggravation is with theologians and scholars in all camps who laboriously wrestle and twist Holy Scripture to either deny or explain away the obvious clear words of Jesus, the gospel writers, and St. Paul or, make them say and mean something more than they actually do.
In short, I don’t need the Pope to convince me of the Real Presence or to demand I accept as dogma transubstantiation as describing what God in his own right and power and majesty does at the consecration of the bread and wine. I take the Holy Scriptures and Jesus at their word. Is means is.
I too confess daily and on Sunday that Jesus’s resurrected glorious physical body is seated at God’s right hand in heaven. How he is physically and actually present in the bread and wine I can’t explain. I believe Jesus is though because he tells me so in Holy Scripture.
And I know during the Eucharist the thin veil between me here on earth and my parents, my sister, my grandparents, my aunts and uncles, and all the faithful who have gone before us is stretched very thin indeed. “We join with all the company of heaven and with angels and archangels saying holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, heaven and earth are full of your glory”.
I believe there is much more going on in the Eucharist than a mere memorial. It is that, no doubt. It’s much more I believe. Is means is.
quote:
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Foo and peace be with you and your loved ones.Posted on 9/19/24 at 10:26 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:While I disagree with your interpretation and belief on the matter, I'll give you the last word at this time and won't put forward a rebuttal.
Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful response.
to you and may the peace of our Lord be with you and your loved ones, as well.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News