Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $25 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Anthony C.
Anthony C.
NJ/PA
Posts: 244
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,716
Posts51,529
Members932
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,540
Tom 3,563
chestnutmare 2,930
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,773
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 9
Tina 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Abortion and Politics
by Pilgrim. Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:42 AM
Is the Following Legit?
by goldenoldie. Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:00 AM
None but Christ!
by chestnutmare. Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:01 PM
Chau is no Jim Elliot
by Tom. Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:13 AM
Build Thy spiritual temple among us
by chestnutmare. Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:53 AM
"Going Home - A Christmas Sermon" by C.H. Spurgeon
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:06 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7428
Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:03 AM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:03 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]the apostles believed in the True Presence! I know it's true! It IS true, the Scripture says so.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The Scriptures say nothing about the apostles believing that the bread and wine transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. As was mentioned before, if you think Jesus meant that the bread and wine are literally His flesh and blood (which is even harder to believe considering that Jesus was IN THE FLESH as He said this), then you must believe that He is literally a lamb and a door---and even a rock.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7429
Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:04 AM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:04 AM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]no no no! This is NOT true:"The RC view actually does away with the need for faith, since the benefits of Christ's work are received simply by eating (i.e. by the working of the works)" Catholics believe it is a VERY bad thing to eat the Body and Blood of Christ without the heart and mind being fully involved. a GRAVE sin to partake without having repented of sin and real belief.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>"If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but sometimes, and to some persons: let him be anathema." Trent: Canon VII On the Sacraments in General<br><br>Hannah, <br><br>What does ex opere operato mean to you? Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate that one is instructed and required to examine himself prior to partaking of the elements, according to the standards of Roman Catholic theology. (Itís interesting why the RCC does not fence the table in the least though. Certainly more than 90% of those who partake of the elements on Sunday do not receive the sacrament of penance the night before!) In any case, it is alleged that Godís grace is administered purely by the act itself, apart from faith. In fact, the Word, which is what truly elicits one's faith, does not even accompany the mass when administered to patients in the hospital, for instance. It was just in my lifetime that the mass was offered in an intelligible tongue in the states, though the prayer of consecration remains in Latin. If faith is so important, why doesnít the Word always accompany the sacrament? <br><br>It's really no different with the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism saves simply by the act itself in Roman Catholic theology. Obviously, we Presbyterians on this site do not expect our children to profess faith in Christ in order to be baptized, but we do require that at least one parent make a credible profession of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. We require faith on the part of a parent in order to ensure that the child being baptized will be instructed in the way of salvation. If we held to a magical view of the sacraments, you might find Protestant pastors sprinkling the crowds and even overlooking a credible trust in Christ alone for oneís eternal salvation. Hannah, I personally know a woman who had a partial birth abortion. Obviously she did not have a credible profession of faith. Why do you suppose the priest baptized the baby just prior to his execution? The answer is, the sacraments are believed to work just by the administration of them. To deny this is to deny your church. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Catholics would take it WAY more seriously than Protestants, for this is Jesus Christ we're talking about. The apostles believed in the True Presence! I know it's true! It IS true, the Scripture says so. I don't care if it's not logical (you yelled at me jsut yesterday for using logic). It's true, so it really doens't matter whether or not it's logical.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Hannah, I realize that you believe that the apostles believed as the Roman Catholic Church believes. But what you must decide is in whom are you going to place your trust. Are you going to submit to your church or the Word? Donít think you can say both and remain consistent. If you found that the Word and your church were at odds with each other, as things stand now your allegiance is with your church so you would reinterpret the Word according to your church, rather than test the spirits to see if they are from God. At the end of the day, it is your church alone that tells you what to believe. But what if your church were wrong? What if your church made the whole thing up about the mass? You really cannot appeal to the Scriptures to back up your church, simply because in doing so you will have put the Scriptures above the infallible interpretation of your church. You cannot have as your authority both the church and the Word; one must bind your conscience. From what you seem to be saying, you have put a mediator between yourself and Christ, The Word. Because of this, when the gospel of grace is proclaimed, practicing Roman Catholics often hear from their church: "Has God said?" May God mark your ear for His voice alone.<br><br>I would redirect you back to my first post. In particular, you might try to work out for yourself why Jesus left us with a miracle in the mass that did not appeal to the senses like all other miracles. Also, why are we not to believe that Jesus is a vine and a door? As someone already asked, is the cup actually the New Covenant? And finally, if Jesus has a human body, how can it be on earth in many places and in heaven?<br><br>Itís of very little matter, but I think you might have me confused with someone else. I never spoke to you about not using logic.<br><br>My prayer for you is that you would desire the truth, at all cost.<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7430
Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:41 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:41 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Catholics would say there is grace in the Eucharist itself, in Baptism itself. That is why it is to wrong for those people to partake without realizing it. So it is considered a grave sin to baptize a child (which implies that you will raise them in a Christian way and instruct them in the way of salvation) if you do not really intend to do all that is required of you! In the same way, yes, the bread and wine really are Jesus' Body and Blood, no matter who receives them, although if people receive them in sin and ignorance, it's a very grave sin! As for the penance/reconcilliation, Catholics believe that a mortal sin (basically breaking one of the 10 commandments) ought to prevent you from receiving communion unless you confess your sins in the sacrament of reconcilliation (confess to a priest). However, venial sins (things that are sins but were not pre-meditated, such as reacting in anger) do not "bar" you from communion, but you definitely need to repent and pray before you go receive communion. <br><br>Also, the mass is not re-sacrificing Christ. It is a re-presentation of his once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. <br><br>Regarding the reason Catholics uphold the authority of the Church: How would Jesus command visible unity but leave his Church without the necessarily infallible means of settling doctrinal disputes in order to maintain that unity? Would he command the impossible? <br>A call to unity, : "with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Eph 4:2-6. "Know this first of all, that there is no prophesy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophesy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit under the influence of God" 2 Peter 1:20-21. The Church is meant to guide us, as it is a physical body of Believers, and its leaders have authority. See Matt 18:15-17, Phil 1:27-28, 2:2, I Tim 3:15, 4:11-16, 6:2-3, 2 Tim 4:1-5, Titus 1:7-11, 13-14, 2:15, 3: 8-10<br><br>In Christ, Hannah

Re: Souvenirs or idols? [Re: The_Saint] #7431
Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:42 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:42 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


can you prove to me that the apostles did NOT believe as I say?<br><br>In Christ, Hannah

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7432
Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:26 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:26 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Hannah,<br><br>I get the feeling that you are not going to interact with the heart of my posts. So, if I might leave you with one thought it would be that God requires perfect righteousness from all men everywhere. I have no doubt that should you get a glimpse of your sin and an equal glimpse of God's holiness and just claim upon you, you will see your need for Christ alone to clothe you before the Father.<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron

Real "presence" of Christ #7433
Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:36 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:36 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Hannah,<br>I just wanted to add a quote from Bishop Ryle on this subject. He was the first Bishop of Liverpool ( 1815-1900) and is one of my favorite Christian writers. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img] Susan<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]There is a real spiritual "presence" of Christ with the hearts of all true-hearted communicants in the Lord's Supper. Rejecting as I do, with all my heart, the baseless notion of any bodily presence of Christ on the Lord's table, I can never doubt that the great ordinance appointed by Christ has a special and peculiar blessing attached to it. That blessing, I believe, consists in a special and peculiar presence of Christ, vouchsafed to the heart of every believing communicant. That truth appears to me to lie under those wonderful words of institution, "Take, eat: this is My body." "Drink ye all of this: this is My blood." Those words were never meant to teach that the bread in the Lord's Supper was literally Christ's body, or the wine literally Christ's blood. But our Lord did mean to teach that ever right-hearted believer, who ate that bread and drank that wine in remembrance of Christ, would in so doing find a special presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, which they only know who are faithful communicants, and which they who are not communicants miss altogether. <br><br>After all, the experience of all the best servants of Christ is the best proof that there is a special blessing attached to the Lord's Supper. You will rarely find a true believer who will not say that he reckons this ordinance one of his greatest helps and highest privileges. He will tell you that if he was deprived of it, he would find the loss of it a great drawback to his soul. He will tell you that in eating that bread, and drinking that cup, he realizes something of Christ dwelling in him; and finds his repentance deepened, his faith increased, his knowledge enlarged, his graces strengthened. Eating the bread with faith, he feels closer communion with the body of Christ. He understands more thoroughly what it is to be one with Christ and Christ in him. He feels the roots of his spiritual life insensibly watered, and the work of grace within him insensibly built up and carried forward. He cannot explain or define it. It is a matter of experience, which no one knows but he who feels it. And the true explanation of the whole matter is this,--there is a special and spiritual "presence" of Christ in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Jesus meets those who draw near to His table with a true heart, in a special and peculiar way.<br><br>Let us now go a step further. There is no real bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. <br><br>This is a point which it is peculiarly painful to discuss, because it has long divided Christians into two parties, and defiled a very solemn subject with sharp controversy. Nevertheless, it is one which cannot possibly be avoided in handling the question we are considering. Moreover, it is a point of vast importance, and demands very plain speaking. Those amiable and well-meaning persons who imagine that it signifies little what opinion people hold about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper,--that it is a matter of indifference,--and that it all comes to the same thing at last, are totally and entirely mistaken. they have yet to learn that an unscriptural view of the subject may land them at length in a very dangerous heresy. Let us search and see. <br><br>My reason for saying that there is no bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper or in the consecrated bread and wine, is simply this: there is no such presence taught anywhere in the Holy Scripture. it is a presence that can never be honestly and fairly got out of the Bible. let the three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper, in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the one given by St. Paul to the Corinthians, be weighed and examined impartially and I have no doubt as to the result. They teach that the Lord Jesus, in he same night that He was betrayed, took bread, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take eat: this is My body;" and also took the cup of wine, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of this: this is My blood." But there is nothing in the simple narrative, or in the verses which follow it, which shows that the disciples thought their Master's body and blood were really present in the bread and wine which they received. There is not a word in he epistles to show that after our Lord's ascension into heaven the Christians believed that His body and blood were present in the ordinance celebrated on earth, or that the bread in the Lord's Supper, after consecration, was not truly and literally bread, and the wine truly and literally wine. <br><br>Some persons, I am aware, suppose that such texts as "This is My body," and "This is My blood," are proofs that Christ's body and blood, in some mysterious manner, are locally present in the brad and wine at the Lord's Supper, after their consecration. But a man must be easily satisfied if such texts content him. The quotation of a single isolated phrase is a mode of arguing which would establish Arianism or Socinianism. The context of these famous expressions shows clearly that those who heard the words used, and were accustomed to our Lord's mode of speaking, understood them to mean "This represents My body," and "This represents my blood." <br><br>The comparison of other places proves that there is nothing unfair in this interpretation. It is certain that the words "is" and "are" frequently mean represent in Scripture. The disciples, no doubt, remembered their Master saying such things as "The field is the world: the good seed are the children of the kingdom" (Matt. xiii. 38). St. Paul, in writing on he Sacrament, confirms this interpretation by expressly calling the consecrated bread, "bread," and not the body of Christ, no less than three times (1 Cor. xi 26-28). <br><br>Some persons, again, regard the sixth chapter of St. John, where our Lord speaks of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood," as a proof that there is a literal bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper. But there is an utter absence of conclusive proof that this chapter refers to the Lord's Supper at all! The Lord's Supper had not been instituted, and did not exist, till at least a year after these words were spoken. Enough to say that the great majority of Protestant commentators altogether deny that the chapter refers to the Lord's Supper, and that even some Romish commentators on this point agree with them. The eating and drinking here spoken of are the eating and drinking of faith, and not a bodily action. <br><br>Some people fancy that St. Paul's word to the Corinthians, "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. x. 16), are enough to prove a bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But unfortunately for their argument, St. Paul does not say, "The bread is the body," but the "communion of the body." And the obvious sense of the words is this: "The bread that a worthy communicant eats in the Lord's Supper is a means whereby his soul holds communion with the body of Christ." Nor do I believe that more than this can be got out of the words. <br><br>Above all, there remains the unanswerable argument that if our Lord was actually holding His own body in His hands, when he said of the bread, "This is My body," His body must have been a different body to that of ordinary men. Of course, if His body was not a body like ours, His real and proper "humanity" is at an end. At this rate the blessed and comfortable doctrine of Christ's entire sympathy with his people, arising from the fact that he is really and truly man, would be completely overthrown and fall to the ground. <br><br>Finally, if the body with which our blessed Lord ascended up into heaven can be in heaven, and on earth, and on ten thousand communion-tables at one and the same time, it cannot be a real human body at all. Yet that He did ascend with a real human body, although a glorified body, is one of the prime articles of the Christian faith, and one that we ought never to let go! Once admit that a body can be present into places at once, and you cannot prove that it is a body at all. Once admit that Christ's body can be present at God's right hand and on the communion-table at the same moment, and it cannot be the body which was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified upon the cross. From such a conclusion we may well draw back with horror and dismay. Well says the Prayer book of the Church of England: "The sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." This is sound speech that cannot be condemned. Well would it be for the Church of England if all Churchmen would read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what the Prayer book teaches about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. <br><br>If we love our souls and desire their prosperity, let us be very jealous over our doctrine about the Lord's Supper. Let us stand fast on the simple teaching of Scripture, and let no one drive us from it under the pretense of increased reverence for the ordinance of Christ. Let us take heed, lest under confused and mystical notions of some inexplicable presence of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread and wine, we find ourselves unaware heretics about Christ's human nature. Next to the doctrine that Christ is not God, but only man, there is nothing more dangerous than the doctrine that Christ is not man, but only God. If we would not fall into that pit, we must hold firmly that there can be no literal presence of Christ's body in he Lord's Supper; because His body is in heaven, and not on earth, though as God He is everywhere.* </font><hr></blockquote><p>Whole article here: <br> http://users2.ev1.net/~providencechurch/real_presence_bishop_ryle.htm<br><br>

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7434
Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:11 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:11 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


which of your posts have I not answered? if there is one, tell me which<br><br>P.S. When I ask questions, there are about 25 of you who answer me and/or refute me. When you people ask questions, I am the only Catholic here to answer and so there is no way I can possibly answer everything. I get so many replies that I can't begin to respond in depth to everybody<br><br>In Christ, Hannah

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7435
Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:45 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
United States
T
The_Saint Offline
Enthusiast
The_Saint  Offline
Enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
United States
With rejection of Sola Scriptura there is very little if not nothing I can prove to you. But even Augustine rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation Hannah.


"There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." - Jonathan Edwards
Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7436
Tue Nov 11, 2003 5:50 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 5:50 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Dear Hannah:<br><br>In response to:<br><br>"which of your posts have I not answered? if there is one, tell me which<br><br>P.S. When I ask questions, there are about 25 of you who answer me and/or refute me. When you people ask questions, I am the only Catholic here to answer and so there is no way I can possibly answer everything. I get so many replies that I can't begin to respond in depth to everybody"<br><br><br>I had been thinking to myself about posting something that would be an observation of the courtesy, kindness and gentleness with which you have received (and responded to many of) the posts that have been offered by those on this forum. Having once been on the receiving end of it myself, I know that it can be overwhelming, if not intimidating, so I just wanted to thank you for receiving it in the spirit that I assure you it has been offered, as I believe I can honestly say that each one here does indeed love you.<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7437
Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:51 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:51 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Thanks. It's really encouraging to read this. It means a lot to me. <br>In Christ, Hannah

Re: Souvenirs or idols? [Re: The_Saint] #7438
Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:54 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:54 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Well sola scriptura ought not to matter. I will take any Bible verses or outside historical sources that you give me. Just find something that will prove that Augustine (and others of the early church) did not believe in transubstantiation.<br>In Christ, hannah

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7439
Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:15 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:15 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


Dear Hannah:<br><br>You're welcome, and I meant it. <br><br>A wonderful friend of mine in the Lord, just reminded me the other night how the apostle Paul taught us in that most beautiful of passages, 1Cor 13, that "if we have all knowledge" even supernatural knowledge, but "have not love" we are "nothing".<br><br>But still, if we have not knowledge, we have not love either, but rather, presumption.<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7440
Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:50 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:50 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Philadelphia, PA
carlos Offline
Addict
carlos  Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Philadelphia, PA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Just find something that will prove that Augustine (and others of the early church) did not believe in transubstantiation.<br></font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Please read Elenctic theology by the reformer Francis Turretin(1623-1687). When I have time I will type up the pages 500 to 502 of Volume III since you might no be interested in buying it. In the meanhwile, Ron has provided the biblical defense against such a view. <br><br><blockquote><br>New Dictionary of theology concerning the Lord's supper:<br>"There is therefore a reality behind the symbolism, as the early fathers never ceased stressing; but in time their emphatic language began to be interpreted as indentifying the symbol with the reality symbolized. Paschasisu Radbertus( 818 A.D) is usually regarded as the first propounder of transubstantiation, or the change of the sbustance of the bread and wine into the substance of Chrit's body and blood." This is defnied as a dogma of the Western church by the Fourth Laternal Council (1215). [ the data concering Radbertus is also confirmed in Turretin's work. IN fact ,Turretin writes that by the command of King Charles the bald, a monk named Bertan wrote a book concerning the Lord's body and blood against Paschasius Radbertus in which he defends the othrodox faith [page 501] <br></blockquote><br><br><blockquote><br>Clement of Alexandria:<br>Elsewhere the LORD, in the Gosepl accoriding to John brought this out by SYMBOLS, when He said "Eaty my flesh and drink my blood" describing distinctly by [bmetaphor[/b] at the drinkable properties of faith (C. 195, E),2.219 <br>...<br>He says, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood". Such is the suitable food that the Lord ministers... <span style="background-color:yellow;">The flesh figurately</span> represent to us the Holy Sprit; for th flesh was creted by him. The blood indicates to us the Word, for as rich the blood the word has been infused into life. (c. 195, E),2.20<br>[ In Dictionary of Early beliefs by David Bercot]<br><br></blockquote><br> <br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos

Last edited by carlos; Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:04 PM.

"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
Re: Souvenirs or idols? [Re: The_Saint] #7441
Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:38 PM
Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:38 PM

A
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
Anonymous OP
Unregistered
A


No, I'm afraid you are wrong about Augustine. See here:<br><br>ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)<br><br>"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)<br><br>"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)<br><br>"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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)<br><br>"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)<br><br>"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)<br><br>"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)<br><br>"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)<br><br>"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)<br><br>"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)<br><br>"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)<br><br>From this evidence we clearly see the following from St. Augustine --<br><br>(1) The bread having been sanctified "IS THE BODY OF CHRIST"<br><br>(2) The wine having been sanctified "IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST"<br><br>(3) We know Christ in the breaking of the bread; and not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ "BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY."<br><br>(4) When Christ said "THIS IS MY BODY" He carried "HIS OWN BODY" in "HIS OWN HANDS"<br><br>(5) Christ is "IMMOLATED" (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or "making present" before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice)<br><br>(6) Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him<br><br>(7) All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ's Sacrifice in Holy Communion<br><br>(8) The souls of the dead in Christ find relief through the Sacrifice of the Mediator OFFERED for them and through the prayers of the living Body of Christ on earth<br><br>(9) The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers -- the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died "in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ" so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins<br><br>(10) Christ gave us His own flesh "to be eaten unto salvation" and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation<br><br>Again, how much more Roman Catholic can you get?????????????<br>

Re: Souvenirs or idols? #7442
Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:43 AM
Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:43 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Philadelphia, PA
carlos Offline
Addict
carlos  Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Philadelphia, PA
<blockquote>There is no literality in Augustine's understanding. Note his further comments on the passage:<br><br><br>Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life."<br><br>Here are a few more just for the fun of it:<br><br>Augustine (Faustus 6.5): "while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority."<br><br>Augustine (Faustus 20.18, 20): "The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. . . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.<br><br><br><span style="background-color:yellow;">Where is the literality? It is not there, which is why there were debates a thousand years after Christ concerning this very issue: and Augustine was one of the chief Fathers cited by those who opposed the absurdly literal interpretation that lead to transubstantiation</span>. Note the words of church historian Philip Schaff:<br><br><span style="background-color:yellow;">In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.<br>We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.703 The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar...</span><br><br>Speaking of Radbertus' and his promotion of a transubstantiation-like concept, Schaff notes:<br><br>His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.<br><br>It seems historians do not share Tim's viewpoint, and for good reason. We could cite from Tertullian and Theodoret and many others, but the most embarrassing for the Roman apologist who makes such claims has to be these words from Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:<br><br>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.<br><br>Of course, it is easier to make universal claims about history that are inaccurate than it is to provide a meaningful and truthful response. Most don't carry around notes with quotations from patristic sources so as to be ready for such claims. How one handles such a claim in a situation such as a family reunion will depend on the circumstances. A basic, "Such claims go far beyond the facts" might be appropriate. (James White,http://aomin.org/MarkandTim.htm)<br></blockquote><br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos<br>


"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 30 guests, and 103 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Ronald Bargebo, mottley, SnydersSoapbox, Susan, reformedbygrace
932 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
860,629 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.054s Queries: 16 (0.004s) Memory: 2.9930 MB (Peak: 3.3058 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-12-13 17:24:27 UTC