COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[Albion]

He points out the context rather than relying on quotes out of context.

You started out wondering what the Early Church Fathers actually said about this. Somebody today who types up his own opinion on a blog is not a substitute for that.

 

[MennoSota]

You started out wondering what the Early Church Fathers actually said about this. Somebody today who types up his own opinion on a blog is not a substitute for that.

He quotes the early church fathers. He quotes them. He shares what they wrote. smh, how can you miss his quoting of the church fathers? Just read what the church fathers wrote and ignore the rest. That alone will help you see what the early Christians wrote.

 

[Albion]

He quotes the early church fathers. He quotes them. He shares what they wrote. smh, how can you miss his quoting of the church fathers? Just read what the church fathers wrote and ignore the rest. That alone will help you see what the early Christians wrote.

Actually, none of that is on target.

He quotes several who affirm a Real Presence, just as I said, and quotes other people who offer a different interpretation of what they were quoted as having said. From the first group he also presents some comments about symbolism which, to their minds, is to be found in the sacrament in addition to the fact of Real Presence which they believed in.

And then he also cites some churchmen who came later, who were post-Apostolic (although called 'Early Church Fathers' customarily) and, therefore, are irrelevant to what I told you earlier.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, none of that is on target.

He quotes several who affirm a Real Presence, just as I said, and quotes other people who offer a different interpretation of what they were quoted as having said. From the first group he also presents some comments about symbolism which, to their minds, is to be found in the sacrament in addition to the fact of Real Presence which they believed in.

And then he also cites some churchmen who came later, who were post-Apostolic (although called 'Early Church Fathers' customarily) and, therefore, are irrelevant to what I told you earlier.

He quotes the original writers in the context of their writing to show that they did not, in fact, support real presence at all. If anything close, they had more of a Lutheran view, not a real presence view.

 

[Albion]

He quotes the original writers in the context of their writing to show that they did not, in fact, support real presence at all. .

He is wrong. And it is not true that those Fathers deny the Real Presence in those quotes, even if he tries his best to spin their words that way. You keep talking about "context" but there is no issue with context there at all.

 

[Imalive]

Doesn't matter what they believed. What did Peter and the rest believe who were first always told this is the bread our fathers ate in Egypt. It was always symbolic.

 

[Lamb]

He brought out the historical purpose for each of the writings. I'm not sure how he could have stayed more focused on the historicity and context of the early writings.
It seems to me that you are bashing the writer of the blog, yet not addressing what he actually says about the early Christian writers and their teaching regarding communion. What do the early documents say?

Some guy on the internet writes a blog thinking he's discovered something that had been unnoticed by millions previously for over a thousand years? And you buy into that?

 

[MennoSota]

Some guy on the internet writes a blog thinking he's discovered something that had been unnoticed by millions previously for over a thousand years? And you buy into that?

He just presents the context.
What I see here is people who won't even consider anything other than what they have been taught, even if the text of the manuscripts may prove them wrong.
Please address what the early church fathers wrote, in the context of their writings. Please present your documentation. At least I have made an attempt to find documentation of ancient sources. You have done nothing but stick your feet deep in the ground, without any documentation. Which effort is more legitimate?

 

[Albion]

He just presents the context.

Not so. The parts you are calling "context" are a misread of what the quoted Church Father meant. It actually amounts to an additional aspect of the sacrament.

It does not counter or contradict what he/they have said--that the bread and wine have been changed and no longer are simply plain bread and wine.

However, I also know that you are not about to do any real research, so I will leave the matter as it stands with the earliest of the Church Fathers having acknowledged the Real Presence.

 

[Albion]

Doesn't matter what they believed. What did Peter and the rest believe who were first always told this is the bread our fathers ate in Egypt. It was always symbolic.

You could argue that it had been so until the Last Supper, sure, but we're talking about what Christ instituted on that occasion.

 

[MennoSota]

Not so. The parts you are calling "context" are a misread of what the quoted Church Father meant. It actually amounts to an additional aspect of the sacrament.

It does not counter or contradict what he/they have said--that the bread and wine have been changed and no longer are simply plain bread and wine.

However, I also know that you are not about to do any real research, so I will leave the matter as it stands with the earliest of the Church Fathers having acknowledged the Real Presence.

Where is your documentation?
What I see is an attempt on my part, followed by no data, yet dismissal of my attempt. It comes across as "I will believe what I was told, come hell or high water."
If that is what you want, then remain in your entrenched position using quotes taken out of context. It's not like the Roman church hasn't done that as their modus operandi for 1500 plus years. Why start looking at context today?

 

[Albion]

Where is your documentation?

Where is YOURS? You wanted to see documentation but refuse to go and get it.

No serious inquirer would take as Gospel some obviously erroneous musings on a blogpost that they know nothing about. The ball is in your court with every opportunity for you to do something about it. I am not going to dig up the info that I already know just so you who need this information can reply that it's out of "context" whatever it may show us. And yet, the irony is that the material which was quoted on the page you are using DOES show that the belief in the Real Presence goes back to the first century...and you've found a way to dismiss it anyhow.

 

[Josiah]

"Real Presence" holds tht defining word is "is." Not "is not but misleadingly seems like it."


"Real Presence" believes that what Jesus said and Paul penned is what they mean and what is true. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Bread" = bread. "Wine" = wine. That's it. That's all. Body is. Blood is. Bread is. Wine is. Is has to do with reality, presence, being. "Is" doesn't mean "physically changed from one reality to a different reality via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And "is" typically doesn't mean "is NOT but misleadingly SEEMS like it."

Now, of course, people have QUESTIONS. Just as we do with the two inseparable full natures of Christ or with the Trinity. And that's okay. But just because we have questions doesn't make what Jesus said and Paul penned wrong, and doesn't mean self must appoint self to correct Jesus and Paul and get them out of error. For 15 centuries, Christians referred to this as "The MYSTERY of Real Presence" and that's because it's mystery. We don't know how this "fits" physics (any more than we know how the Two Natures of Christ or the Three Persons of the Trinity "fit" physics). But that's not God's problem and doesn't mean God is wrong - only that God didn't answer our questions. Scripture command us to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." It doesn't command us to be "Correcters of God getting Him out of trouble and making Him make sense." We are called to faith and obedience, not pride and correcting Jesus from His error and misleading teachings.



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Where is YOURS? You wanted to see documentation but refuse to go and get it.

No serious inquirer would take as Gospel some obviously erroneous musings on a blogpost that they know nothing about. The ball is in your court with every opportunity for you to do something about it. I am not going to dig up the info that I already know just so you who need this information can reply that it's out of "context" whatever it may show us. And yet, the irony is that the material which was quoted on the page you are using DOES show that the belief in the Real Presence goes back to the first century...and you've found a way to dismiss it anyhow.

Again, you have planted your feet into your church dogma. I provided a resource and you reject it. That is your problem, not mine.

 

[Albion]

Again, you have planted your feet into your church dogma. I provided a resource and you reject it. That is your problem, not mine.

Oh, please. You say that every tine you lose an argument around here, no matter who the other poster is or what the issue may be.

 

[MennoSota]

Oh, please. You say that every tine you lose an argument around here, no matter who the other poster is or what the issue may be.

I provided data. You provided nothing. This is the fact.
You deny my presentation is legitimate...based upon an opinion that the writer of the article is biased. You provide no document of your own. This is the fact.
I have done my part. What you provide is entirely up to you.

 

[Imalive]

I provided data. You provided nothing. This is the fact.
You deny my presentation is legitimate...based upon an opinion that the writer of the article is biased. You provide no document of your own. This is the fact.
I have done my part. What you provide is entirely up to you.

Just ask Google and you can also get proof that they tought real presence. I tried to read it but i dont understand it for a meter. I noticed Iraneus said: spiritual, not like the Jews. My bet is the Jewish believers saw it symbolic and the others didnt, but Google also has proof of the Hebrew roots of the catholic view. You can make from it what you like.

 

[Albion]

For heaven's sake! I point to some facts from history and say to look it up...and that turns out to be me asking for the moon! Here is what some of the earliest church leaders in Christian history had to say about the Real Presence. Indeed, No church father before AD500 denied the belief.

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 )

"Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

"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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

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, and is thereby living as Christ has 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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS." (First Apology, 66)

Irenaeus
"…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly…" (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

"If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…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 to 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…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST…" (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

 

[MennoSota]

Real presence is not taught by early church leaders.
https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

 

[Josiah]

Real presence is not taught by early church leaders.
https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-communion

One of the countless problems with Matt Slick is that he doesn't even begin to know the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation (which he wrongly thinks ALSO includes the idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice). Many have TRIED to inform Rev. Slick but.... well..... no one informs Rev. Slick of anything.

See the next post....