-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's symbolic to some Protestant churches , but not all.
Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, as do Catholics.
If you read the early Church Fathers, or theologians, those who were taught by the Apostles themselves,
THEY believed in the Real Presence.
THIS particular doctrine has Always given me difficulty.
I tend to trust the early Church fathers. But Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY, not THIS WILL BE CHANGED INTO MY BODY.
So, I'm not sure.
But here is what two early theologians believed:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) (He was taught by John the Apostle)
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)
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 [i.e. the Gnostics] 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)
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
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 [Baptism], 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)
Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, as do Catholics.
If you read the early Church Fathers, or theologians, those who were taught by the Apostles themselves,
THEY believed in the Real Presence.
THIS particular doctrine has Always given me difficulty.
I tend to trust the early Church fathers. But Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY, not THIS WILL BE CHANGED INTO MY BODY.
So, I'm not sure.
But here is what two early theologians believed:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) (He was taught by John the Apostle)
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)
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 [i.e. the Gnostics] 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)
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
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 [Baptism], 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)
U
Only RC believe in Transubstantiation and perhaps some other sects, certainly not the Lutheran Church.
I have already posted directly from the present catechism of the roman church.
Transubstantiation is far removed from the concept of real presence.
Have you studied the reformation?
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes 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.
"[SUP]204[/SUP]
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.[SUP]205
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText[/SUP]
I have already posted directly from the present catechism of the roman church.
Transubstantiation is far removed from the concept of real presence.
Have you studied the reformation?
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes 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.
"[SUP]204[/SUP]
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.[SUP]205
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText[/SUP]
I'm sorry you are wrong about this, I looked into your examples, and while they are used by the RCC, as with many things taught by them these quotes have been warped and twisted to fit with the RCC teachings.
First
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) (He was taught by John the Apostle)
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)
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)
In order to combat the false notions of Docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic Docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
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 [Baptism], 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)
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
First
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) (He was taught by John the Apostle)
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)
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)
In order to combat the false notions of Docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic Docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
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 [Baptism], 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)
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
I consume books and digest them, that I may absorb, assimilate, be renewed and transformed by what I ingest, without actually putting the pages in my mouth and chewing them up and swallowing them to allow them to pass through my body's digestive tract. So too the Living Word of God. Spiritual things are not understood by the natural man. Some people just can't seem to move beyond the inflexible literal.
If you are not certain about your salvation you cannot have the peace that passes all understanding.
Job eschewed evil. We are to keep those things which are of virtue in the Lord. Catholic doctrine is without a doubt not one of those things.
Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Job eschewed evil. We are to keep those things which are of virtue in the Lord. Catholic doctrine is without a doubt not one of those things.
Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
UG
Telling the truth is good.
Writing about what you believe to be true is good, even if you're wrong.
BUT, you have to do it with love.
I think what the other poster did is terrible.
Titus 2:7-8
7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness
8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
Telling the truth is good.
Writing about what you believe to be true is good, even if you're wrong.
BUT, you have to do it with love.
I think what the other poster did is terrible.
Titus 2:7-8
7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness
8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
UG,
LUTHER believed in the real presence till his Death.
In fact, he may have believed in transubstantiation (not sure about this)
CHECK IT OUT.
He was Lutheran, and some denominations STILL believe in the Real Presence.
LUTHERAN
ANGLICAN
METHODIST
CATHOLIC
EASTERN ORTHODOX
ORIENTAL ORTHODOX
CHURCH OF THE EAST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
These denominations believe in the Real Presence.
Maybe WE have it wrong???
Today, this is all readily available online.
No need to argue about it.
LUTHER believed in the real presence till his Death.
In fact, he may have believed in transubstantiation (not sure about this)
CHECK IT OUT.
He was Lutheran, and some denominations STILL believe in the Real Presence.
LUTHERAN
ANGLICAN
METHODIST
CATHOLIC
EASTERN ORTHODOX
ORIENTAL ORTHODOX
CHURCH OF THE EAST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
These denominations believe in the Real Presence.
Maybe WE have it wrong???
Today, this is all readily available online.
No need to argue about it.
The problem with the analogy offerred is twofold:
Here is the poster's comment:
I consume books and digest them, that I may absorb, assimilate, be renewed and transformed by what I ingest, without actually putting the pages in my mouth and chewing them up and swallowing them to allow them to pass through my body's digestive tract. So too the Living Word of God. Spiritual things are not understood by the natural man. Some people just can't seem to move beyond the inflexible literal
1. Maybe spiritual things are not understood by the natural man, BUT Jesus was not speaking to the natural man.
He was speaking to His Apostles. Were they natural men or spiritual men?
Jesus spoke of the manna.
John 6:48-50 The manna was REAL food. Just as Jesus is REAL food.
verse 50: Jesus says that HE is the bread that One may EAT and not die.
verse 51. He calls Himself the LIVING BREAD. And the bread that He will give is HIS FLESH.
He continued for a long while saying these things --- eating his flesh and drinking His blood.
Finally some disciple couldn't take it anymore and left.
John 6:60
2. They left because they thought He really meant it Literally.
Jesus told Peter to get out of the boat and walk on water.
Did Jesus mean this literally?
Mathew 14:29
I don't think we could be absolutely sure about what Jesus meant.
Minds better than ours are not sure.
Here is the poster's comment:
I consume books and digest them, that I may absorb, assimilate, be renewed and transformed by what I ingest, without actually putting the pages in my mouth and chewing them up and swallowing them to allow them to pass through my body's digestive tract. So too the Living Word of God. Spiritual things are not understood by the natural man. Some people just can't seem to move beyond the inflexible literal
1. Maybe spiritual things are not understood by the natural man, BUT Jesus was not speaking to the natural man.
He was speaking to His Apostles. Were they natural men or spiritual men?
Jesus spoke of the manna.
John 6:48-50 The manna was REAL food. Just as Jesus is REAL food.
verse 50: Jesus says that HE is the bread that One may EAT and not die.
verse 51. He calls Himself the LIVING BREAD. And the bread that He will give is HIS FLESH.
He continued for a long while saying these things --- eating his flesh and drinking His blood.
Finally some disciple couldn't take it anymore and left.
John 6:60
2. They left because they thought He really meant it Literally.
Jesus told Peter to get out of the boat and walk on water.
Did Jesus mean this literally?
Mathew 14:29
I don't think we could be absolutely sure about what Jesus meant.
Minds better than ours are not sure.