Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[valiant]

I despair of this forum!

Well no one is forcing you to come

You cannot believe that about the church fathers! NOWHERE do they say symbol.

Of course I believe that of the church fathers. Why should they analyse in depth? They were not arguing with critics but speaking to believers.

Indeed ignatius said of heretics " they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh" and so " incur death". Excommunication for failing to believe it

In fact he was talking about gnostics who wanted to avoid the flesh in any form. They did not believe that the Son died on the cross. Thus they denied that the bread spoke of His flesh. They would not accept that it was His body. We accept that it was His body in its significance. Thus Ignatius would not excommunicate us. Phew!!!

Justin Martyr said " and changed.,, the flesh and blood of our lord"

well it did 'change' into the flesh and blood of our Lord. Previously it had been ordinary bread and wine. Now it was consecrated bread and wine. It had 'turned into the flesh and blood of our Lord'. It was to be treated with respect.

What you fail to recognise is that such language can have a number of meanings when talking about the symbolic. When we present the bread we say, 'this is My body which is broken for you'. And it is. By partaking of it they are declaring their oneness with His body. It is a deep spiritual reality.

Perhaps you could also show me where these two early fathers say that the wine is only for the priests alone? They talked of ALL Christians participating

And all the others since,

So you ran out of examples? LOL

Indeed our lord allowed many of his disciples to leave, if they refused to accept he did mean his flesh in John 6, which they clearly assumed.

I see no mention of what they 'clearly assumed'. What did they clearly assume? At that stage there was no Lord's Supper so they could not have interpreted in that light. What then did they think? Did they think He was going to turn them into cannibals? Very unlikely. What they did do was interpret His language in terms of the OT where to eat a man's flesh and drink His blood meant either to kill him or benefit by his death. And what they did not like was the idea of following a Messiah who was bent on death. Simple and obvious really.

Sparevme the insults.

Certainly if you stop giving them

 

[mikeuk]

Well no one is forcing you to come

Of course I believe that of the church fathers. Why should they analyse in depth? They were not arguing with critics but speaking to believers.



In fact he was talking about gnostics who wanted to avoid the flesh in any form. They did not believe that the Son died on the cross. Thus they denied that the bread spoke of His flesh. They would not accept that it was His body. We accept that it was His body in its significance. Thus Ignatius would not excommunicate us. Phew!!!



well it did 'change' into the flesh and blood of our Lord. Previously it had been ordinary bread and wine. Now it was consecrated bread and wine. It had 'turned into the flesh and blood of our Lord'. It was to be treated with respect.

What you fail to recognise is that such language can have a number of meanings when talking about the symbolic. When we present the bread we say, 'this is My body which is broken for you'. And it is. By partaking of it they are declaring their oneness with His body. It is a deep spiritual reality.

Perhaps you could also show me where these two early fathers say that the wine is only for the priests alone? They talked of ALL Christians participating



So you ran out of examples? LOL



I see no mention of what they 'clearly assumed'. What did they clearly assume? At that stage there was no Lord's Supper so they could not have interpreted in that light. What then did they think? Did they think He was going to turn them into cannibals? Very unlikely. What they did do was interpret His language in terms of the OT where to eat a man's flesh and drink His blood meant either to kill him or benefit by his death. And what they did not like was the idea of following a Messiah who was bent on death. Simple and obvious really.



Certainly if you stop giving them

I can give you books of examples, but you can equally find them for yourself - none of the ECF said symbol, all regarded as flesh of Christ, and in John 6 they as Jews were reviled by thought of eating real flesh, which is why they left!

You should also read the scientific evidence which is compelling too.

 

[valiant]

I can give you books of examples, but you can equally find them for yourself - none of the ECF said symbol, all regarded as flesh of Christ,

You seem to think that we have not read the early fathers. Early church history was my major study in my advanced theological degree. And it was at a secular university. You seem unable to comprehend a simple fact. We all regard it as the flesh of Christ. The only difference is in what way is it the flesh of Christ? The early fathers never had to discuss this.

As I have already informed you (but you presumably ignore) when we offer the bread at the Lord's table we say 'this is My body which is given for you'. No early church father could be more blatant. We do not say, 'this is symbolical of My body'. But we know that just as at the Last Supper it was not literal flesh and blood so it is not literal flesh and blood. Rather by it we enter into His death. We eat of His flesh because we benefit by His death. We drink of His blood by benefiting by His shed blood. As we participate we enter again into what it means to die with Christ and rise with Him. It is REAL. And this is what the words of the early church fathers MEANT.

and in John 6 they as Jews were reviled by thought of eating real flesh, which is why they left!

Unlike you they were versed in Jewish expression. They KNEW that to eat a man's flesh was to kill him (Psalm 14.4), 'they eat up My people as they eat bread'. (Psalm 27.2), 'when evildoers come on me to eat up my flesh.' (Micah 3.3), 'who also eat the flesh of My people'. 'Shall I drink the blood of men who have hazarded their lives?' (2 Sam 23.17). So when a Jew heard Jesus talking about 'eating His flesh' and 'drinking His blood' he knew immediately what Jesus meant. Either they would kill Him or would benefit from His death. Was David really going to drink the blood of his men? No it was a vessel full of water, symbolic of their blood.

Let us look are John 6. Let us consider His words spoken to the crowds who were following Him who knew of the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 (6.5-13), 'For the bread of God is He Who comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world.' (verse 33).Does that mean they are going literally to eat Him? Jesus explains. 'I am the bread of life, he who COMES TO ME will never hunger' (verse 35) (by coming to Him they have eaten of Him and their hunger has been satisfied - it is metaphor). And He then goes on to speak of people coming to Him in general and receiving life (verse 37, 44).

And again, 'I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down from Heaven that a man may eat of it and not die' (verses 48-50). In other words, according to verse 35, by coming to Him they will find life.

And again, 'I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, if any man eats of this bread he will live for ever, yes and the bread which I will give is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world (verse 51).

Why will coming to Him save them and satisfy their hunger? Because He is going to die for them.

As can be seen. all has been metaphor.

But now the people He is speaking to changes. He is now faced by His enemies 'the (hardened) Jews' who are planning to kill Him. They are furious at what they have heard and deliberately misinterpret Him (like the RCs) and say indignantly, 'how can this man give us His flesh to eat?' Jesus looks them straight in the eye (continuing to speak metaphorically)' and says, 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life in yourselves'. Compare verse 51 where He was clearly speaking of the cross. So what is He saying? 'Your seeking of my death is necessary if life is to be made available to you. You must eat my flesh (kill me and come to me) and drink my blood (kill me and benefit by my death) if you are to have life (see the OT sayings above). He then stresses that eternal life can only be obtained by people 'eating His flesh and drinking His blood', that is benefiting by His death. There is no thought of literal cannibalism, and at the time they knew nothing about the Lord's Supper.

He finishes by saying, 'I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live by Me.' Has He been eating the Father? No What He means as we saw earlier is, 'he who comes to Me'.

What upset His disciples was His talk of death.

You should also read the scientific evidence which is compelling too.

Any good magician could play a trick like that. The RC church is famous for it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I would like to see it. Do you have a scholarly scientific source which supports the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation (e.g. the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood)?

You should also read the scientific evidence which is compelling too.

 

[mikeuk]

I would like to see it. Do you have a scholarly scientific source which supports the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation (e.g. the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood)?

Whilst the evidence can be found piecemeal - the best recommendation I have is " unseen" by ron teseroriero, presenting forensic lab test evidence by labs and pathologists used in criminal investigation: most were not told what the samples were until after results were received. Specifically the miracles of buenos aires , sikolka and lanciano. All were transformation of bread into a bloody fleshy substance over a period of observation. The flesh was determined as heart myocardium which presents near impossible problems for fraud , and the presence of white cells - determine the samples as living at the time of sampling, which is beyond science to explain for samples held in water.

Fascinating reading. If you cannot get it, PM me.

 

[Jeff_56]

What if I showed you the most blatant heresy (basically the same stuff I mentioned in my original post -- heresy that sends people to hell) -- straight from the horse's mouth? What if I can give you a link to it all -- in their own words -- straight from the Vatican, from their own official, current publication? The official, Vatican.va website? It is indeed truly the Vatican authoritative website, with the official doctrines of the Vatican (i.e., the Pope and the official Catholic church). If I show you where they themselves publish this shocking, blatant heresy, specifically to represent their own core doctrines -- will you believe that they (the officially recognized Catholic Church) really do believe and teach these blatant heresies that send people to hell?

If not, I won't bother

But if you will, and if that will settle it, then I'll show you.

I mean, when I make a post here, you assume that I really believe what I posted right? I mean, the whole reason you're engaging me now is because you actually believe that I say/said all the things you read in my post. And rightly so. Yes, it's really me, and yes I posted all that coz yes I speak/say/believe all that. You wouldn't be in denial that RoboOp actually says/said exactly what he said. Now, if I can show you what is publicly posted by the official Vatican (the official Roman Catholic headquarters), on their official authoritative source (their own website), will you acknowledge that yes, they actually do say/teach/believe/promote these damnable heresies?

Anyway, for the record, yes I also know "born again Catholics" whom I believe will be in heaven with me, not because they follow the main teachings of the Catholic Church but because they reject the main teachings of the Catholic Church -- they strip away the poison and just put their faith and trust in Jesus alone as savior, mediator, sinless, etc.

amen. couldn't say it better myself (just maybe more often) !

I warn people so their blood/lost soul/ is not on my hands. (rather they be SAVED IN JESUS! YES!)

 

[valiant]

Whilst the evidence can be found piecemeal - the best recommendation I have is " unseen" by ron teseroriero, presenting forensic lab test evidence by labs and pathologists used in criminal investigation: most were not told what the samples were until after results were received. Specifically the miracles of buenos aires , sikolka and lanciano. All were transformation of bread into a bloody fleshy substance over a period of observation. The flesh was determined as heart myocardium which presents near impossible problems for fraud , and the presence of white cells - determine the samples as living at the time of sampling, which is beyond science to explain for samples held in water.

Fascinating reading. If you cannot get it, PM me.

lol argentina now I wonder why? such a neutral place.

and no corruption to be seen if they can help it lol

 

[mikeuk]

lol argentina now I wonder why? such a neutral place.

If you value truth you will read the evidence and judge from it in that order.
(although be warned some of it is technical)
These are labs and pathologists involved in criminal investigation, in which context you would believe them.

It is fascinating how people allow prejudice to get in the way of rational judgement, take Dawkins repeating Sagan's folly " extraordinary claims" , ditto sceptics disregarding such as sudarium evidence on the basis of a priori resistance to Jesus's existence despite the fact the Madrid labs and specialists are the same used in criminal proceedings. Ditto other phenomena. Your comment proves the same attitude problem.

 

[valiant]

If you value truth you will read the evidence and judge from it in that order.
(although be warned some of it is technical)
These are labs and pathologists involved in criminal investigation, in which context you would believe them.

It is fascinating how people allow prejudice to get in the way of rational judgement, take Dawkins repeating Sagan's folly " extraordinary claims" , ditto sceptics disregarding such as sudarium evidence on the basis of a priori resistance to Jesus's existence despite the fact the Madrid labs and specialists are the same used in criminal proceedings. Ditto other phenomena. Your comment proves the same attitude problem.

if the claims proved true it would be cannibalism pure and simple. why on earth should God do that? what we receive from the Lord's table is spiritual refreshment and blessing not bits of flesh,

 

[mikeuk]

if the claims proved true it would be cannibalism pure and simple. why on earth should God do that? what we receive from the Lord's table is spiritual refreshment and blessing not bits of flesh,

It is entirely consistent with the accepted interpretation of real presence that nobody challenged pre reformation, and even post reformation many denominations still believe it. You are the one out on a limb on this valiant.

Study it. Then decide.

The differences between Lutherans, Eastern rite and RCC even episcopalian are how it happens, not the fact of real presence.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Ok, I'll examine this case and may PM you if I need further documentation. Peace.

...the best recommendation I have is " unseen" by ron teseroriero, presenting forensic lab test evidence by labs and pathologists used in criminal investigation: most were not told what the samples were until after results were received. Specifically the miracles of buenos aires , sikolka and lanciano. All were transformation of bread into a bloody fleshy substance over a period of observation. The flesh was determined as heart myocardium which presents near impossible problems for fraud , and the presence of white cells - determine the samples as living at the time of sampling, which is beyond science to explain for samples held in water. Fascinating reading. If you cannot get it, PM me.

 

[valiant]

It is entirely consistent with the accepted interpretation of real presence that nobody challenged pre reformation, and even post reformation many denominations still believe it. You are the one out on a limb on this valiant.

Study it. Then decide.

The differences between Lutherans, Eastern rite and RCC even episcopalian are how it happens, not the fact of real presence.

You talk from (feigned?) ignorance. Neither the Lutherans nor the eastern orthodox believe in the REAL presence. They do not believe that the bread actually physically changes into the a tiny part of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. They believe that His presence is in the bread 'spiritually'. As He is omnipresent that is very likely. WE receive spiritual blessing and contact with Christ when we participate in the bread. No one can really explain it or define it. But we are all agreed that it is not a physical fleshly presence.

Besides Jesus would have to have an awfully big physical body for millions to eat it weekly. And if I remember rightly His resurrection body was the size of an ordinary man.. And besides He might miss the bits that we ate. So you are saying that weekly God creates an extra body for Jesus so that it can be fed to the multitudes? It can certainly not be His real body. The idea is absurd and little short of blasphemous.

By the way do you think He likes being hung up in a casket in the church? Another example of idolatry.

It is true I am out on a limb. I am a limb of the true Vine. Not a branch of the false vine.


yes I am a limb of the true vine. not branch of the false vine.

 

[notuptome]

You would reason that all the early church fathers and all the saints of the previous eras would have written abundantly about how they came to know and trust Christ for their salvation. But alas the absence of any such evidence is troubling to say the least. I wonder why Rome has not seen fit to preserve and present such critical evidence to support their positions?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[KenAllan]

Its interesting that the Catholics Worship the Eucharist more than they Worship God! Its the Eucharist that has the power not God. The whole ceremony is about the Eucharist and what it can do for you.

We True Christians look PAST the wafer and see God and what He has done for us. The Catholics look just at the wafer and nothing else. In fact the Catholics have used the Eucharist as a great power to do their magic. If you look online you will find lots of "Miracles" from the Catholic Church that involves the Eucharist!

The Eucharist means more to the Catholics than God! Its another example of how the Catholic Church is a Cult and not a True Christian Church.

 

[mikeuk]

You talk from (feigned?) ignorance. Neither the Lutherans nor the eastern orthodox believe in the REAL presence. They do not believe that the bread actually physically changes into the a tiny part of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. They believe that His presence is in the bread 'spiritually'. As He is omnipresent that is very likely. WE receive spiritual blessing and contact with Christ when we participate in the bread. No one can really explain it or define it. But we are all agreed that it is not a physical fleshly presence.

Besides Jesus would have to have an awfully big physical body for millions to eat it weekly. And if I remember rightly His resurrection body was the size of an ordinary man.. And besides He might miss the bits that we ate. So you are saying that weekly God creates an extra body for Jesus so that it can be fed to the multitudes? It can certainly not be His real body. The idea is absurd and little short of blasphemous.

By the way do you think He likes being hung up in a casket in the church? Another example of idolatry.

It is true I am out on a limb. I am a limb of the true Vine. Not a branch of the false vine.


yes I am a limb of the true vine. not branch of the false vine.

You seemingly know as little of Lutheranism and Eastern rite as you do in your errant claim to know Catholicism

 

[valiant]

You seemingly know as little of Lutheranism and Eastern rite as you do in your errant claim to know Catholicism

That's strange. I obtained my info from them I think you live in a dream world.

 

[mattp0625]

I find it interesting that some Christian denominations seem to focus a substantial portion of their efforts pointing the finger at the largest denomination. Just saying.

 

[Utah]

I find it interesting that some Christian denominations seem to focus a substantial portion of their efforts pointing the finger at the largest denomination. Just saying.

Quality, not quantity.

 

[mattp0625]

Matthew 5:22. A good read.

 

[Jimbone]

Matthew 5:22. A good read.

So is 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Timothy 4:1-22, Titus 1:9, 2 Timothy 2:15, Jude 1:3, ....
Though we are supposed to do it in love, we are very much called to “judge” each other in love and fear. That said, I do understand what you’re saying though, often times I do not see it being done in love either.