Featured The plain reading of Scripture then Traditional

So in the other examples the human tendency is to take a spiritual lesson and make it literal, which then had to be corrected. Yet in the case of the bread and cup, the natural tendency is to take it figuratively, but in this case it should have been taken literally. Even though in John 6:63 it is specifically said that the words are to be taken spiritually. Add to this the objective fact that it simply is not true that the bread becomes literally anything but bread and so with the fruit of the vine.

In addition, there is nothing in the quote from Ignatius that indicates the problem is the belief in transubstantiation. He said that they don't believe in what it means which includes that Jesus suffered for our sins and was raised from the dead. They were abstaining from the ceremony, and from prayer, because they did not believe. That's why they are perishing.

 

@Cathode. I understand your position. I would only say that not all writings of early church fathers agree with the selected quotes you listed above as I'm sure you know. But more importantly, the claim that the cup and bread turns literally into the blood and body of Christ is verifiable and - it doesn't. If you want to take the position that Presbys take, and increasingly Catholics, that by faith it means the body and blood of Christ then that's fine.

It truly never takes long, when you talk to a serious Catholic, to get cursed. Are you really claiming that everyone who refuses to believe in a literal change from wine and bread to the actual literal blood and body of Christ are lost? Do you really think that is the message of John 6? I have noticed that all the movements over the years of Catholics and Protestants coming together always hinge in how far Protestants are willing to go back to Rome.

 

Not all believed in literal transubstantiation.

Yes. When the East and West split they excommunicated each other, and the West later did Luther.

There again, if you mean that the person participating is by faith eating and drinking because they believe that Christ's blood saved them then okay. But if you believe there is something that the literal host and wine is doing then no. Luther's later writings on the Eucharist were against what the ceremony itself was claiming to do more so than the state of the elements.

There again. Without the shed blood and death of Christ the entire church would be dead. What Rome did was turn the Eucharist into an idol which is what men tend to do. That's why they had to eventually destroy the serpent lifted up in the wilderness rather than keep it as a memorial. You guys especially have filled your churches with statues, symbols and so on that you worship. This is where others doubt whether Roman Catholics can be brothers in Christ. I don't agree with them but you are illustrating their point. Why you would be posting on a Baptist Board and not challenged by a moderator puzzles me somewhat.

 

A third century forgery.
The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr.…

 

Either you are just uninformed or you are taking every instance where they said as part of the ceremony "this is my blood" as proof that they believed it was literal. A quick and easy internet search will turn up quite a few quotes where early church fathers specifically explained that this was symbolic and spiritual.

Nope.

Keep on. You are just proving the tendency of idolatry that we all deal with. When you really look into this, especially if you read what Luther himself had problems with concerning the Catholic mass and eucharistic teaching, you start to see the reasons for the divisions that needed to occur.

I try to be open minded on this because I enjoy sites like "First Things" and like to read many of the Christian political writers from Hillsdale and so on which happen to be Catholic. I have some Catholic friends and relatives who I hope and pray are true Christians. I have the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism and believe there is much good in Catholic theology. But you came one here, on a Baptistboard forum and said in posts above that all of us that reject transubstantiation are not true believers - then you wallow in self pity as if you are unjustly attacked for saying such things. Why don't you try to have a conciliar attitude from your direction too. I have suffered enough from my Calvinist and Baptist friends for taking me to task for not saying that all of you are going to Hell. Then you come on and say the same about us!

 

Once again:

Did you not say, and does Catholic doctrine not teach that those who reject the literal presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist are perishing? Don't get offended when people read what you said. You made the direct comparison between those who reject your teaching with those who left Jesus in John 6.
The only thing I have said about you is exactly what you said above. In addition, Catholic doctrine clearly states that those who reject transubstantiation are "accursed". If you reject that then now you have a chance to say so.

Now. I'll say it once more. I think there are Roman Catholics who are genuinely saved. I can name a some Reformers who said the same, as well as Spurgeon, G. Campbell Morgan, even John R. Rice, who said the same. I don't know why you would be so offended if people say you're lost on this site anyway. There are people on this site who say the God of Calvinism is a monster and there are Calvinists who say that anyone who claims that he chose to believe is doing salvation by works and is - well, accursed. Don't leave. You fit right in.

 

That was from Trent.

Well. Wasn't that your big complaint? You still have a chance to say that you really don't agree with Catholic teaching that those of us who don't believe in transubstantiation are not heretics or lost, as Ignatius and Trent say. Where do you stand on that?

 

Where is that "separated brethren" teaching found. I remember reading that a long time ago when confronted with the constantly moving Catholic apologetics shell game but couldn't remember where. I was working at a Catholic hospital and during a political campaign a candidate had visited Bob Jones University. Bob had said some things about the Roman Catholic faith and everyone was discussing how outrageous it was to do so I pointed out that they had condemned us (meaning Baptists) and told them to read Trent. As I remember, Trent remains in effect as long as the separated lesser brother is aware of his errors and still persists in such errant belief and practices. Once again, a shell game, of reaching out with conciliar reconciliation but then the reality of "you must submit to our way" or else. I mean really, with your tradition, and infallibility issues, you guys cannot really reverse Trent, can you?

 

They already have. The Council of Trent clearly was designed and meant to condemn to Hell all the major Protestant teachings. It gives little comfort that you seem to think it only applies to our teachers and theologians. Still, you prove the shell game charge. The fact is you stated it correctly in the post. The Catholic church has great compassion and love for us in the same way we all have love for unreached people. But they are still lost if they don't become converted. That's what I meant by shell game and I stand by that. Say one thing but really mean quite another. Oh, we're all brothers - unless we refuse to come around to your view of the Eucharist and justification.

 

You say that. And I have Catholic friends who also say that and I will take you at your word. I would only say that this does show one of the problems of tradition. That is even "tradition" if recorded and believed, leaves one in a position of either denying the traditional teaching or modifying it to suit a more modern time. Trent says what it says, and at the same time an infallibility is claimed which makes ignoring it problematic. But if you say that is not what you believe I accept that.

Not sure what you are talking about here. I know some converted Catholics, and their biggest complaint is that the basics of the gospel were never clearly taught to them as Catholics. They do have friction with still Catholic relatives and so discussion at family gatherings can become strained.

Look. No one else on a Baptistboard seems to have any problem with Catholic teaching so I will sign off. I do appreciate you taking the time for thoughtful responses and I think you are well versed in your beliefs.

 

Jesus speaking symbolically, or about spiritual matters, and people constantly misunderstanding Him by thinking on natural things.

John 1:19-25 -- John the Baptist as spiritually Elijah’s successor
John 2:19-22 -- Temple of His (Jesus’) body
John 3:1-21 -- Nicodemus, Born Again From Heaven Above
John 4:7-15 -- Woman at the Well, Water, Eternal Life, Faith
John 4:31-34 - Meat to Eat, Water to Drink, Will of God, Faith
John 5:6-7 -- Will you be made whole, Pool, Forgiven and restored whole
John 6:50-52 -- Eat my Flesh, Word, Believeth
John 7:38-39 -- Water out of the belly, Spirit
John 8:21-22 -- Whither I go, ye cannot come, back to Heaven
John 9:40 -- Pharisees are blind, Jesus speaks about their heart, not natural eyesight
John 10:1-6 -- Jesus is the Good Shepherd, they do not understand
John 11:11-14 -- Lazarus was asleep, Jesus explains dead
John 12:12-19 -- Triumphal entry, totally misunderstood
John 13:1-20 -- Wash, Don't know now what I (Jesus) do
John 14:1-14 -- Shew us the Father, Example of Jesus does exactly like the Father
Matthew 16:5-12 -- Leaven, Bread, Sin, False Doctrine & Hypocrisy

1Co_15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

So, Moses had the Natural come down:

Exo_16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.

Psa 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,
Psa 78:24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
Psa 78:25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.​

Jesus is the Spiritual (not natural) bread, the living Word of the Father (Jhn. 1:1-3):

Joh_6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh_6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh_6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh_6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh_14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh_14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
​

How many are still thinking naturally, of natural flesh, natrual blood, when none of it avails anything?

In the Catholic Mass, the 'unbloody sacrifice', it is dead (no life). Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that it becomes the actual (dead, as it is a 'sacrifice') "body, blood, soul and divinity" 'under the guise of (earthly) elements' and touches the earth (altar). Jesus said:

Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
​

I remember Jesus saying:

Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Joh 14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
​

I remember Paul (who actually saw Jesus, multiple times), say:

1Th_4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
​

So, in the Catholic mass, I have never heard a loud trumpet from Heaven, the voice of Jesus, any resurrections from the grave (though Catholic cathedrals are 'beautiful' tombs, but inwardly filled with dead men's bones), definitely no glorious unfallen angels (though I know the Vatican is in contact with fallen angels claiming to be righteous angels, even beings from the unfallen worlds).