I am sure that the RCC would also object to the term "heresy" but that is what they believe in. Theological terms are necessary to define positions and concepts. If they don't like it, then so be it. There are Calvinists that don't like being called a "Calvinist," but they are. It defines their position. The doctrines of the RCC are heretical. The teachings of the RCC, if followed, will send a person to hell. The truth must be told.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
"The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism."
Yeah, that is why the early Christians were being martyred. They were accused of cannibalism because of the Eucharist. Funny how there wasn't a greater effert by them to show it was only a symbol. Surely there are writings somewhere that show their attempt to correct their persecuters as to what was happening in the Eucharist.
Yeah, that is why the early Christians were being martyred. They were accused of cannibalism because of the Eucharist. Funny how there wasn't a greater effert by them to show it was only a symbol. Surely there are writings somewhere that show their attempt to correct their persecuters as to what was happening in the Eucharist.
DHK, you are so anxious to attack the teachings of the Catholic Church that you ignore the topic at hand. You, as a Baptist, reject the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine. I pointed out that Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians have always believe in the same interpretation of John Chapter 6. There may be disagreements over just how He is in the bread and the wine but they all believe He IS present.
Wrong again Lori. Try reading your Bible. That is where you will find a history of the early Christians.
Acts 8:3-4 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
Do you really think that Saul was persecuting the church because of cannibalism. I have never heard of that before, and I have been studying this for years.
BTW, if your theory is correct it should be more than just an opinion. Why don't you document it for us.
No they don't. You are wrong. This is what I have been telling you. Open your eyes and read the posts.
Scott Hahn addresses the accustion in one of Marcia's resourses to the Cannibalistic argutment:
"Is the Eucharist Cannibalistic?
Some Evangelicals feel that the idea of eating Jesus is Cannibalistic. Catholics don't think so. When Catholics say that the bread becomes the body of Christ, they are talking about the glorified body of Christ. Immediately after Jesus said "whoever eats me will live because of me" (Jn 6:58) He says "what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (Jn 6:62) Catholics feel he is explaining that his body will be changed into a glorified body (such as is described in 1 Cor 15:40) his body became glorified at the ascension. This passage of John foreshadows the ascension. And this is how Jesus clarified himself and made the distinction between his mortal body (Cannibalistic concept) and his Glorified body (Eucharistic concept). The glorified body of Christ was the revelation of his true nature as the Incarnate God. That is what we receive."
"Is the Eucharist Cannibalistic?
Some Evangelicals feel that the idea of eating Jesus is Cannibalistic. Catholics don't think so. When Catholics say that the bread becomes the body of Christ, they are talking about the glorified body of Christ. Immediately after Jesus said "whoever eats me will live because of me" (Jn 6:58) He says "what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (Jn 6:62) Catholics feel he is explaining that his body will be changed into a glorified body (such as is described in 1 Cor 15:40) his body became glorified at the ascension. This passage of John foreshadows the ascension. And this is how Jesus clarified himself and made the distinction between his mortal body (Cannibalistic concept) and his Glorified body (Eucharistic concept). The glorified body of Christ was the revelation of his true nature as the Incarnate God. That is what we receive."
Sheer stupidity!
What did Stephen see when he was being stoned"
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Stephen saw Jesus in his glorified body, (all of it) standing on the right hand of God.
Jesus continues to sit on the right hand of God. His body is not and has not been decaying away with every bite that the cannabalistic Catholics take out of His body every time they go to mass the world over. What a ridiculous concept. There wouldn't be anything left of Christ by now. Some of the most absurd things are put forth by the RCC because they keep digging themselves into deeper and deeper holes. They just refuse to accept the Scriptures as they are.
I've read the posts. Specifically what do you mean 'no they don't'? All Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and the wine. I'll let others like Matt (Anglican)
Agnus Dei (Orthodox), and hopefully a Lutheran (used to be several on this board) chime in.
Just one documentation I have at hand is written by St. Damascus (366-383) wrote a poem which reminds us of St. Tarcisius, who was commemorated by martyrdom at the Catacombs in Rome,:
"When a wicked group of fanatics flung themselves
on Tarcisius who was carrying the Eucharist,
wanting to profane the Sacrament, the boy preferred
to give up his life rather than yield up
the Body of Christ to those rabid dogs".
Look him up on Wikipedia for the full story. There are others I'll list when I get chance to go through my notes that are 1st and 2nd century accounts.
That is why we Catholics are so sensitive about desecration of the Eucharist, we believe it is truly the body and blood of Jesus, and many of us are willing to go to the grave for that belief.
It is not a matter of how big God is.
For example, God is not so big that He will lie or go against His nature.
The same is true here. God will not advocate heresy.
You have God as an idol. But that is not the God I serve. Listen first to the description by Paul about God:
Acts 17:19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
Acts 17:24-25 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
--Understand this truth!! God does not dwell in temples (or in any other thing) that is made with hands. That includes the host of bread and the wine or juice that is made by the RCC, the Orthodox or any other man. God dwells in heaven.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
--He does not dwell in the elements of the Lord's Table.
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
--He is not worshiped with men's hands.
He does not need anything.
It is God that gives life and breath to all things.
There is no life and breath in the communion host. It is a piece of lifeless bread. Christ is not in it. It is just a piece of bread and that is all. It is symbolic. Christ is not there. Listen to what the Word says.
Isaiah 40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
Isaiah 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Isaiah 41:28-29 For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word.
20 Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion.
Even Isaiah knew of the RCC, it seems.
Vanity, nothing, and confusion.
Still just attacking Catholicism and not responding to the FACT that Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the elements of bread and wine.
You also said that Martin Luther did not believe that baptism was necessary to salvation. Here in his own words from his Larger Catechism:
Luther wrote:
affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless.... Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action (1978, pp. 98-99).
WOW! So maybe your wrong on this as well as what Luther and Lutherans believe about Holy Communion.
You also said that Martin Luther did not believe that baptism was necessary to salvation. Here in his own words from his Larger Catechism:
Luther wrote:
affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless.... Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action (1978, pp. 98-99).
WOW! So maybe your wrong on this as well as what Luther and Lutherans believe about Holy Communion.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I agree that Luther taught the "real presence" in the Mass but simply left the "how" of it - as a mystery. So no magical "confecting" by the priests in Luther's system.
Luther also believe in infant baptism which means he had to believe in some kind of "power" in the hands of the priest - and some kind of "need" by all to be baptized "or else" -- all including infants.
in Christ,
Bob
Luther also believe in infant baptism which means he had to believe in some kind of "power" in the hands of the priest - and some kind of "need" by all to be baptized "or else" -- all including infants.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well if we get to talk about John 6 -- then John 6 it is.
There Jesus does NOT say "some day in the FUTURE I will be bread" -- Jesus said "I AM the bread that came down out of heaven" and his promise was to he who EATS my flesh -- not "I will SOME DAY in the FUTURE be the BREAD that comes down out of heaven".
Jesus' John 6 argument is that He already IS the bread of life and that He already came down out of heaven.
Yet not a single faithFUL disciple bites Christ that day.
And onlyl the faithLES disciples argue that he must mean that they are to actually bite him.
The faithFUL disciples merely say in John 6 "you have the WORDS of life"
in Christ,
Bob
Thanks Bob. I would have thought with all the Lutherans that have participated on this board over the years that DHK would be aware of this. It has certainly been discussed a number of times. I seem to remember DHK debating a Lutheran over the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine.
Last edited by a moderator:
The position, I believe, by all the denominations I mentioned above is that at the epiclisis in the mass, the Holy Spirit does the 'action', although, your right
the Catholic Church makes the distinction that God uses the action of the priest at that occurance, the Orthodox, as Agnus Dei has stated leaves this action to the Holy Spirit. Anglicans are more like the Lutherans as leaving the 'how' out of the epiclesis, although again, the Holy Spirit completes the mystery. Maybe Matt can correct me if I'm wrong.
The prayer of thanksgiving (one of them) at the conclusion of the Anglican Mass reads: Eternal God, heavenly Father, you have graciously accepted us as living members of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and you have fed us with spiritual food in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood . . . .
I believe the new LCMS book of Worship also utilizes this same prayer. It makes it clear that this is spiritual food for our souls.
The same denominations would agree to the interpretation of John Chapter six as I stated. This clearly seems to have been the consistent teaching from the earliest days of the church.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems that the biggest problem with the 'Catholic' issue on this board (over the years) concerns justification. Not to sidetrack this thread but simply for the benefit of anyone who does not know the official position (Lutheran/Catholic) on justification (which most Lutherans now have signed on to) is found here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Interesting read.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Interesting read.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, Lori, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.
...says the person who claims that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation.
That doesn't alter the fact that Lutherans believe that Christ is present in Communion; they just don't believe He is present in quite the same way Catholics do.
I never said Lutherans believe in transubstantiation. I did say that most Lutherans deny they believe in consubstantiation.
I was taught at California Baptist College that they believed in consubstantiation and found out that is wrong. I mentioned that the LCMS vehemently denies consubstantiation. Most Lutherans prefer to say that the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ. As Bob mentioned, they prefer not to say how. Anglicans seem to think similarly.
The LCMS website does address it.
Last edited by a moderator: