Catholic Magical Mystery Tours

[Cathode]

It may be. But as the name says, it's also a protest and correction of serious errors that occur always, in the endeavors of men. The fact is, Lutherans believe Christ is in the bread and wine, so do the Presbyterians in a more vague sense. The Church of Christ does communion every week based on many of the same reasons you give. The Baptists, mostly do this less frequently because we realize the tendency of men to make the familiar and routine non-serious. And the other tendency is to worship the substance or the ceremony more than that which it signifies. In other words, it is an aid in remembrance - not that that is not important. But Jesus himself is the object of our thoughts or we fall into idolatry. We do well to look at the ECF's which many are doing nowadays if for no other reason than to refute Calvinism. But the ECF's have a lot of errors too and it is hard to fit together all that they were doing in the times they lived.

Luther had no authority to correct any doctrine. Nor Calvin or Zwingli or any other innovator since them.
They just founded traditions of men named after themselves, Scripture itself condemns these things.

The Eucharist is Jesus Himself therefore not idolatry, it is The Lord.

To hold up, adore and parade anything less would be idolatry. Yes you are right.

In the Eucharist Jesus fulfils His promise to be with us always, not just in spirit but completely, because He is not just spirit but flesh and blood also.

Zwingli’s unbelief and denial cost generations of people the beautiful reality of Jesus in the Eucharist.

It is not my faith that made Jesus real in receiving the Eucharist, it was my faith that enabled me to see Jesus in the Eucharist, to see its reality. Whether I believe or not, the Eucharist is Jesus.

Anything less than Jesus Himself in the Eucharist seems to us playacting a watered down ape of the ancient and sacred reality and faith.

Only the Apostolic lineage can confect the Eucharist.

For us the Eucharist is the centre, height and summit of our worship at Mass each day. Jesus Himself is our daily bread from heaven. It is so serious that we make the Eucharist available as our daily bread.
We spend whole nights in Adoration before The Holy Eucharist.

Only those who believe recognise the Lord at the breaking of the bread.

 

[DaveXR650]

Luther had no authority to correct any doctrine.

I don't know if he did start out to correct doctrine. But the response of the Roman church to him just stating obvious corruptions and problems led him to question the whole system I think.

They just founded traditions of men named after themselves, Scripture itself condemns these things.

There is nothing in scripture that gives any basis for the unhealthy veneration of the actual bread and wine. You are the guys always appealing to tradition.

For us the Eucharist is the centre, height and summit of our worship at Mass each day. Jesus Himself is our daily bread from heaven.

Yes. You have replaced Christ himself with an idol you can hold and manage. That is a misuse of scripture and it is such a misuse that it has disqualified your church as being authentic. Fortunately, I understand that your views are exceptional even among Roman Catholics. But for those like you, I hope they would really look through scripture and see if there is any real evidence of this kind of behavior in the Bible.

Not to pick on Chan, but his new found belief that preaching and teaching should be deemphasized in favor of adoration and ceremony is refuted by your example as to what can happen when a church does this. Churches that emphasize the sacramental and liturgical side and use the remaining time for a 15 minute therapeutic homily end up with a congregation that instead of being superior in spirituality, is usually ignorant of the things of God and bored with the ceremony.

 

[Cathode]

There is nothing in scripture that gives any basis for the unhealthy veneration of the actual bread and wine. You are the guys always appealing to tradition.

You guys are always appealing to tradition, but those traditions are not Apostolic, the human traditions of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglism, all conflicting human traditions based on private interpretations of scripture. Each introduced their own denials from their own unauthorised opinions of scripture.

We don’t venerate and adore bread and wine, but we do venerate and adore the Body and Blood of Christ.

We believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink, and so did all of Christianity for the first 1500 years unanimously and it still is the majority belief of Christianity today.

Many deny the words of Jesus in Scripture, they do believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood is real drink and thus they disobey and do not eat His flesh and drink His blood.

If the majority belief today and first 1500 years of unanimous Christian belief and very words of Christ in scripture does not convince, then its hardness of heart.

Yes. You have replaced Christ himself with an idol you can hold and manage.

Jesus was placed on earth in a manger as a helpless infant to be held and managed, in the Eucharist He comes to us in a similar helpless way. In this we also partake in the mystery of the Incarnation, we don’t just read about Christ, we receive Him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Covenant.

That is a misuse of scripture and it is such a misuse that it has disqualified your church as being authentic.

Your human founded tradition had nothing to do with the Bible and nor is it authorised to interpret its meaning.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your human founded tradition had nothing to do with the Bible and nor is it authorised to interpret its meaning.

It has everything to do with the Bible and John chapter 6 where the reference is found regarding eating the body and drinking the blood Jesus explicitly states that the words are spirit and that the subject is belief and the uniting with Christ by belief. Somewhere along the line, some of you turned the host into an idol and put your tradition over scripture.

Jesus was placed on earth in a manger as a helpless infant to be held and managed, in the Eucharist He comes to us in a similar helpless way.

So because Jesus was born truly man and thus taken care of as an infant you guys can now encase the host and carry in around "held and managed"? This may be the weirdest logic I have ever heard. And you talk about private interpretation.

I find that whenever you come on here you quickly show a side of Roman Catholicism that does not match the conciliatory messages of sites like "First Things". But it's probably something that people need to see.

 

[Cathode]

It has everything to do with the Bible and John chapter 6 where the reference is found regarding eating the body and drinking the blood Jesus explicitly states that the words are spirit and that the subject is belief and the uniting with Christ by belief. Somewhere along the line, some of you turned the host into an idol and put your tradition over scripture.

So because Jesus was born truly man and thus taken care of as an infant you guys can now encase the host and carry in around "held and managed"? This may be the weirdest logic I have ever heard. And you talk about private interpretation.

I find that whenever you come on here you quickly show a side of Roman Catholicism that does not match the conciliatory messages of sites like "First Things". But it's probably something that people need to see.

I try to be as conciliatory as I can, even when accused of idolatry. I apologise if my replies sound overly assertive, however I’m trying to convey a complete perspective.

What you may not appreciate is all Christianity for the first 1500 years held the beliefs I am sharing with you about the Eucharist.
No church held a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist.
Zwingli was the origin of the denial, Zwingli’s human founded tradition.

If all the churches east and west have unanimously held for the first 1500 years and till today that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ, it should at least give you pause.

A unanimous Christian belief from the beginning for one and a half thousand years weighed against an arrogant opinion of Zwingli, there is no comparison.

The Eucharist is Jesus, that is the Goodness and Love and Power of the Lord. This is how He made Himself completely available and accessible to all His sheep personally down the ages.

Zwingli is the parent that evily poisoned and alienated you against the Eucharist.

 

[DaveXR650]

What you may not appreciate is all Christianity for the first 1500 years held the beliefs I am sharing with you about the Eucharist.
No church held a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist.
Zwingli was the origin of the denial, Zwingli’s human founded tradition.

Here's Augustine, quoted by Aquinas in "Summa Theologica":
"Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood".

Then Aquinas goes on: "I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are commonly used by men, namely, bred and wine."

I think from the writing above of Augustine and Aquinas, both before Zwingli, and both arguably Catholic, that they did not believe that the body and blood of Christ was any more than spiritually present in the bread and wine. They believed in a spiritual reality, by the faith of the participant. That did not prevent them in their writings, as it did not prevent Luther from insisting that Jesus meant what he said when he said "This is my body".

And that's fine for Lutherans. I'm not so sure the Baptists aren't completely correct in their interpretation. Why doesn't anyone ever camp on "do this in remembrance of me". Not do this to worship me or carry this representation of me around as an object of worship in a small, ornamental box.

Zwingli is the parent that evily poisoned and alienated you against the Eucharist.

So you should read more and not listen completely to malignant secondary sources if you are sincere.

 

[Cathode]

Here's Augustine, quoted by Aquinas in "Summa Theologica":
"Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood".

Then Aquinas goes on: "I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are commonly used by men, namely, bred and wine."

I think from the writing above of Augustine and Aquinas, both before Zwingli, and both arguably Catholic, that they did not believe that the body and blood of Christ was any more than spiritually present in the bread and wine. They believed in a spiritual reality, by the faith of the participant. That did not prevent them in their writings, as it did not prevent Luther from insisting that Jesus meant what he said when he said "This is my body".

You misunderstand Aquinas. What Aquinas is saying is that because of human sensibilities regarding the eating of the flesh and blood, God maintains all the appearance of bread and wine even taste, but the substance is literally the Flesh and Blood of Christ Jesus. There is no excuse for a man to refuse the table of the Lord. He has taken even our sensibilities into consideration.

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

Aquinas was explaining why the Eucharist remains like bread and wine in appearance and to the senses, but in substance is literally the Body and Blood of Christ. He called this Transubstantiation. He was giving a word to describe what was always believed.

Jesus our Lord, King Saviour and Saviour Brother is giving us His own Self, His own Life, so that we will be recognised by The Father.
The Father only recognises The Son and those that are in The Son.

“ He who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in Me and I in him”

“ So He who eats me, will live because of me “

“ I am the Resurrection and the Life “

We receive a direct infusion of Jesus and Life in the Eucharist. His Life.

Jesus didn’t just give us His wrist watch for us to be recognised by The Father, He gave us the full infusion of His own Life in His flesh and blood The Eucharist. The Father recognises us from a long way off because we abide in The Son and The Son in us because ate His Flesh and His Blood in a pure Faith, we believed, we believed the words of The Son.

“ This is my beloved Son, Listen to Him “

“ Unless you eat the flesh of the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. “

And that's fine for Lutherans. I'm not so sure the Baptists aren't completely correct in their interpretation. Why doesn't anyone ever camp on "do this in remembrance of me". Not do this to worship me or carry this representation of me around as an object of worship in a small, ornamental box.

Do you know what, “ do this in remembrance of me “ means in context of the time?

When Israelites did in remembrance at Passover, they were making that One Passover and One Sacrifice Present to all Jews of all time.

“ Why is this night different from all other nights?”

There is only One Passover, and all Israel past and present is gathered there.

There is only One Last Supper and all Catholics past and present are gathered there.

Jesus our paschal Lamb, is the sacrifice and the feast.

“After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood. “(Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26) Jerome 390 ad.

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272) Augustine

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2) Augustine 390 ad

 

[DaveXR650]

You misunderstand Aquinas. What Aquinas is saying is that because of human sensibilities regarding the eating of the flesh and blood, God maintains all the appearance of bread and wine even taste, but the substance is literally the Flesh and Blood of Christ Jesus. There is no excuse for a man to refuse the table of the Lord. He has taken even our sensibilities into consideration.

Yes. It is pretty plain what Aquinas is doing. He realized the impossible situation that occurs when you believe in transubstantiation so he attempts an elaborate means of explaining it. People can read for themselves.

There is only One Last Supper and all Catholics past and present are gathered there.

In spirit. That is fine. This is not literal and not meant to be. I have no problems with the seriousness of remembering what Christ has done. I do have problems with the worship of the bread and wine. Don't do that.

I have often wondered about whether Roman Catholicism has attempted to retain the power and authority of the Jewish priesthood. Some of your quotes above do seem to support that.

Do you know what, “ do this in remembrance of me “ means in context of the time?

When Israelites did in remembrance at Passover, they were making that One Passover and One Sacrifice Present to all Jews of all time.

Of course a commemorative ceremony refers back to the original thing that it signifies. Remembrance of me means what is says.

 

[Cathode]

Yes. It is pretty plain what Aquinas is doing. He realized the impossible situation that occurs when you believe in transubstantiation so he attempts an elaborate means of explaining it. People can read for themselves.

Aah, “ impossible situation ”. Zwingli said it impossible that Christ could be at once at the right had of the Father in heaven and also be physically present in the Eucharist on earth. A denial of God’s power but also a denial of His love.

Denial of God’s Power is at the heart of this dissent. The miraculous loaves and fish made no impact on Zwingli’s dead heart. No, impossible, forget “ with God all things are possible “ get your black marker out.

Zwingli is dead Dave, let his unbelief and denials die as well.

In spirit. That is fine. This is not literal and not meant to be. I have no problems with the seriousness of remembering what Christ has done. I do have problems with the worship of the bread and wine. Don't do that.

I have problems with the worship of bread and wine and I don’t do that.

You hold up bread and wine, which has no life, we hold up the Body and Blood of Christ within which resides the Divinity and Eternal Life.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and will raise him up on the last day. “

Many of you believe. You will recognise the Lord in the Eucharist. Your faith will unmask His disguise.

I have often wondered about whether Roman Catholicism has attempted to retain the power and authority of the Jewish priesthood. Some of your quotes above do seem to support that.

Not mere attempt. It does.

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

Of course a commemorative ceremony refers back to the original thing that it signifies. Remembrance of me means what is says.

“Remembrance” is the English word that does not translate adequately. It means “make me present” and that is what the Eucharist does.
The Passover is made present. The Jews only celebrated the One Passover, the One Passover was made present throughout time.

In the Eucharist, Jesus is made present throughout time.

 

[DaveXR650]

Aah, “ impossible situation ”.

No. The impossible situation is that you cannot have the wine and bread in any way becoming literally the blood and body of Christ and at the same time not have the idea that you would thus be drinking human blood. Aquinas recognized that, and it seemed so did the disciples which is why Jesus himself explained it as having a spiritual meaning. You cannot get around this. Everyone knows it and willing obstinate ignorance is the only thing you are left with.

For those who are not satisfied with the clearest and plainest meaning of this I would suggest listening to Jordan Cooper, the Lutheran. Maybe you will find some satisfaction there. I am more and more convinced that when I listen to him and especially you, that the Baptist view is best. I am not familiar enough with Zwingli to comment on his views.

Not mere attempt. It does.

Cathode. At least you're honest. Of course Paul had a warning for people not to be influenced by you guys, which in his day was more of the circumcision party.

 

[Cathode]

No. The impossible situation is that you cannot have the wine and bread in any way becoming literally the blood and body of Christ and at the same time not have the idea that you would thus be drinking human blood. Aquinas recognized that, and it seemed so did the disciples which is why Jesus himself explained it as having a spiritual meaning. You cannot get around this. Everyone knows it and willing obstinate ignorance is the only thing you are left with.

No my friend, it’s far worse than cannibalism. It’s Covenant. An exchange of persons takes place in the Eucharist. It’s the wedding feast of Christ and His Bride the church.
When we eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood, we abide in Him and He in us, we become one flesh in Covenant. All scripture leads to this.

Only in eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood do we have life.

For those who are not satisfied with the clearest and plainest meaning of this I would suggest listening to Jordan Cooper, the Lutheran. Maybe you will find some satisfaction there. I am more and more convinced that when I listen to him and especially you, that the Baptist view is best.

I can’t go to Lutheran or Presbyterian sites.
I was sent to a Presbyterian site years ago, the lone Catholic trying to fellowship, but they brought in big wig PhD Lutheran and Presbyterian guys to flat out attack me viciously. But Jesus was with me and took over. The Lutherans and the Presbyterian big wigs became Catholic and they scrubbed the whole site of everything. Before the admin guy ip blocked me telling me that he hated all Catholics and would kill all Catholic priests if he could, he said that because of me, he would never again allow a Catholic on his site.
I never insulted anyone or was nasty, or anything. Don’t go on Presbyterian sites or Lutheran sites, they are extremely intolerant of other beliefs.

I am not familiar enough with Zwingli to comment on his views

You are saturated with Zwingli but do not know it. Zwingli is the origin of your tradition, you get your interpretation of scripture from him.

Cathode. At least you're honest. Of course Paul had a warning for people not to be influenced by you guys, which in his day was more of the circumcision party.

Jesus imparted His priesthood to the Apostles. Hello.

 

[DaveXR650]

No my friend, it’s far worse than cannibalism. It’s Covenant. An exchange of persons takes place in the Eucharist. It’s the wedding feast of Christ and His Bride the church.
When we eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood, we abide in Him and He in us, we become one flesh in Covenant. All scripture leads to this.

If you mean when we eat the bread and drink the juice that represents Christ's flesh and blood then I guess that's OK. If you read Hodge's Systematic Theology he goes into everyone's views on this in great detail. It's worth getting just because you can view what everyone thinks in one place. Everyone has a slightly different take on it but Roman Catholicism alone parades the bread around like an idol, at least as far as I know.

I was sent to a Presbyterian site years ago, the lone Catholic trying to fellowship, but they brought in big wig PhD Lutheran and Presbyterian guys to flat out attack me viciously.

It's understandable if you went on their site like you do here. You might try Conciliar Post, if it's still active. Sometimes they have good articles.

You are saturated with Zwingli but do not know it. Zwingli is the origin of your tradition, you get your interpretation of scripture from him.

I just haven't had time to read him. He is included in Hodge's book and I have read that.

Jesus imparted His priesthood to the Apostles. Hello.

Jesus started building the church on the Apostles. But he instituted no succession and there is no indication that Jesus wanted anyone to try to act the way a Roman priest acts. That type of stuff, and the way Roman "infallible" doctrine evolves and changes until you have everyone being lost who does not recognize the Pope is more proof of the serious errors of the Roman church. You need to get rid of the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, the Pope, infallibility, and the erroneous views on the Lord's Supper, and then we might find some common ground.

Actually, there is more common ground than you think. But it is due to the fact that most Roman Catholic congregants do not try to understand or follow the things you bring up. They seem to me to be, like you, really nice folks. Frankly, from what is going on in many contemporary Evangelical churches nowadays, I don't blame them for staying where they are. I don't have much else to say on this so you can have the last word.

 

[Cathode]

If you mean when we eat the bread and drink the juice that represents Christ's flesh and blood then I guess that's OK.

Symbolic representations are fine if you are good with only being symbolically saved and symbolically resurrected, but not literally saved and resurrected.
Just so long as people don’t expect more than a zero calorie return from zero calorie belief.

Catholics believe in literal resurrection through the literal body and blood of Christ. Jesus flesh and blood gives life to our flesh and blood.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “

We literally believe that Jesus gives life through His body and blood.

“Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

 

[Cathode]

I just haven't had time to read him. He is included in Hodge's book and I have read that.

Zwingli was the first guy on the planet to enshrine denial of sacrificial Mass and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
A real trail blazer. All of Christianity for the preceding 1500 years believed the opposite.

The reason you don’t believe in sacrificial mass and the real presence, you get through him. He was the start of that tradition.

 

[Johann!@#]

Pretty Womans from your town