Interesting News article

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Jesus said, "This is my body" as he held up the bread. That should be evidence enough. Look at what Jesus is holding and look at what he is saying. That is his body then and there.

Situation: Jason holding up a picture of his car.

Jason: "This is my car."

What does that mean?

Situation: Jason pointing to computer screen showing a map of the USA.

Jason: "This is my country."

What does this mean?

Situation: Jason showing wife MRI and XRay's of his body.

Jason: "This is my body. Whenever you see this, remember me."

What does this mean?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Actually the official position is we don't know when, there is no way to know for sure, we don't care when. The important part is Christ promised his real physical presence.

If you don't know, then wouldn't it be proper to error on the side of caution? In other words, treat the elements with respect and assume that the Presence continues as long as the elements are recognizable as bread and wine following the consecration.

The important issue is the misuse of sacrament when people only sit and "adore" the host. It was given to be injested not looked at.

Do you not see the theological problems your beliefs have caused? I mean you have people thinking they recieve grace just from looking at the host and/or just by being present when the host is consecrated.

Do you obtain grace through prayer?

If so, then why not through prayer in the presence of the Eucharist?

I think you "protest" too much.

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Jason: "This is my car."

What does that mean?

Situation: Jason pointing to computer screen showing a map of the USA.

Jason: "This is my country."

What does this mean?

Situation: Jason showing wife MRI and XRay's of his body.

Jason: "This is my body. Whenever you see this, remember me."

What does this mean?

Apparently you think that Scripture was written in contemporary American English.

 

[Chemnitz]

Do you obtain grace through prayer?

no.

 

[Briguy]

Man, Either my post was so good no one knows what to say about it or---- it was so bad it isn't worth commenting on

Must be one or the other.

After reading what the Catholic and Lutheran postions are I am glad that I come from the side of representation of body and blood and not actual body and blood. This is one area that non-denominational Christians do not argue over, I don't think anyway

Jason, Very interesting examples, worth pondering for awhile. Thanks.

Gods blessings to all,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:

After reading what the Catholic and Lutheran postions are I am glad that I come from the side of representation of body and blood and not actual body and blood. This is one area that non-denominational Christians do not argue over, I don't think anyway

Actually the arguement is merely different:

Wine or grape juice?

Ron

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Brian,

The Real Presence in no way negates or denies the presence of Jesus where two or more are gathered in his name. It is a different kind of presence. I, as a member of Christ's Body, carry his presence wherever I go. But, that presence is different than the presence of Jesus at my prayer group. Likewise, Jesus' corporeal presence in the Eucharist is different without simultaneously denying other forms of his presence.

Real in "Real Presence" essentially means "corporeal", not "real" as if other forms of his presence are unreal.

Hi Jason,

Your analogy falls short for the precise reason that the piece of bread does not resemble Jesus Christ as a picture represents a person or a map represents a country.

When I look at a map of the US, I say, "Look, there's the United States." When I look at a picture of my sister, I say, "Look, there's my sister." But when I look at a piece of bread, I say, "Look, there's a piece of bread," unless of course, if I'm at Mass and my Lord has said, "This is my body".

Hi Keith,

You wrote, "Actually the official position is we don't know when, there is no way to know for sure, we don't care when. The important part is Christ promised his real physical presence."

"When" Christ's physical presence is in your midst is just as important as whether his presence is in your midst.

Jesus said, "This is my body". When the pastor says these words en persona Christi, the faithful can truly say, "Look, there is his body!"

What do you think Christ meant when he said, "This is my body"?

You also wrote, "The important issue is the misuse of sacrament when people only sit and "adore" the host. It was given to be injested not looked at.

Well, if the sacrament is Jesus Christ, then it is more than proper to adore our God. Yes, I agree that the Eucharist was primarily instituted for sacramental communion through consumption (Sacrosanctum Concilium, the first document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council makes this clear), but this in no way negate worship of his Precious Body and Blood.

If the host is God, then Keith, it is more than fitting to adore your God. In fact, not to adore Him would be to sin - to paraphrase Augustine.

And you wrote, "Do you not see the theological problems your beliefs have caused? I mean you have people thinking they recieve grace just from looking at the host and/or just by being present when the host is consecrated."

I do not see any theological problem with Eucharistic adoration. Eucharistic adoration is powerful beyond compare, and I speak from numerous accounts of personal experience. The graces available by praying in the presence of our Lord are inestimable.

As the old saying goes, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it."

God bless,

Carson

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Jesus is only present in the host if (or when) it is eaten?

Is this a teaching of your church or is this a conclusion that you have reached on your own?

If a host is reserved after the service to take to a homebound person, is Jesus present from the service until it is consumed at a later date?

Posted by Chemnitz:
Actually the official position is we don't know when, there is no way to know for sure, we don't care when. The important part is Christ promised his real physical presence.

Actually, I think that the "we don't know when" applies to when does the change occur; not when does it end.

"For you can do what we do here, namely, eat and drink the remains of the sacrament with the communicants, so that it is not necessary to raise these scandalous and dangerous questions about when the action of the sacrament ends, questions in which you will choke unless you come to your senses. For with this argument you are abolishing the whole sacrament and you do not have anything with which to answer those who are making false accusations, who say that in the action of the sacrament there is more cessation than action."

From the first letter of Luther to Wolferinus (4 July 1543)

http://users.aol.com/SemperRef/lost.html

 

[Chemnitz]

You also wrote, "The important issue is the misuse of sacrament when people only sit and "adore" the host. It was given to be injested not looked at.

Well, if the sacrament is Jesus Christ, then it is more than proper to adore our God. Yes, I agree that the Eucharist was primarily instituted for sacramental communion through consumption (Sacrosanctum Concilium, the first document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council makes this clear), but this in no way negate worship of his Precious Body and Blood.

If the host is God, then Keith, it is more than fitting to adore your God. In fact, not to adore Him would be to sin - to paraphrase Augustine.

And you wrote, "Do you not see the theological problems your beliefs have caused? I mean you have people thinking they recieve grace just from looking at the host and/or just by being present when the host is consecrated."

I do not see any theological problem with Eucharistic adoration. Eucharistic adoration is powerful beyond compare, and I speak from numerous accounts of personal experience. The graces available by praying in the presence of our Lord are inestimable.

As the old saying goes, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it."

I will knock it because it bastardizes what Christ instituted. In essense you have decided that following Christ's command and the promise of the sacrament are not good enough. How dare you insinuate that Christ's promises are not enough. If you truly honored Christ then you would partake of the living bread and living vine as he intended instead of "staring" at it.

I will tell you right now, when it comes to theology, personal experience means zilch. Satan doesn't work by making you feel bad, he works by making you feel good.

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi Carson, thanks for the link. I must admit I find the whole argument strange. Mary
decided to be a perpetual virgin before the angel first spoke with her, and had also
become engaged to Joseph on that basis? The "until" and "brothers and sisters" can be
forced if you really try hard enough, but again, why try? The natural sense of the account is that
Mary had other children. What adjenda does this offend? The marriage bed is undefilled!! So if Mary did have other children, that in no way compromised her. Sex within marriage is a blessing, (Song of Songs) not a weakness or a sin.

I did like the "putativley" husband bit. It sounded like forensic justification. The words
dont really mean what they mean. I really was blessed by that article on that subject you
sent me, that God's word achieves his purpose, but here Joseph's marriage was only a
legal fiction?

Are you sure you want to quote Jerome as your main backer on this? From memory, Jerome didn't bath incase he got excited. [Origen
supposedly castrated himself, and Augustine states that the patriarchs didn't enjoy sex,
but gritted their teeth to do what was nessesary - thats why Abraham took another wife
after Sarah and also had children by concubines - Gen 25.] Many of the church fathers had sexual hangups. You said earlier that not everything they wrote is authoritative, so why trust them in an area where they are clearly unbalanced? Stick with the infallable Word of God, and the issue does not arise, Mary enjoyed a happy, normal marriage, and all is fine.

Take care, Colin

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I will knock it because it bastardizes what Christ instituted. In essense you have decided that following Christ's command and the promise of the sacrament are not good enough.

This is foolhardy. The Eucharist used at Eucharistic Adoration is consumed eventually. If we want to follow your argument, and since you don't know when Christ is present (or when he leaves), then disposing of the remants, even to the ground (and not the trash) is going against Christ's will. He said to consume it. If any one piece is not consumed, you are going against His will and what He instituted.

You're argument just brings up more arguments.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
How dare you insinuate that Christ's promises are not enough. If you truly honored Christ then you would partake of the living bread and living vine as he intended instead of "staring" at it.

Do you have a clue of how silly this sounds? It IS Jesus; even you believe that. If that is case, how can it be non-beneficial to pray in His presence? There is no answer, especially from the Lutheran Church on such matters, and yet you condemn it with conviction.

Admit that you're rejecting it because you're Lutheran. I get this from my parents all the time.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I will tell you right now, when it comes to theology, personal experience means zilch. Satan doesn't work by making you feel bad, he works by making you feel good.

Lutheranism is built on one big, bad, angry Catholic experience. Why don't you take it up with Luther?

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
Hi Carson, thanks for the link. I must admit I find the whole argument strange. Mary
decided to be a perpetual virgin before the angel first spoke with her, and had also
become engaged to Joseph on that basis? The "until" and "brothers and sisters" can be
forced if you really try hard enough, but again, why try? The natural sense of the account is that
Mary had other children. What adjenda does this offend? The marriage bed is undefilled!! So if Mary did have other children, that in no way compromised her. Sex within marriage is a blessing, (Song of Songs) not a weakness or a sin.

I did like the "putativley" husband bit. It sounded like forensic justification. The words
dont really mean what they mean. I really was blessed by that article on that subject you
sent me, that God's word achieves his purpose, but here Joseph's marriage was only a
legal fiction?

Are you sure you want to quote Jerome as your main backer on this? From memory, Jerome didn't bath incase he got excited. [Origen
supposedly castrated himself, and Augustine states that the patriarchs didn't enjoy sex,
but gritted their teeth to do what was nessesary - thats why Abraham took another wife
after Sarah and also had children by concubines - Gen 25.] Many of the church fathers had sexual hangups. You said earlier that not everything they wrote is authoritative, so why trust them in an area where they are clearly unbalanced? Stick with the infallable Word of God, and the issue does not arise, Mary enjoyed a happy, normal marriage, and all is fine.

Take care, Colin

This is the problem when you take one Catholic doctrine and attack/defend it without corellating all other Catholic doctrines. Each doctrine feeds out of/into another, because they all mesh together to form one faith.

No one ever said that Mary having marital relations would be a sin. I also believe that it would be unfitting to carry other children in the womb that carried GOD HIMSELF.

Why don't we just agree to disagree? It's clear as day to me, and clear as mud to you. I hardly think we'll convince one another; only God can convince us.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you obtain grace through prayer?

no.</font>[/QUOTE]I can't help but chuckle, as my parents used to tell me that it was great to see Catholics become Lutheran, and find out "what grace REALLY is."

And now I read that you don't find grace in prayer.

Interesting.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Johnv]

It should also be noted that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley all held to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

That is duly noted and I tend to give their views weight on the subject.

We should note that, in literal terms, Joseph was not the father of Jesus. But culturally, he was. Just as I am father to a stepdaughter who came into my life at a young age. She calls me father, and I call her daughter. Our genetics are irrelevant to the two of us.

So, I don't give genetics (aka, Mary's virginity or lack thereof) too much weight as per James' brotherly relationship to Jesus. For all we know, he could have been an orphaned family member whom Mary and Joseph took under their wing as one of their own. He would no less, then be Jesus' brother.

Don't mind me, I'm just surmising.

 

[Chemnitz]

Do you have a clue of how silly this sounds? It IS Jesus; even you believe that. If that is case, how can it be non-beneficial to pray in His presence? There is no answer, especially from the Lutheran Church on such matters, and yet you condemn it with conviction.

There is power in prayer, but not because you receive grace.

Admit that you're rejecting it because you're Lutheran. I get this from my parents all the time.

Oh brother.

I can't help but chuckle, as my parents used to tell me that it was great to see Catholics become Lutheran, and find out "what grace REALLY is."

And now I read that you don't find grace in prayer.

That statement leads me to believe you do not even know the basic Lutheran teachings. Which doesn't suprise me in the least.

"This is therefore to be understood and noted before everything else, in order that thereby we may silence and repel the thoughts which would keep and deter us from praying, as though it were not of much consequence if we do not pray, or as though it were commanded those who are holier and in better favor with God than we; as, indeed, the human heart is by nature so despondent that it always flees from God and imagines that He does not wish or desire our prayer, because we are sinners and have merited nothing but wrath. 11] Against such thoughts (I say) we should regard this commandment and turn to God, that we may not by such disobedience excite His anger still more. For by this commandment He gives us plainly to understand that He will not cast us from Him nor chase us away, although we are sinners, but rather draw us to Himself, so that we might humble ourselves before Him, bewail this misery and plight of ours, and pray for grace and help. Therefore we read in the Scriptures that He is angry also with those who were smitten for their sin, because they did not return to Him and by their prayers assuage His wrath and seek His grace. " (Luther's Large Catechism)

We seek grace in prayer but grace is not delivered in prayer. If you remembered anything from the Lutheran church, it should have been the doctrine of the Means of Grace. There are three (four depending on definitions) Means of Grace: Word, Baptism, and Holy Communion (Absolution is the fourth depending on definition). It is through these Means of Grace that God has chosen to deliver His grace to us.

[ October 24, 2002, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
There is power in prayer, but not because you receive grace.

You just now stated that grace is found in prayer. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Oh brother.

You're not dismissing my views with any sort of evidence, so what other conclusion am I to assume?

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
We seek grace in prayer but grace is not delivered in prayer. If you remembered anything from the Lutheran church, it should have been the doctrine of the Means of Grace. There are three (four depending on definitions) Means of Grace: Word, Baptism, and Holy Communion (Absolution is the fourth depending on definition). It is through these Means of Grace that God has chosen to deliver His grace to us.

And this is the problem with the Lutheran understanding of grace. Oh, could you please point me to the places in the Bible where it says, "Baptism provides grace," "Communion provides grace," "Sometimes Absolution provides grace," and "Reading the Word of God provides grace." Oh yeah, and,

"Nothing else provides my grace, because this is what I have decided." - God

I await your responses.

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Jason,

Your analogy falls short for the precise reason that the piece of bread does not resemble Jesus Christ as a picture represents a person or a map represents a country.

When I look at a map of the US, I say, "Look, there's the United States." When I look at a picture of my sister, I say, "Look, there's my sister." But when I look at a piece of bread, I say, "Look, there's a piece of bread," unless of course, if I'm at Mass and my Lord has said, "This is my body".

Sigh. I hate semantic games, but oh well.

Situation: I look at a mangled heap of sticks and twigs in the woods.

Jason: "This is my body."

What does this mean?

Situation: I'm mad, stark raving mad. Livid over a terrible call in a football game. I hear a tea pot whistling. I look at it.

Jason: "This is my blood."

What does that mean?

Carson, you seem like an intelligent guy, so I figured you would be able to see a figure of speech, a metaphor, when you saw one.

In Christ,
jason

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Jason,

Your analogy falls short for the precise reason that the piece of bread does not resemble Jesus Christ as a picture represents a person or a map represents a country.

When I look at a map of the US, I say, "Look, there's the United States." When I look at a picture of my sister, I say, "Look, there's my sister." But when I look at a piece of bread, I say, "Look, there's a piece of bread," unless of course, if I'm at Mass and my Lord has said, "This is my body".

Sigh. I hate semantic games, but oh well.

Situation: I look at a mangled heap of sticks and twigs in the woods.

Jason: "This is my body."

What does this mean?

Situation: I'm mad, stark raving mad. Livid over a terrible call in a football game. I hear a tea pot whistling. I look at it.

Jason: "This is my blood."

What does that mean?

Carson, you seem like an intelligent guy, so I figured you would be able to see a figure of speech, a metaphor, when you saw one.

In Christ,
jason</font>[/QUOTE]Jason,

The argument is valid. A picture of the car looks just like the car. A small piece of unleavened bread looks nothing like Jesus body. Your analogy fails because the two instances are, frankly, not analogous.

It's not semantics. Don't equate things that don't equal one another.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Keith,

You wrote, "I will knock it because it bastardizes what Christ instituted ... If you truly honored Christ then you would partake of the living bread and living vine as he intended instead of "staring" at it."

First of all, I would like to make it clear that every day of my life I truly honor Christ by partaking of the living bread and living vine by worshipping my Lord in the context of the daily divine liturgy.

With that said, I would like to point out that I do not stare "at it". I adore "him". You see, the Eucharist is not an it strictly put. The Eucharist is a person in our midst: the God-man, Jesus Christ.

You wrote, "I will tell you right now, when it comes to theology, personal experience means zilch. Satan doesn't work by making you feel bad, he works by making you feel good."

I am not referring to consolation or good feelings, though I have experienced such in adoration. I am referring to the fruits of Gospel morality and the Christian life.

Hi Colin,

If I haven't said it before, I, more often than not, enjoy your posts. They resemble a faithful Christian.

I must admit I find the whole argument strange.

Yes, I do too. But, I don't find the proposed situation as strange as I did before I came to immerse myself in the thought of the Fathers through my graduate studies.

Mary decided to be a perpetual virgin before the angel first spoke with her, and had also become engaged to Joseph on that basis?

Joseph was betrothed to Mary to serve as her guardian and husband through the spiritual union of wills without the conjugal union of the marital act.

The "until" and "brothers and sisters" can be
forced if you really try hard enough, but again, why try?

The way I see it, the defense of "until" and "adelphos" ("ah" in Hebrew) is a natural explanation of the truth, not a forced defense of a doctrine that is found wanting.

The marriage bed is undefilled!! So if Mary did have other children, that in no way compromised her. Sex within marriage is a blessing, (Song of Songs) not a weakness or a sin.

Yes, it is, but in ancient Christian thought (I refer back to the Fathers), virginity was (and still is in the living Catholic tradition) seen as a higher good than union through the conjugal act.

Jerome didn't bath incase he got excited.

I reference Jerome because of the immense weight his position as the greatest ancient Biblical scholar carries, not because of his asceticism.

Origen supposedly castrated himself

I know this is off issue, but it should be mentioned that this story has as much foundation as a rumor. I've spoken with several individuals who have doctorates in Patrology on the issue.

Many of the church fathers had sexual hangups.

That's an understatement! My friend Emily is taking a course at the University on Women in Christianity from an incredible professor (Donohue-White) who actually consults John Paul II on moral theology. What she has told me about the Fathers is quite entertaining, but all must be placed in the social context of the time; the Fathers were not unique. Our worldview is entirely different, in numerous respects, from the age that they lived in.

You said earlier that not everything they wrote is authoritative, so why trust them in an area where they are clearly unbalanced? Stick with the infallable Word of God, and the issue does not arise, Mary enjoyed a happy, normal marriage, and all is fine.

Actually, nothing the Fathers wrote is authoritative strictly put. They witness to the living Tradition of the Church, and it is the Magisterium (the authentic apostolic teaching authority) that serves as authoritative, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary became dogma as it was proclaimed at the First Lateran Council in 649 under the guidance of Pope Martin I, and this decision was later ratified under the ecumenical council of Second Constantinople.

But, this authoritative proclamation is built upon a solid Tradition witnessed to across the board and one that harkens back to Mary's response to Gabriel.

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "Carson, you seem like an intelligent guy, so I figured you would be able to see a figure of speech, a metaphor, when you saw one."

Thank you, and I am.

I feel that GraceSaves is able to understand my response to your analogy, and I hope and pray that you will come to the same understanding:

"The argument is valid. A picture of the car looks just like the car. A small piece of unleavened bread looks nothing like Jesus body. Your analogy fails because the two instances are, frankly, not analogous."

God bless,

Carson

 

[Chemnitz]

You just now stated that grace is found in prayer. Make up your mind.

Since when does power=grace? God's grace is God's favorable disposition towards man.

And this is the problem with the Lutheran understanding of grace. Oh, could you please point me to the places in the Bible where it says, "Baptism provides grace," "Communion provides grace," "Sometimes Absolution provides grace," and "Reading the Word of God provides grace." Oh yeah, and,

"Nothing else provides my grace, because this is what I have decided." - God

I await your responses.

God bless,

Grant

When you learn to read, get back to me then we will talk. Reread my post, I never said "baptism gives grace, etc"

The Means of Grace- "The means of grace are the Gospel and the Sacraments. The Sacraments are means only because of the Gospel promise connected therewith. Therefore we may say that there is but one means by which the knowledge of grace and salvation, and grace and salvation itself, are imparted to us; it is the Gospel, the Glad tidings of the grace of God in Christ Jesus. For this reason it is called "the Gospel of grace" (Acts 20:24), "the Gospel of peace" (Rm 10:15), "the Word of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:19), "the Gospel of our salvation" (Eph 1:13). This Gospel is made known to men by preaching and teaching (Mk 16:15). In a more specific manner it is applied to min in the form of absolution (Jn 20:23), and, connected with visible elements, in the Sacraments." - Koehler 'A Summary of Christian Dogmatics'

Gospel promises linked with the Sacraments
Baptism-Rm 6:3, 1 Pt 3:21
Holy Communion- 1 Cor 11:23-32

With that said, I would like to point out that I do not stare "at it". I adore "him". You see, the Eucharist is not an it strictly put. The Eucharist is a person in our midst: the God-man, Jesus Christ.

While I admire your piety, it still does not excuse your misuse of the Sacrament. Where in Scripture does it ever say we should adore/worship the sacrament?

[ October 24, 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]