The Messianic Church believed in the Real Presence precisely because they were Jewish. They believed in the Real Presence because God was really present in the burning bush. They believed in the Real Presence because God was really present in the pillar of fire and smoke. They believed in the Real Presence because God was really present in the tabernacle. He wasn’t just spiritually present: He was physically present! Don’t you agree? The Messianic Jews believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist because when God Made Flesh, the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world held up the Passover Afikomen and the Cup of Blessing, he said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
1) How is Christ
more present than present? When I am alone, He is with me. When two or three are gathered in His name, His is with us. Not kinda-sorta, but
with us.
2) And when He held up the bread and cup, did the Apostles think/understand they were literally eating His flesh and literally drinking His blood, right then?
Altars/on the people...I almost brought those up myself, but didn't. However, the point is that they NEVER, EVER, EVER,
CONSUME/D THE BLOOD. Not only of sacrifice, but of regular everyday animals for consumption.
Are you saying that we must consume the literal blood so it is spread over the doorposts, and sprinkled on our
literal hearts?
He has a list of “catholic inventions”, most of which have been outright disproven as “inventions” and others which date centuries before Boetner’s claims. Case in point is Chafer claiming that “Protestants hold that the RCC view of the Lord's Supper was defined and fully taught after 1100ad and not held by the early church fathers.”
Your using a guilt by assocation logical fallacy in your argument againist me there. I have not read Boetner's work which deals with Roman Catholic Theology at all. There is no connection between him and me at all in that matter. My argument is very simple. The early church fathers were not Roman Catholics at all. And that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants can on each side cite various views that they held and show they now embrace it. But the reality is no one can fully claim the early church fathers at all. And the fact of the matter is Eastern Orthodox who predate the RCC while they do hold to a physical presence do not embrace what is called " transubstantiation " . Likewise Lutherans who do hold to a physical presence of Jesus Christ also reject " transubstantiation " . Yet we find you claiming the several early church fathers for your specific position in contrast to that of Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans. Yet they cite the very same early church fathers as you do. What renders the early church fathers supporting your position instead of the view of Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans ?
The only way to explain your claims is by the word anachronism. Citing the early church fathers alone is not evidence since others who hold to a physical presence who reject the view held by the RCC. The burden of proof is on you for your claims here on them holding to " transubstantiation " . Where in their statements do they exclude the views of Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans who do not hold to transubstantiation yet reject the RCC ?
This is the approximate time that the Catholic Church attempted to explain the mystery of the Real Presence in the Eucharist by using the word “transubstantiation”. I’m awaiting Chafers explanation on how the RCC view of the Real Presence differs from the Early Church Fathers (ECF).
Your statements are nothing more than pure anachronism.
The burden of proof is on you and not anyone else here. What is your proof in the writings of the early church fathers which you cited excludes the views of Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans who hold to a real presence yet who reject transubstantiation.
I suspect the best he is going to be able to do is raise arguments about transubstantiation ( the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the Lamb of God), versus consubstantiation (while still remaining bread and wine, the Lamb of God is still physically present). I’ll be curious to see evidence of a “spiritual only” presence.
Your misrepresented me in your statements. I never stated that a " Spiritual only " presence view was held. That is flat out lied on what I actually stated to you. I stated that there were two views which were generally held. The first is called a " material " and the other a " spiritual ". Both views were held side by side and that there were debates from each party on this. The material position is that of a physical presence. We have the RCC, Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans who claim they very same early church fathers on this generally speaking and Yet Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans reject " transubstantiation " . The burden of proof is on you since you claim them for the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation. Show those here on what basis from their writings that excludes Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans views on the Lord's Supper. Remember Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans do affirm a physical presence and yet reject transubstantiation " . The issue is related to the type of physical presence in the writings of the early church fathers only . The common thing that Roman Catholics do in this is use the terms real presence as a synonym for " transubstantiation " . Which is nothing more than anachronism.
The Real Presence of the Eucharist is a biblical teaching –the whole of scripture, both N.T. and O.T. needs to be taken into account and not selected verses.
Your using the term real presence and eucharist as a synonym for " transubstantiation " which is nothing more than anachoronism by you. All sides do hold to the Eucharist. The debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants relates only to the method and manner of the presence of Jesus. The OT does not contain the doctrine of transubstantitation as the incarnation or the union of the two natures of Jesus Christ did not happen until we read of it in the 4 gospels.
Ripley’s,
God is manifest in many ways as I’m sure you know. There is a spiritual presence and a physical presence. God is omnipresent, yet he was physically present in the burning bush. There is a difference between a spiritual presence and a physical presence. This is one of the realities of our faith. That Jesus Christ came to us in the flesh, in his real presence. Christians who believe in the Real Presence believe he continues to be made physically manifest today.
We do not know all of what was said at the Last Supper, only what was written. The Apostles may very well have not believed in the Real Presence at that time but I suspect they put all of the pieces together sometime afterwards. For example, the Passover Seder Liturgy wasn’t complete because they did not have the fourth cup. After Jesus took the sour wine on the Cross (the fourth “cup”???), he said “it is finished” – the Passover was finished.
It’s not for me to say what one must do. I’m interpreting the difficult teachings of John 6 in light of the Real Presence. If one believes in the Real Presence and that Jesus was foretelling the Last Supper, absolutely everything Jesus says makes perfect sense and really is quite beautiful. Try reading this passage in this context. I’m not saying try to believe it but maybe at least be open to why Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans believe in the Real Presence.
Chafer, can you please tell me where I stated that the Early Church believed in transubstantiation? I’m only talking about the Real Presence because that is common ground with many Christians. Catholics, EO, High Anglicans, and Lutherans all believe in a real, physical presence.
I’m interested in discussing the real physical presence vis-à-vis a spiritual presence. You are turning this into a RCC vs. Everyone else debate by focusing on transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation. Can we instead focus on Real vs. Spiritual presence?
Now I’ve shown numerous quotes that the early church believed in a physical, real, presence, as do many Christians today. You are claiming that they also held to a spiritual only presence. Could you please provide some pre-reformation evidence?
From the "Bread" thread:
YoY said:
Mr. Kirscher, you've made my point. Jesus was not an actual four-legged animal with curly, white wool; nor does the bread and wine used during Communion turn into actual flesh or blood.
EXACTLY! Because BOTH were/are only "symbols" (not
MERELY symbols, but PRECIOUS symbols)
of Him.
He did not REPLACE the lamb(s), they SYMBOLIZED HIM
from the get-go.
To REALLY "parake/consume" Him has nothing to do with PHYSICAL eating/drinking.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. The physical manifestations of God and the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist are teachings straight from scripture. Catholics, EO, and Lutherans all believe in this. There are many early church writings that support this and NONE that refute it. There are absolutely no early church writings that support the symbolic (no matter how “precious”) view. What you are saying is that not only do Catholics, EO, and Lutherans all have this teaching wrong, but so did the early church. And not only did the early church have it wrong, but it took some 1500 years to finally “get it right”. I’m still waiting for someone to provide even a tiny glimmer of evidence that the Apostles passed down a “precious spiritual” presence rather than a true physical presence.
Ignatius, disciple of the very author of John 6, and appointed by Peter to be Bishop of the Church in Antioch, disciple (c. 110 A.D.):
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 )
(cont…)
(… cont)
Justin Martyr, in a letter defending the Christian faith (c. 150 A.D.):
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).
Irenaeus, Bishop of the Church in Lugdunum, Gaul (presently Lyons, France), staunch opponent of Gnosticism (c. 190 A.D.):
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 190 A.D.):
"Eat my flesh)" [Jesus] says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3)
Now, how about some evidence of a “symbolic” presence????
wk~
The early church also thought our solar system was earth-centric. Men make mistakes.
What of the pre-incarnation lambs? Were they the true means of Passover? Yom Kippur? No, they weren't.
Do you think Jesus (and the Godhead) was really present? Yes, He was. Does that make their flesh His? No.
You also are entitled to your opinion, and base it on whtever you want. We'll all find out eventually, and we won't even care how/what/where/when...we'll just be overjoyed to be face-to-face with Him.
WK do you think because church fathers said it it makes it true?
First off the next time you at mass drink the wine and tell me does it change in flavor if it literal blood it would change as blood.
as for The flesh does it look Like flesh? or bread? what does it taste Like?
You want pre-formation evidenceu sure!
Do your re-search wine and bread is nothing new jews been doing it for over 3000 thousand years which pre-date the church fathers.
Each part The wine bread Olive oil etc... has a symbolic take according to ancient israel belief.