Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

Yes we all have lots of fun counting the posts where I suggest that we look at something Ellen White wrote.

Or..err.. is that "you" that keeps quoting her?

Come to think of it (it was a while back) who was that??

 

Well feel free to take one of my quotes of RC material and show how SDAs teach the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as the Catholic priest "confects" the body of Christ.

Or... were you hoping no one would actually request that you prove one of your empty accusations?

Oh well - to each his own.

 

I did say that you posted anything about Ellen White's writings.

I am talking about SDA beliefs.

Do you deny that you consider her to be a prophet and that her writings are inspired just as Scripture is inspired?

Do you disbelieve any of her teachings?

Which of Ellen White's teaching is wrong?

Which of her visions do you not believe?

 

Well feel free to take one of my quotes of RC material and show how SDAs teach the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as the Catholic priest "confects" the body of Christ.

You seem to be randomly changing your point...

Pick a position and we will talk.

Pick a position that is actually related to the subject of this thread - and we can even talk here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hi DHK,

In John 6 Jesus also said

So yes, I understand when Jesus said "I am the door" he was speaking metaphorically.

But when you look at the accounts of the Lord's Supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke you see Jesus speaking solemnly in a sacramental way that he is really present in the bread and wine. I don't know how, but I don't know how it is that he was born of a Virgin. It's a mystery that can only be accepted by faith.

And in John 6, the only Gospel that doesn't have an account of the Lord's Supper, Jesus seems to be telling his disciples what to expect at the Lord's Supper:

"For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink"

I have a "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" by David Bercot, and it is clear to me that the Early Church Fathers were unanimous in the belief of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

You may argue that they are fallible, and I will agree with you. I am fallible, and so are you. Yet the EFC's were the eyewitnesses of what the early church believed. Did the Apostles teach that the Lord's Supper was merely symbolic? Are the EFC's faithful witnesses of the Apostles teachings? Would the early Christians so quickly forget the teachings of the Apostles - teachings they literally died for? Or is it our modern interpretations some 2000 years later that are in error?

I think that Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper, as he said he would be, and he doesn't lie.

 

If one exegetes this passage, the conclusion is clearly that eating his flesh and drinking his blood mean to believe in Jesus. I posted a long explanation on another thread and then a shorter one on yet another threat.

One reads this in context of the whole passage and of the book of John itself. Jesus gave many metaphors about believing in Him, and this is one. But you get it from the passage just through reading it carefully and examining it.

 

Jesus doesn't lie, and Jesus did not say that he would be actually in the Lord's Supper just as he didn't say he would be a door.
The other thing you are mistaken about is the ECF's. The ECF's were not faithful witnesses of the Apostles teachings. Only a very, very few of them came in contact with any of them. Most of them, whose writings we have are far removed from the Apostles or had no contact with them. Some, like Origen, even the Catholic Church cast out as a heretic. He also had a great influence on some of the other ECF's with his heretical writings.

 

Better yet, I will start a new thread.

Perhaps you will be able to find the courage to participate.

My personal experience is that SDAs keep their Ellen White connection on the down low.

 

Indeed - as you say exegesis begins with paying close attention to the details actually IN the text. Merely making summary pronouncements means nothing in these discussions.

John 6 says that the key to eternal life is eating the flesh of Christ. Christ did not say "some day in the future I WILL become the bread that CAME down out of heaven" -- rather Christ said "I AM the bread that CAME down out of heaven". Christ did not predict a future day to eat the flesh and drink the blood -- nor a future time when his flesh WOULD be bread.

He claimed it was already the case!

Then Christ said "the flesh is worthless - it is my WORDS that have spirit and life"

Then when after the faithLESS disciples leap to a "too literal" view saying "does he really want us to eat his flesh" -- the faithFUL disciples respond to Christ "you Have the Words of LIFE".

And of course we have the example in Matt 16:12 where Christ reproaches the disciples for thinking too literally about the symbol of bread for "teaching".

It is instructive to note that neither faithLESs (taking too literally) disciples in John 6 -- nor faithFUL (seeing the symbol of bread and flesh standing for teaching WORDs of LIFE) disciples take a bite out of Christ in John 6!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

According to 'Catholic Answers' here is the following: "John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically."

You will notice that Jesus then goes on to summarize what He said. Then the Jews began to dispute asking how this could be. At this point it is obvious they were taking him literally as he repeated the statement again and again. He uses the words 'truly, truly I say'.

Jesus did not attempt to soften what he had just said. He never attempts to correct any misunderstanding in what he said. In other places when Jesus was misunderstood He did (Matt. 16:5-12) And yes, He did want them to think spiritually instead of carnally in John 6:63. But after this many disciples left Him. According to what I read on Catholic Answers, this is the only time that anyone left Him for doctrinal reasons. Doesn't it make sense that if this was only a misunderstanding of what He said. If they made the mistake of taking a metaphor literally, that Jesus would have corrected Himself? He didn't do that. In fact, twelve times He insisted that He WAS the bread that comes down from heaven. Four times He insists that they would have to eat His body and drink His blood.

Baptist insist that coming to Christ is the bread and having faith in Jesus is spiritual drink. They say it is just believing in Christ. This has been Marcia's position. Here is the answer to that according to Father John A O'brian. ""The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Others on this board have continued to argue that this obvious metaphorical language (same argument they present with 'this is my body, this is my blood'. However here again is the Catholic Answers response to that:
"Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor."

You are right, Peggy, the Lord is truly present in the bread and wine in the Eucharist.

 

Peggy, you also said: "Did the Apostles teach that the Lord's Supper was merely symbolic? Are the EFC's faithful witnesses of the Apostles teachings? Would the early Christians so quickly forget the teachings of the Apostles - teachings they literally died for?"

Excellent point. They were willing to die because of their belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There are many accounts of early Christians being put to death and persecuted following accusations of 'canibalism'. Apparently the early Christians were not making it clear that the bread they broke and the cup they drink was 'only a symbol' they way Baptist do at the Lord's Supper.

This, of course, was Martin Luthers teaching on the Eucharist. Lutherans today are dogmatic on the teaching of Christ Real Presence in the Eucharist. They agree with Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians to this interpretation of John chapter 6. A teaching adhered to from Apostolic times.

 

No they don't Lori.
The RCC believes in transubstantiation--the actual presence of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the bread and wine.

The Lutherans believe in consubstantiation--the spiritual presence of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the bread and wine. There is a difference.

 

We are not talking about 'transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc., we are talking about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When a Lutheran receives Holy Communion at the altar rail it is given with the words "The Very body of Christ" and also with the cup "The Very Blood of Christ."

You also claimed that Lutherans (or Martin Luther) have/had a symbolic view of Baptism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Take a look at gotquestions.org or a variety of other sources: both secular and theological. What I said is correct. If you don't like theological terminology how can you learn. The trinity is a theological term. You do know the meaning of it, don't you?

It doesn't matter what words the Lutherans say during their Communion service, but it does matter what they believe. Often words are said that are highly ceremonial in nature and mean something different than what they seem to be saying.
The Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. That is a fact. It means that they believe that the body and blood of Christ are spiritually present in the bread and wine, not actually present as the RCC believes.

 

BTW, I think if you were to look into it, you would find that the majority of Lutheran theologians reject or object to the term consubstantiation preferring the term Real Presence. They have another term they use which is 'receptionism' which is bit controversial.

I personally wish the Church had never begun to use terms like transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc. Trying to disect a mystery leads to confusion (I think). I'm sure there are many who would disagree with me but I think a lot of disagreements (like receptionism) over the nature the Lord's Supper would be avoided if we just used the words Real Presence and leave it alone.

IMHO

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html

 

DHK, I think Lutherans have defined it as "Christ In, With, Under and Through the bread and the wine. Thus the words, "The Very Body of Christ, The Very Blood of Christ'

 

I'm aware of what Transubstantiation is. That is not the topic. It is the Real Presence of Christ IN the bread and wine. Lutherans believe it, Anglicans believe it, Orthodox believe, Catholics believe it. Again, it is a mystery and I personally wish the church had not tried to dissect it. Maybe I'll change my mind on this.

 

http://www.carm.org/transubstantiation

 

Again, I understand Transubstantiation. DHK had made the comment that Lutherans do not believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. He said they believed in Consubstantiation which was true except with the LCMS. Here is what Wikipedia says about Lutherans and Consustantiation:
"It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ's presence."[9]