Catholics, and the Eucharist.

Wow.....They should leave the denom then and become Baptists or Congregationalist's.

 

Man, oh man, is my curiosity piqued by the banning of lori4dogs and Joshua Patrick.

Joshua lasted about 24 hours, and lori was around for a couple of years. The one thing they have in common is that both are Roman Catholics.

I know the moderators are not obligated to answer, but did being RC have anything to do with their banning? If yes, why was lori allowed to stay around for two years, when her profile clearly lists her as RC.

If no, I have to confess that my innate curiosity (called nosiness) has gotten the better of me.

 

There is a difference between baptizing as a sacrament and baptizing as an ordinance. Lori used the word "sacrament" which infers saving grace. The old time Presbyterians which wrote many of our commentaries, such as Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry, were very evangelical in their writings. Writing on John 3:5, Barnes believes that "born of water and of the spirit" that the "water" refers to baptism (as does the Catholics). However he does not believe that it has any sacramental value, that is any salvic value. Here is what he says:

These Presbyterians were evangelical and did not believe in baptismal regeneration as the Catholics do. They still believed in salvation by grace through faith. Baptism was purely symbolic, as it is with Baptists. Their reason for baptizing was different.

 

All quite true, especially that which I bolded.
As for Lori, I am not quite sure. Perhaps the administration has started to be a bit more consistent in its application of the rules concerning Catholics.

 

It might be where you come from or how you have been taught.
I have never heard the word "sacrament" used in a Baptist Church.
I have never heard the word "ordinance" used in a Catholic Church (where I was raised.) But that is my experience.

 

>The Bible is not a product of the RCC. That myth is as far from the truth as one can get.

Half as far. The Bible was a product of the Orthodox Catholic Church before the Bishop of Rome pulled out.

 

Not even close.

 

First of All baptist don't make a connection between communion and the OT thanks offering thus we don't call it Eucharist. Next who says the real pressence of Christ isn't in communion? Baptist believe that where 2 or more are Gathered Jesus Christ is there with them. Thus we believe the real presence is in communion but not a distribution of a special grace rather the real presence is there due to the gathering of believers.

 

Ah not so straight forward as that. couple of questions 1) When was the last book of the NT written? 2) Did the churches copy them and distribute them?
If we say the last book of the bible was written between 70 AD and 90 AD then we can assume by the second century most all churches had in their collection a complete NT. The fact is that they had other writings as well. But scriptures were clearly with in all the churches long before the Councils of Laodicea, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. We can note that the 39th festial letter by Athenasius; he provides a full listing of the 27 books of the New Testiment.

Leads one to see that there were already well established books which were differenciated from false teaching books well read in all the Churches. It seems there was an unwritten consensus of acceptable books. And what was this unwritten consensus? Athenasius spells it out

The problem came with the dabbling of other books outside this list of accepted books. Churches long after already having a complete grouping of Books of scripture felt they had to write it down and say "thus far and no further" Establishing in writing a canon which had already been accepted.

 

For me, as an Anglican (so not a Baptist!) it depends what you mean by 'the Real Presence'. Certainly I accept that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, since for me that concept is there in the NT and the ECFs from the get-go, but I don't understand that to mean that the elements physically become His Body and Blood, since (a) that concept was unknown to both Scripture and the Early Church (and arguably within the Catholic Church until Lateran IV in 1215) and (b) it's patently incorrect as any scientific analysis of the consecrated elements will demonstrate.

 

I find your answer interesting. How do you then view Justin Martyrs 1st Apology with regard to this statement? What is he really saying then?

 

Do you mean this:

?

If so, I would regard the transformation as spiritual rather than physical. I find it noteworthy that the Orthodoxen (Zenas will correct me here if wrong, I trust!) describe it as a mystery and regard the Catholic physical transubstantiation doctrine as being a theological over-development of the RP concept.

 

Actually, Baptists wouldn't ever admit to the real presence of Christ. It's only a remembrance. Secondly, Catholics believe that it is more than a spiritual presence or special grace.

 

Thats not true. I'm baptist and my church believes that where 3 or more are gathered Jesus is in our midst. That is the real presence. And I know what the catholics believe. They believe the substance or the spiritual essense is the actual body and blood of Christ and that they are taking in the divine person of Jesus into themselves every time they partake of the Eucharist. And that it provides them the transformative grace to keep them and continue them in their walk of Faith becoming like Jesus Christ. They believe it to be an intamate encounter. No baptist don't believe that. But we do believe Jesus Presence is already in every believer through the Holy Spirit.

 

Remember Catholics Use the science of philosophy (meanings of terms) to describe their doctrine. Thus Substance is in view of Platonic teaching with regard to reality beyond the material thus (what we call spiritual) Trans-substance is a spiritual change. Accedents is the matter which is the physical properties of the "Host". These (in their belief) do not change. But the spiritual truth behind it or the substance is that it has changed.

Note the terms would go like this what is the substance of the chair? What give a chair its chairness just the physical properties of it or is there a truth beyond what can be observed also giving it its chairness. Ie Substance. This is how the Eucharist is viewed. And from this perspective I don't see how the Catholics and the orthodox really differ. In some respect both must regard it a mystery and a spiritual truth.

 

I personally hold to a view that is probably somewhere in between the Real Presence and strictly memorialist.

While I do think that John 6 should not be interpreted literally, I am sympathetic to those who have more literal interpretations like many other protestant groups (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed). But I think an honest reading of John 6 suggests that something spiritually profound occurs in communion/eucharist that the memorialist view does an injustice to.

Of course, my view is that transubstantiation is an excessive theological exercise to rationally describe a completely irrational mystery. I am sympathetic to Catholics in this regard because the same can be said of almost any highly developed theology held by any denomination.

It is also sad that this thread was derailed the way it was and resulted in the bannings that occurred. Hopefully it can get back on track.