: Is the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist an idolatrous belief or simply an erroneous interpretation working4christ 2

Published on Aug 28, 2013

Question: Is the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist an idolatrous belief or simply an erroneous interpretation which is distinguishable as good faith? And can an Evangelical partake of in the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic service if he maintains a personal rejection of Christ’s physical presence in the bread?

 

 

 

 

Yesterday, 12:55 pm

House Harkonnen  New Member   Join Date: September 8, 2013 Posts: 42 Religion: Lutheran (WELS)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  So check out my understanding here: You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else? There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example. I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His  One God One set of Faith beliefs In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8] So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority” God Bless you! Patrick Quote: You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else? No. I call it the Real Presence too. I define it by sacramental union. Just as Catholics call it the real presence, and define it by Transubstantiation.  Quote: There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example. I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His  One God One set of Faith beliefs In His One Church I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is “His one Church”. I believe his one church is the body of believers everywhere, including Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Canterbury and all who obey the ancient creeds, etc. I accept that Peter had a unique authority in the early church. Last edited by House Harkonnen; Yesterday at 1:08 pm.

#32    Yesterday, 1:01 pm

JonNC  Forum Master   Join Date: December 15, 2007 Posts: 14,803 Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  So check out my understanding here: You DO believe in the “Real Presence”, but choose to call it something else? There are MANY passages giving authority to Peter and the CC. Mt. 10: 1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; John 17:14-20; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-15 and Mt. 28:16-20 for example. I’m unaware of Jesus granting similar authority to anyone else outside of His  One God One set of Faith beliefs In His One Church [Eph.4:1-8] So that is the basis for my asking on “what authority” God Bless you! Patrick Hi Patrick, We, as Lutherans, believe in the real presence, and call it exactly that, the real presence. The descriptive device we use is, indeed, Sacramental Union, but we are not calling it something else. It is the real presence. We call it what Christ Himself called it: His body and His blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins. We also recognize that Peter’s authority and the authority of the apostles is not exclusive to or limited to one apostolic see of St. Peter, be it Rome or Antioch. The Church is not only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though it is a significant and central portion of the Church Militant. Nor is the Church only and exclusively those who are in communion together in what is known as Eastern Orthodoxy, though they are a significant part of it, as well.  We recognize the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered, so certainly it is in the CC, as well as the EO, and clearly others including ourselves. As such, we have the authority of the Apostles as an apostolic Church, which we claim when we confess the ancient creed. Jon __________________ “It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]… Charles Porterfield Krauth

#33    Yesterday, 4:12 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =JonNC;11441721]1) No. While Lutheranism is sola scripturist, I wouldn’t characterize it as a “Bible only belief church”  2) An excerpt from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.  This is most certainly true. Jon Jon MY FRIEND Thanks! But this leads to another question. How is it that Lutheran’s are able to “Transubstant” the Eucharist, having left the CC? Continued Blessings Jon, Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#34    Yesterday, 4:21 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =House Harkonnen;11441742]No. I call it the Real Presence too. I define it by sacramental union. Just as Catholics call it the real presence, and define it by Transubstantiation. OK And THANKS! But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes? Quote: I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is “His one Church”. I believe his one church is the body of believers everywhere, including Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Canterbury and all who obey the ancient creeds, etc. I accept that Peter had a unique authority in the early church. This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century. God Bless you! Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#35    Yesterday, 4:25 pm

Novocastrian  New Member   Join Date: September 10, 2013 Posts: 361 Religion: Church of England (Catholic and reformed)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith.

#36    Yesterday, 4:27 pm

aidanbradypop  Regular Member Prayer Warrior   Join Date: January 15, 2013 Posts: 2,157 Religion: Episcopalian (High Church)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by Novocastrian  Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith. __________________ Dustin No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. John 10:18

#37    Yesterday, 4:42 pm

Ragamuffingirl  New Member   Join Date: October 1, 2013 Posts: 22 Religion: RCIA

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer. I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean – letting toddlers take communion – really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion.

#38    Yesterday, 4:46 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =Novocastrian;11442456]Bad history and bad theology. Even by your own communion’s standards; the Roman Church teaches that the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, and illicit only insofar as they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the first thousand years: what about the Copts? The Syrians? The St. Thomas Christians? It is only when you make communion with Rome the single, over-arching criterion of existence as a Church that you can reach such a conclusion. The essence of the Church is not Romanitas. It is baptism into the faith. DARN This happens every time I mention One God; One Faith and One Church [Eph. 4:4-8]  I don’t discount the Eastern churches, which fall into two BROAD catagories. Those “In-Communion” with Rome  Those NOT “In-Communion” with Rome The first group is a PART OF the CC The second group used to be, but SADLY, is not at present a part of the CC. They do have the sacraments VALIDLY; but not licitly. As to your desired position: It’s neither biblical, historical or logical. “One” has to mean “One” The Key’s [means all of the] were given by our Perfect God to Peter [singular]. I PRAY for a unification!. God Bless you! Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#39    Yesterday, 4:50 pm

RyanBlack  Regular Member   Join Date: June 18, 2010 Posts: 1,720 Religion: Ruthenian Catholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by Ragamuffingirl  I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer. I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean – letting toddlers take communion – really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion. Do you realize that Eastern Catholics administer communion to infants? Furthermore, it was once the practice of the entire Church.

#40    Yesterday, 4:57 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =Ragamuffingirl;11442525]I used to go to a sola scriptura church, so I think I get to answer. I don’t know that I believe that the elements are the literal body and blood of Christ. However, I think that scripture is clear that we’re supposed to treat it as if it is. I think many Protestant Churches are positively cavalier in how they treat communion in their head long rush to not be like Catholics in excluding people from communion. I mean – letting toddlers take communion – really? A toddler has no understanding of the significance of communion. Sincere THANKS for posting! The Bible shows FIVE separate Bible authors testimony. Mt. 26:26-28 Mk. 14: 22-24 Lk. 22:19-21 John 6: 40-60 Paul 1st. Cor. 11: 23-29 Plus the evidence that this was known, accepted and practiced in the Early Church. [First termed “Breaking of the Bread”] Then add to this the numerous Eucharistic Miracles & 2,000 years of practice and belief, and I find it difficult [IMO] to not believe it. Check out www,realpresence.org  God CAN DO any Good thing Giving us Himself; the greatest source of GRACE possible when rightly received, seems a natural desire of God who endured His PASSION for us. Catholic Holy Communion is the single greatest possible “Good” from God; besides permitting man’s salvation. I’m curious: Why are you no-longer “Sola scriptura?” God Bless you! Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#41    Yesterday, 5:00 pm

PJM  Veteran Member   Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 9,473 Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: =RyanBlack;11442545]Do you realize that Eastern Catholics administer communion to infants? Furthermore, it was once the practice of the entire Church. No, I didn’t But can see a logic in doing so. [GRACE] although more limited, would still be made available to them. God Bless, Patrick __________________  PJM   http://working4christ2.wordpress.com Can we partake of God’s GLORY and NOT partake of His PASSION? NO! A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

#42    Yesterday, 5:01 pm

RyanBlack  Regular Member   Join Date: June 18, 2010 Posts: 1,720 Religion: Ruthenian Catholic

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. You mean 1054 AD? That is common misconception. The Assyrian Church of the East left communion around the time of the Council of Ephesus (431), and the Oriental Orthodox left communion after the Council of Chalcedon (451). I don’t think the Catholic Church considers the sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be illicit. A very knowledgeable poster here, Br. JR (JReducation), argues that their sacraments are both valid and licit.

#43    Yesterday, 5:02 pm

aidanbradypop  Regular Member Prayer Warrior   Join Date: January 15, 2013 Posts: 2,157 Religion: Episcopalian (High Church)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  No, I didn’t But can see a logic in doing so. [GRACE] although more limited, would still be made available to them. God Bless, Patrick So why doesn’t the RCC do thiis?  __________________ Dustin No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. John 10:18 Last edited by aidanbradypop; Yesterday at 5:16 pm.

#44    Yesterday, 5:15 pm

JonNC  Forum Master   Join Date: December 15, 2007 Posts: 14,803 Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  Jon MY FRIEND Thanks! But this leads to another question. How is it that Lutheran’s are able to “Transubstant” the Eucharist, having left the CC? Continued Blessings Jon, Patrick Hi Pat, Accepting for the discussion “transubstantiate”, we don’t but the Holy Spirit does. The only way you can assume our sacrament is invalid is to say our priesthood is invalid due to not being in succession. But even in the history of the CC there have been priests who were valid through presbyter ordination. Our orders are valid as are our sacraments.  Jon __________________ “It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]… Charles Porterfield Krauth

#45    Yesterday, 5:32 pm

House Harkonnen  New Member   Join Date: September 8, 2013 Posts: 42 Religion: Lutheran (WELS)

Re: A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF Quote: Originally Posted by PJM  OK And THANKS! But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes? This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century. God Bless you! Patrick Quote: But as I just asked Jon on a different thread, HOW is it possible for ANYONE outside the CC to “confect” the Eucharist? The authority was removed from all those lacking DIRECT Apostolic Succession. Yes? The power to confect the Eucharist is Gods power. Not any mans. Ergo, being in succession from anyone isn’t necessary, (although I believe Lutherans have it).  Quote: This is a common non-Catholic position. But it’s not historical or biblical. The ONLY Church to exist for about 1,000 years, [until The Great Eastern Schism in 1010 AD] is today’s Catholic Church, which “alone” holds the authority for valid and licit Sacraments. Therefore every reference to “church” in the bible is speaking ONLY of today’s CC, as the bible was fully authored by the end of the First Century; or early Second Century. That’s not true, there were various other Christians sects operating prior to 1054. The Coptics, Ethiopians, Armenian Apostolic, Assyrian Church of the East, etc. Rome was an important See, no doubt, but it wasn’t the end all be all of Christianity.