Sola Scriptura

[desertknight]

Except for Anglican doctrine, maybe to a some degree Lutheran, all other Protestants reject the actual reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.  Protestant groups from Baptist to Pentecostal, from reformed to the non-denominational "churches" reject by their own admission that the Lord's Supper is anything but a symbolic ceremony involving only bread or crackers and grape juice.  That stands in complete contrast to what the Church that Christ founded has believed and taught for 2,000 years...

Lutherans are 100% on board with the Real Presences of Christ in the Sacrament.  We do  not teach transubstantiation, rather our beliefs are more closely aligned with the Orthodox when it comes to Communion.
We believe that the Meal is at all times still bread and wine, but at the Words of Institution, it becomes also, in a way in which we cannot comprehend, the real Body and Blood of Jesus.  It does this through the power of His Word.

You're correct, ex, sorry.  I had the Anglican and Lutheran positions juxtaposed.  Anglo-Catholics certainly believe in the Real Presence, however.  I would point out, however, that the Orthodox have essentially the same belief that we Catholics do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence#Roman_Catholic_and_Orthodox_views

[Ryan2010]

-- Your correct, ex, sorry.  I had the Anglican and Lutheran positions juxtaposed.  Anglo-Catholics certainly believe in the Real Presence, however. --

Yeah, I was surprised to discover that protestants that view the Eucharist as merely symbolic trace that tradition back to Zwingli/Karlstadt.  

While Zwingli carried on the political work of the Swiss Reformation, he developed his theological views with his colleagues. The famous disagreement between Luther and Zwingli on the interpretation of the eucharist originated when Andreas Karlstadt, Luther's former colleague from Wittenberg, published three pamphlets on the Lord's Supper in which Karlstadt rejected the idea of a real presence in the elements. These pamphlets, published in Basel in 1524, received the approval of Oecolampadius and Zwingli. Luther rejected Karlstadt's arguments and considered Zwingli primarily to be a partisan of Karlstadt. Zwingli began to express his thoughts on the eucharist in several publications including de Eucharistia (On the Eucharist). He attacked the idea of the real presence and argued that the word, is, in the words of the institution—"This is my body, this is my blood"—means signifies

Oh, that was just from wiki btw.. 

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. - Bill Clinton (that was from a former US Pres.)

1 Timothy 6:4
he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions

That was from Timothy. 

[desertknight]

That Wiki article also states that the Lutherans believe in what I did not know.  Maybe extranos can answer.  I always thought the Lutheran belief was something like, "Christ was real, but beside or with the congregation, but not in the elements". or something like that, anyway, Wiki gives something different but I'm not exactly sure what it means.

p.s.  I read Timothy, but I also think one either believes what is taught about Holy Eucharist, or one does not.

[extranos]

That Wiki article also states that the Lutherans believe in what I did not know.  Maybe extranos can answer.  I always thought the Lutheran belief was something like, "Christ was real, but beside or with the congregation, but not in the elements". or something like that, anyway, Wiki gives something different but I'm not exactly sure what it means.

The phrase we use is "in, with and under" the bread and wine.....We believe that Christ's Body and Blood are truly present in the Meal because Jesus says "this is My Body, this is My Blood".  I agree that John 6 refers to the Eucharist.
The bread and wine are present throughout the Meal, however; we do not believe that they are changed into Body and Blood, which is my understanding of the Catholic teaching, but not the Orthodox teaching.
At our congregation, we use unleavened bread in the form of wafers.
Does that help?  

PS.  Once upon a time, I ran across some documentation in which Zwingli claimed that an angel in a dream told him that Jesus was only symbolically present in the Eucharist, which I find to be very disturbing.

[Ryan2010]

That Wiki article also states that the Lutherans believe in what I did not know.  Maybe extranos can answer.  I always thought the Lutheran belief was something like, "Christ was real, but beside or with the congregation, but not in the elements". or something like that, anyway, Wiki gives something different but I'm not exactly sure what it means.

p.s.  I read Timothy, but I also think one either believes what is taught about Holy Eucharist, or one does not.

Agree.  I just find the fact that the whole argument that the Eucharist is just a symbol hinges on what the meaning of is, is... is, er, well, kind of weird (in a tragic way).  

But once it gets pumped into the masses and they erase their prints (Zwingli who?) it turns into, "that's what my bible says".  


Lord.
Have.
Mercy.

[desertknight]

The phrase we use is "in, with and under" the bread and wine.....We believe that Christ's Body and Blood are truly present in the Meal because Jesus says "this is My Body, this is My Blood".  I agree that John 6 refers to the Eucharist.
The bread and wine are present throughout the Meal, however; we do not believe that they are changed into Body and Blood, which is my understanding of the Catholic teaching, but not the Orthodox teaching.
Does that help?  

PS.  Once upon a time, I ran across some documentation in which Zwingli claimed that an angel in a dream told him that Jesus was only symbolically present in the Eucharist, which I find to be very disturbing.

Thanks.  I've been enlightened about you guys.     I think you misunderstand what the Orthodox believe, however...

"The Eastern Orthodox Church Synod of Jerusalem declared: "We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, ... but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord,"

...from the article I posted.

[extranos]

"The Eastern Orthodox Church Synod of Jerusalem declared: "We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, ... but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord,"

...from the article I posted.

Hmmmmm.....I thought I remembered CD telling me once that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but you are telling me that you believe that the bread you are holding in your hand is no longer bread?  Or is it placed upon your tongue?

[extranos]

The other question was when are children allowed to partake of Communion.  There are some ELCA churches who will let kids as young as 3rd grade take Communion, but in LCMS is it withheld until Confirmation takes place, which is near the end of 8th grade.

[desertknight]

"The Eastern Orthodox Church Synod of Jerusalem declared: "We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, ... but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord,"

...from the article I posted.

Hmmmmm.....I thought I remembered CD telling me once that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but you are telling me that you believe that the bread you are holding in your hand is no longer bread?  Or is it placed upon your tongue?

I'm not sure who you are asking, (CD?),  , but I just posted what the Orthodox state in that article, but yes, it is essentially the same as Catholic belief and yes, we do.   Holy Eucharist is received in either the hand or the tongue or by intinction, (dipping the bread in the wine), similar to many of the E.O's.  It has been for generations now, always received under both the species of bread and using common chalices although we usually stand for reception-no more altar rails like the old days.  Eastern Rite Catholics practice exactly as the E.Orthdox do.

[trifecta]

CD was right.  The bread and wine remain bread and wine but miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.  We don't know how this is done.  Thomas Acquinas tried to explain how.  He said that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but only have "the elements" of bread and wine.  

This came to be known as transubstantiation.   We didn't buy it (nor much of Acquinas actually).

[extranos]

CD was right.  The bread and wine remain bread and wine but miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.  We don't know how this is done.

Trifecta, this is also the Lutheran view, but what you've written seems different than that DK has written, so what am I missing?

[desertknight]

CD was right.  The bread and wine remain bread and wine but miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.  We don't know how this is done.

Trifecta, this is also the Lutheran view, but what you've written seems different than that DK has written, so what am I missing?

Again, it's not what "I" have written.  It is what their own Synod of Jerusalem has proclaimed...

"The Eastern Orthodox Church Synod of Jerusalem declared: "We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, ... but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord,"
 

That is the exact word that Aquinas used.

[extranos]

DK, sorry for any unintentional misrepresentation.

CD is the infamous CDHealy of this forum, a veritable fount of knowledge regarding all things Orthodox.

Ryan, I missed one question of yours......we use wine, not grape juice.  Never use saltines (tm) as far as I know, although I think they are probably legit.

[desertknight]

Here is the full text that Wiki has regarding this...

The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that in a valid Eucharist bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "Mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer not to elaborate upon the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, they speak in official church documents of a "change" (in Greek μεταβολή) or "metousiosis" (μετουσίωσις) of the bread and wine. Met-ousi-osis is the Greek form of the word Tran-substantia-tion. Examples of such documents are the Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (question 340) and the declaration by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672:

   "In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Eastern_Christianity

[trifecta]

CD was right.  The bread and wine remain bread and wine but miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.  We don't know how this is done.

Trifecta, this is also the Lutheran view, but what you've written seems different than that DK has written, so what am I missing?

You got it, Dan.  We have the same view as you.   The difference that we have with our RCC friends is Acquinas's "elements" thing, as I explained before.  The Patriarch of Jerusulem was not specifically talking about Acquinas's overexplanation in that quote.  The obvious point he was making is that the communion is indeed RP, as opposed to some "semi-real presence" formulations made by Calvin and some Anglicans.   The RCC, you, and we all believe in RP.  Acquinas takes it too far, but that is far superior to the "non" or "semi" views of RP. 

[extranos]

...or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose...

As an ignorant and wretched follower of Luther, I would like to say that impanation is a doctrine that is rejected by the Lutheran Church.



However, I might add that we do not venerate the bread or wine after the Words of Institution.

[desertknight]

CD was right.  The bread and wine remain bread and wine but miraculously become the Body and Blood of Christ.  We don't know how this is done.

Trifecta, this is also the Lutheran view, but what you've written seems different than that DK has written, so what am I missing?

You got it, Dan.  We have the same view as you.   The difference that we have with our RCC friends is Acquinas's "elements" thing, as I explained before.  The Patriarch of Jerusulem was not specifically talking about Acquinas's overexplanation in that quote.  The obvious point he was making is that the communion is indeed RP, as opposed to some "semi-real presence" formulations made by Calvin and some Anglicans.   The RCC, you, and we all believe in RP.  Acquinas takes it too far, but that is far superior to the "non" or "semi" views of RP.  

So why did the Synod of Jerusalem specifically condemn the Lutheran belief?  Did the Lutheran belief used to be something different and then changed?  Btw, if Eastern Catholics have the same view of the Eucharist, and I have no reason to doubt it as what I am reading of that paragraph is Catholic belief, than it is Catholic, i.e., Eastern Rite Catholics are fully Catholic, not simply in communion with Rome.

[extranos]

So why did the Synod of Jerusalem specifically condemn the Lutheran belief?  Did the Lutheran belief used to be something different and then changed?

DK, I don't know.  I'll ask my pastor and see what he has to say, then get back to you.  By 1672, when the Synod of Jerusalem was held, Lutheran doctrine should have been solidified.

[trifecta]

The other question was when are children allowed to partake of Communion.  There are some ELCA churches who will let kids as young as 3rd grade take Communion, but in LCMS is it withheld until Confirmation takes place, which is near the end of 8th grade.

Interestingly, we differ from both RCC and you all on this one.  Any baptized Orthodox are allowed to take communion, including babies.  This was the RCC practices until something like the 12th century.  You all picked up on Rome's lead. 

[Ryan2010]

Various sources explain the differences like this:

At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God.

The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood.

The Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation without going into any scientific or Roman Catholic explanation. The technical word which She uses for the sublime act of the priest by Christ's authority to consecrate is "transmuting" (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). She, as I have said, offers no explanation, but She believes and confesses that Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, is of a truth in His "all-pure Body" and "precious Blood" (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) objectively present, and to be worshiped in that Sacrament as He was on earth and is now in risen and glorified majesty in Heaven; and that "the precious and holy and life-giving Body and Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ are imparted" (to each soul that comes to that blessed Sacrament) "Unto the remission of sins, and unto life everlasting" (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom).

Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis). Roman Catholicism believes that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the person of Christ."



The following link details a bit of how it went down when Luther wanted to see if the East would commune.  It explains some of the communion stuff.  

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx

[desertknight]

Thanks for posting that, Ryan, including the link.  That's very interesting.  The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and it's doctrinal rendering is widely used by the Catholic Church in the east as well.  After reading all this I am pretty confident in understanding the difference at least in the Catholic/Orthodox view, (I still don't fully understand the Lutheran, although I'm getting there.).  The "west" states that it is transubstantiation and then tries to define the corporal change in the elements where as the "east" states it is transubstantiation and leaves defining elemental change as a mystery.  I actually think the eastern view is easier to get one's head around.

[trifecta]

Yeah, I think so too.   

In time, transubstantiation has come to mean the Acquinas view.

Words can change meaning over time. 

[extranos]

The following link details a bit of how it went down when Luther wanted to see if the East would commune.  It explains some of the communion stuff.  

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx

I've seen some of this already, but I always find it fascinating.  What if?
Is the correspondence online and in English?  I've never been able to find it.  It is true, undoubtedly, that Lutherans are the children of the Latin Church.  That, alone, was sure to cause some problems with the East, but it would have been something if we'd been able to bridge the gap with the East somehow.

[desertknight]

The following link details a bit of how it went down when Luther wanted to see if the East would commune.  It explains some of the communion stuff.  

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx

I've seen some of this already, but I always find it fascinating.  What if?
Is the correspondence online and in English?  I've never been able to find it.  It is true, undoubtedly, that Lutherans are the children of the Latin Church.  That, alone, was sure to cause some problems with the East, but it would have been something if we'd been able to bridge the gap with the East somehow

Even if the Lutherans may not have considered this below to be a primary issue, I would consider this a deal breaker as it touches on the meaning of "Church" and related doctrines...

"The Patriarch was especially shocked by the twenty-first and last article, which says that, while congregations should be told of the lives of the saints as examples to be followed, it is contrary to the Scriptures to invoke the saints as mediators before God. Jeremias, after citing the special powers given by Christ to the disciples, answers that true worship should indeed be given to God alone, but that the saints, and above all, the Mother of God, who by their holiness have been raised to heaven, may lawfully and helpfully be invoked. We can ask the Mother of God, owing to her special relationship, to intercede for us and the archangels and angels to pray for us; and all the saints may be asked for their mediation. It is a sign of humility that we sinners should be shy of making a direct approach to God and should seek the intervention of mortal men and women who have earned salvation."

...that would have been pretty tough to get around.

[trifecta]

Just to add my 2 cents, it is indeed an interesting conjecture.  The times and communication methods didn't encourage it.  I wonder what would have happened if they could have communicated quickly in written form

[Ryan2010]

Here's a Greek translation of the dialogue between Orthodox and Lutherans:

http://www.acta-et-scriptura.dk/Engl-transl.htm

And here's an article I read as a protestant that really convicted me.  Pretty good article on sola scriptura:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

Stumbled across this while searching:

    *

Orthodox-Lutheran

We are currently completing the latest round of dialogue between Lutherans and Orthodox in North America. Although the last round ended with remarkable agreement on the doctrine of Justification, the current round of The North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue has been less successful. For the last ten years representatives of SCOBA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) have met yearly to discuss various issues including, the requirements for the establishment of communion between two Christian bodies, the "filioque

[mclees8]

Then let me ask you one. Where did the apostles partake? Did they partake every day. Did they do it in ritual fashion. Or do you think it might have been in more common ways. I mean you seem so legalistic. Second Chapter 6 Matt  to eat his flesh and drink his blood was spiritual metaphor. The last super was real meal to be done in remembrance of him.
Why do you put Jesus in a box of laws. Protestants think and do it one way and Catholics think and do it another.  Do you not think Jesus knows his sheep?

1.  They AFAWK, partook every time they gathered.  2. Yes, 1 Corinthians 11 specifically expresses Paul's condemnation that the Lord's Supper is not being taken seriously, that it should be separated from the communal meal that it used to be celebrated with in order to give it more meaning and "ritual" .  This is no small thing as Paul has told them that their disrespect, there lack of understanding or belief regarding this sacrament has caused their downfall and even death.  3.  No, the Lord's Supper was not, "spiritual metaphor".  Holy Scripture is quite clear on this.  In John 6:52 the unbelievers questioned Jesus on that very point, He replied, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.".  Back again in 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically tells the Corinthians that the source of their abuse of the celebration of the Lord's Supper was in not recognising that they consume not bread and wine, but the Body of Christ. (1 Cor. 11:29).


Mike
Please Night You believe what you want. It is what spirit you do it that counts. Do you condemn to hell those who don't do everything in exact form and ritual as you. No one is minimizing any thing. We know it is not just a common meal but to be in true  reverence of Christ. Read what is say and don't twist my words 
 

I don't think Protestants have rejected any thing. They just don't do it the way you do it

Not sure why you think that, but no, they do.  Except for Anglican doctrine, maybe to a some degree Lutheran, all other Protestants reject the actual reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.  Protestant groups from Baptist to Pentecostal, from reformed to the non-denominational "churches" reject by their own admission that the Lord's Supper is anything but a symbolic ceremony involving only bread or crackers and grape juice.  That stands in complete contrast to what the Church that Christ founded has believed and taught for 2,000 years...

You are a legal as the Pharasees. You think all who do not do anything the exact same way you do it are worthy of hell. You believe it is literal and others believe it is symbolic. I tell you " get a life"

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour 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." (Justin Martyr's 'First Apology' 66:1-20).  AD 150.  


MIke
Justin Martyr Was not one of the apostles. but if you want to think as he then do it. None of his writings are in scripture 

You say where ever the bishop is there is the church. I say where ever believers gather to worship Christ in spirit and in truth there the church is. If a leader truly worships the Lord in accordance with all that he taught being truly led of the spirit and a deep abiding love for Christ  then let him minister   If you went on a journey far from civilization and there were no proper ministers to give you the Eucharist. How would then receive it.? Jesus said do this as often as you eat and drink.

And if you can't you can't, but that is the same if you have no means to celebrate it whether you are Catholic or not if you are "far from civilisation", but you are trying to side-step my original question.  Where do YOU, specifically, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ?   I can daily and often do, and can all around the world, but I fear that those who reject the Church, (and in rejecting the Church's shepherds, her Bishops, you reject Her.), and it is those people who need my prayers as they have cut themselves off from this most important sacrament that our Lord commanded us to partake of.


Those who are in christ Jesus are the church. The church is not the institution of the RCC therefore they reject nothing unless they reject Christ himself. Why do you speak condemnation?
                 

I never said no true church exists. I have said numerous times that he knows his bride and out of the confusion of what Christianity has become he will separate them. Jesus alone knows who it is that truly  loves him even if the institutions have mislead them. This bride consists of  leadership and the lay body. He know who's heart is in the world and those who's heart is in Heaven.  This will have nothing to with denominations Catholic or Protestant .

We must disagree.  I believe you truly love Christ, but I think you completely misunderstand that God may have any desire for man to try to dismember the Body of Christ, His Church.  It cannot be.  Christ specifically anointed His Apostles so that they would pass on that earthly authority and preserve the Church in unity.

Mike
Sorry then we just disagree

There is one field planted and Satan has sewed the weeds of corruption and confusion into it. Yet a remnant exists . Look beyond denominational walls and see the church as a whole. There is still good wheat in the field. There is still one tried and true authority that binds us together. In the parable of the net The fishermen cast a net and gathered every kind: Which when it was full they drew it to shore and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. Matt 14: 47,48

But the Bible teaches us no such thing about authority.  It in fact teaches us that the "authority" on earth that our Lord gave, was given to His Apostles who in turn passed that on to the bishops of His Church.  Holy Scripture is clearly authoritative, but without the inseparable authority of Holy Tradition, as protected by the bishops, that scriptural authority is distorted and misunderstood.  One only has to witness the thousands of Protestant denominations to see that.

Mike
Then the bishops should not have gone astray from it. They should not have invented there own traditions and doctrines as the papacy did as being there own authority. I tell you again it is a shameful thing to exploit scripture for you own purposes. 

[mclees8]

I m sorry i have never figured out how to box my replies like everyone else. this i why I don't like statement by statement debates.

[extranos]

Ryan,
The Orthodox are wasting their time talking with ELCA.  They should instead talk to a Christian church.

McLees8, use "[" then "quote]"  to start a quote, then use "[/" then "quote]" to end the quote.  It's very easy, you can do it.

[desertknight]

Please Night You believe what you want. It is what spirit you do it that counts. Do you condemn to hell those who don't do everything in exact form and ritual as you. No one is minimizing any thing. We know it is not just a common meal but to be in true  reverence of Christ. Read what is say and don't twist my words.

It's not my words that condemn you, Mike, it is the Apostle Paul's.  He did not just say that the Lord's Supper should show reverence for Christ, that, it should, but he said that it should because he specifically castigated the Corinthians for being irreverent and even drunk because they, did not discern it was the Body of Christ that they were receiving at Eucharist.  
 

You are a legal as the Pharasees. You think all who do not do anything the exact same way you do it are worthy of hell. You believe it is literal and others believe it is symbolic. I tell you " get a life"

Then in doing so you condemn what is the Body of Christ.  It profanes what is Holy.  I'm not saying that to make you mad, I'm saying that to try to get you to ask, "Why does not where I worship acknowledge what the "church" has for 2,000 years?"   I'm trying to point out to you why the Church and the priesthood, not just of all believers, but the ordained priesthood of our High Priest, Jesus Christ, passed down by the Apostles, is so important.

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."  1 Cor. 11:29.

Justin Martyr Was not one of the apostles. but if you want to think as he then do it. None of his writings are in scripture

Fare enough, but his writings are consistent with what the entire Church believed, practised and taught, what ALL of the Christian faithful believed until the Protestant revolt.  Does that not concern you?  I just don't get how someone can look at those men who knew the original Apostles or were trained by those that did, who shared in these universal beliefs that the Church has held to for hundreds of years and just say, "Nah-those guys don't know a thing!"  

Those who are in christ Jesus are the church. The church is not the institution of the RCC therefore they reject nothing unless they reject Christ himself. Why do you speak condemnation?

I don't condemn, that is God's business, not mine, but I do speak the truth.
                 

Then the bishops should not have gone astray from it. They should not have invented there own traditions and doctrines as the papacy did as being there own authority. I tell you again it is a shameful thing to exploit scripture for you own purposes.

No one is "exploiting scripture for there own purposes".  I am simply pointing at some truths.  If the bishops went so far astray then why can I post...

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

...and recognise that as my Church today.  Is it yours?

p.s., I can read your posts just fine if you can't get the hang of the quote block thing.  No worries. 

Peace, 

[mclees8]

Please Night You believe what you want. It is what spirit you do it that counts. Do you condemn to hell those who don't do everything in exact form and ritual as you. No one is minimizing any thing. We know it is not just a common meal but to be in true  reverence of Christ. Read what is say and don't twist my words.

It's not my words that condemn you, Mike, it is the Apostle Paul's.  He did not just say that the Lord's Supper should show reverence for Christ, that, it should, but he said that it should because he specifically castigated the Corinthians for being irreverent and even drunk because they, did not discern it was the Body of Christ that they were receiving at Eucharist. 

Mike
Then you do think condemnation for you assume Christ does. Paul castigated the Corinthians for be irreverent because they thought it an excuse to party but  in my 30 years of going to many different Protestant churches I have never once seen such irreverence. This is your idea because you are a legalist and a condescending one at that. 
 

You are a legal as the Pharasees. You think all who do not do anything the exact same way you do it are worthy of hell. You believe it is literal and others believe it is symbolic. I tell you " get a life"

Night
Then in doing so you condemn what is the Body of Christ.  It profanes what is Holy.  I'm not saying that to make you mad, I'm saying that to try to get you to ask, "Why does not where I worship acknowledge what the "church" has for 2,000 years?"   I'm trying to point out to you why the Church and the priesthood, not just of all believers, but the ordained priesthood of our High Priest, Jesus Christ, passed down by the Apostles, is so important.


Mike
It is important and very much so. It is their record of our faith and salvation. for all of us What does that have do with your legalism? 

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."  1 Cor. 11:29.

Mike
Lets look at what this verse says as it is stated in the KJV.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation# to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.#
One must understand  the need to examine themselves concerning their attitude in this most precious supper not like any meal they might have. This represented the Passover.

Justin Martyr Was not one of the apostles. but if you want to think as he then do it. None of his writings are in scripture

Fare enough, but his writings are consistent with what the entire Church believed, practised and taught, what ALL of the Christian faithful believed until the Protestant revolt.  Does that not concern you?  I just don't get how someone can look at those men who knew the original Apostles or were trained by those that did, who shared in these universal beliefs that the Church has held to for hundreds of years and just say, "Nah-those guys don't know a thing!" 

Those who are in christ Jesus are the church. The church is not the institution of the RCC therefore they reject nothing unless they reject Christ himself. Why do you speak condemnation?

I don't condemn, that is God's business, not mine, but I do speak the truth.

Mike
Oh you could have fooled me.
                   

Then the bishops should not have gone astray from it. They should not have invented there own traditions and doctrines as the papacy did as being there own authority. I tell you again it is a shameful thing to exploit scripture for you own purposes.

No one is "exploiting scripture for there own purposes".  I am simply pointing at some truths.  If the bishops went so far astray then why can I post...

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).



Mike
This is a very interesting letter. Lets examine it. I like his first statement. Because it is true. I also notice that he wrote it in 180 AD.  He states there is no forging or falsification of  scripture by the apostles  So we know he believes that up until that time there is no abuse. This letter does not justify the RCC or what it became after 500AD. It does not justify the new inventions of doctrines and traditions that were not of the apostles. Yet you use his letters just like the papacy uses them and scripture to justify them selves. This is the abuse and exploitation I speak of . I also note nothing here justifies the papacy becoming the religious political power and authority of the empire.


You have another clip here written in 200 Ad. It does not look like a complete statement but just a portion cut out to justify transubstantiation.

You say you don't condemn anyone then what is that you are trying to do here?  Use a letter by some bishop to make a case.  Do you think one loses his salvation if they don't conform to Transubstantiation. ?  Really. This is making a law out of a train of idealistic thought.  This is why you are a legalist.       

...and recognise that as my Church today.  Is it yours?

Mike
Is this another condemning or condescending statement?

[desertknight]

Then you do think condemnation for you assume Christ does. Paul castigated the Corinthians for be irreverent because they thought it an excuse to party but  in my 30 years of going to many different Protestant churches I have never once seen such irreverence. This is your idea because you are a legalist and a condescending one at that.

I'm not being "legalistic" or "condescending", Mike, I'm just stating an opinion.  Yes, Paul castigated them for being irreverent, but he specifically did so because he told them that they did not realize that it was the Body or Christ and His Blood that they were partaking of. (1 Cor. 11:29).  Scripture is clear enough on this that it was universally accepted by Christians from every record we have, for the first 1,500+ years of the faith.  It is not I who condemns those who do not recognise this, it was Paul himself who does in 1 Cor. 11.

It is important and very much so. It is their record of our faith and salvation. for all of us What does that have do with your legalism?

Mike, it is not "legalism" to get essential and basic points of doctrine correct.  This issue is as important as understanding what baptism is or is not.  You are not "legalistic" just because you think the orthodox understanding is vitally important.  Paul specifically stated that not getting it right, which allowed the Corinthians to let abuses occur, could condemn them to death.

Lets look at what this verse says as it is stated in the KJV.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation# to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.#
One must understand  the need to examine themselves concerning their attitude in this most precious supper not like any meal they might have.

Yes, but you keep leaving out that in 1 Cor. 11:29, Paul specifically says that this examination to see if we are worthy is because it is not just a Passover meal, it is the Body of Christ that is being partaken of...

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord, eats and drinks judgment on himself."  1 Cor. 11:29.

Paul's statement here is as crystal clear as it gets.

Oh you could have fooled me.

If you think it's me who is condemning you, than I unfortunately have.  It's not my business to.  I don't pass judgement on any man's soul.  

This is a very interesting letter. Lets examine it. I like his first statement. Because it is true. I also notice that he wrote it in 180 AD.  He states there is no forging or falsification of  scripture by the apostles  So we know he believes that up until that time there is no abuse. This letter does not justify the RCC or what it became after 500AD. It does not justify the new inventions of doctrines and traditions that were not of the apostles. Yet you use his letters just like the papacy uses them and scripture to justify them selves. This is the abuse and exploitation I speak of . I also note nothing here justifies the papacy becoming the religious political power and authority of the empire.


You have another clip here written in 200 Ad. It does not look like a complete statement but just a portion cut out to justify transubstantiation.

You say you don't condemn anyone then what is that you are trying to do here?  Use a letter by some bishop to make a case.  Do you think one loses his salvation if they don't conform to Transubstantiation. ?  Really. This is making a law out of a train of idealistic thought.  This is why you are a legalist.

Well, aside from getting into your "world religious political power" charge....Yes, I think one can loose their salvation if they live outside of the Church and do not partake of the actual Body and Blood of our Lord.  Jesus the Christ was quite specific in saying to us that it was the case...

   *  John 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

   * John 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

   * John 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

   * John 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If one simply views it as a "symbolic" meal of nothing but bread and grape juice, then that would be against what the Church has taught for 2,000 years, what Paul warned the Corinthians about, and what does no one good spiritually and could condemn them to eternal death if one assumes that the Lord's Supper is just "symbolic".  I don't say that, but I certainly believe scripture does.

Is this another condemning or condescending statement?

Not at all.  I'm being quite civil and not meaning to condemn you at all, I'm just asking honest questions.  Does the description that Irenaeus gave of Apostolic Succession of legitimate authority and the Real Presence in the Eucharist match the church that you are a member of?

[mclees8]

Then you do think condemnation for you assume Christ does. Paul castigated the Corinthians for be irreverent because they thought it an excuse to party but  in my 30 years of going to many different Protestant churches I have never once seen such irreverence. This is your idea because you are a legalist and a condescending one at that.

I'm not being "legalistic" or "condescending", Mike, I'm just stating an opinion.  Yes, Paul castigated them for being irreverent, but he specifically did so because he told them that they did not realize that it was the Body or Christ and His Blood that they were partaking of. (1 Cor. 11:29).  Scripture is clear enough on this that it was universally accepted by Christians from every record we have, for the first 1,500+ years of the faith.  It is not I who condemns those who do not recognise this, it was Paul himself who does in 1 Cor. 11.


Mike
I like that. You tell me now you are not being a legalist nor condescending because its just  opinion. How is that your opinion is so legalistic and condescending? Why don't just admit it. In fact you already did but we did not get that far along in your response yet. 

It is important and very much so. It is their record of our faith and salvation. for all of us What does that have do with your legalism?

N ight
Mike, it is not "legalism" to get essential and basic points of doctrine correct.  This issue is as important as understanding what baptism is or is not.  You are not "legalistic" just because you think the orthodox understanding is vitally important.  Paul specifically stated that not getting it right, which allowed the Corinthians to let abuses occur, could condemn them to death.

Mike

It is legalism when you say everyone must  adhere to your prescribe rules. Im not talking about disrespect of authority. There is often more than one way to achieve the same thing. If Christ is honored.  In this case Christ is honored and condemns no one in the mater of literal verses symbolic. Jesus still knows who it is that loves Him but you would say its your way or hell.

Lets look at what this verse says as it is stated in the KJV.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation# to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.#
One must understand  the need to examine themselves concerning their attitude in this most precious supper not like any meal they might have.

Yes, but you keep leaving out that in 1 Cor. 11:29, Paul specifically says that this examination to see if we are worthy is because it is not just a Passover meal, it is the Body of Christ that is being partaken of...

Jesus is our Passover

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord, eats and drinks judgment on himself."  1 Cor. 11:29.

Mike
I already quoted this verse from Icor 11: 29 You did not recognize it because the KJV reads it different. 

Night
Paul's statement here is as crystal clear as it gets.

Mike
I won't argue with you

Oh you could have fooled me.

Night
If you think it's me who is condemning you, than I unfortunately have.  It's not my business to.  I don't pass judgement on any man's soul.

This is a very interesting letter. Lets examine it. I like his first statement. Because it is true. I also notice that he wrote it in 180 AD.  He states there is no forging or falsification of  scripture by the apostles  So we know he believes that up until that time there is no abuse. This letter does not justify the RCC or what it became after 500AD. It does not justify the new inventions of doctrines and traditions that were not of the apostles. Yet you use his letters just like the papacy uses them and scripture to justify them selves. This is the abuse and exploitation I speak of . I also note nothing here justifies the papacy becoming the religious political power and authority of the empire.


You have another clip here written in 200 Ad. It does not look like a complete statement but just a portion cut out to justify transubstantiation.

You say you don't condemn anyone then what is that you are trying to do here?  Use a letter by some bishop to make a case.  Do you think one loses his salvation if they don't conform to Transubstantiation. ?  Really. This is making a law out of a train of idealistic thought.  This is why you are a legalist.

Well, aside from getting into your "world religious political power" charge....Yes, I think one can loose their salvation if they live outside of the Church and do not partake of the actual Body and Blood of our Lord.  Jesus the Christ was quite specific in saying to us that it was the case..

Mike
Again it is you humanistic idea that the church is just the RCC.. So according then to you if you are not of the RCC you  are ultimately going to hell because of none conformity. I would let Jesus be the judge of who is out side the church. Everyone I know came into the church when they took Jesus as Lord.

    *  John 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

    * John 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    * John 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    * John 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If one simply views it as a "symbolic" meal of nothing but bread and grape juice, then that would be against what the Church has taught for 2,000 years, what Paul warned the Corinthians about, and what does no one good spiritually and could condemn them to eternal death if one assumes that the Lord's Supper is just "symbolic".  I don't say that, but I certainly believe scripture does.

Mike
You are so locked into an idea of law that I believe the RCC has instilled in you. Whether one interprets it symbolic or literal is not a matter of salvation. It is not a measure of the heart. The Lord knows who it is who loves him. This is why I say you speak condemnation. But if you think you are concerned for my soul you are duly noted.   

Is this another condemning or condescending statement?

Not at all.  I'm being quite civil and not meaning to condemn you at all, I'm just asking honest questions.  Does the description that Irenaeus gave of Apostolic Succession of legitimate authority and the Real Presence in the Eucharist match the church that you are a member of?

Mike
Yes I know you are being civil and I don't think you are intentionally  condemning me but anyone who does not conform to the RCC idea of transubstantiation. I don't think its you so much but its the arrogant and condescending  position of the Vatican that has instilled their lofty ideas on catholics. Now most of you think your really up there while the rest just don't measure up. Catholics  have the fullness and the rest of  us believers just barely make if at all. I really don't believe Jesus would share your views. Of course that's my opinion. I wonder how the Lord measures who has the fullness. Can someone be half full. It would seem this is the attitude of the Vatican. I once read a statement from a catholic on another board. Remembering that the RCC once considered as I think you seem to lean that no one out side of the RCC is saved. But as of a late council they have considerd that protestants can be saved since  the latter generation of the their reformer fathers were less culpable then them  since now they have been raised up in ignorance of the fullness or the true church.

I thought at the time it sounded like a dog just  got tossed a bone. I had a dream that night. You see I did not know the word for it at the time was condescending. But in my dream a man was writing and he used another word also which I was not really familiar with but I looked it up. So the words written in the dream were " condescending pseudo Christianity