Real Presence

[AmyHasQuestions]

I am a Catholic that doubts the "Real Presence," which is the idea that Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion elements.

Does anyone have any Biblical reason for not believing in the Real Presence?

To me, it's kind of a cop-out to say that it just looks like wine and bread even though it is actually human flesh and blood. I can see, taste, smell and feel that it is not human flesh and blood, but I need to know if the Bible addresses this at all.

[AmyHasQuestions]

I realize people might be afraid to answer because they have been ambushed by Catholics in the past, but I've been kicked out of the Catholic forum for asking questions like these. I will not ambush you or flame you.

[MrJim]

B/A fears nothing!

Funny how things go-I'm sorted headed into the direction you are coming from-maybe more toward the Orthodox than Catholic. I saw you over there in OBOB and went through some of the threads but didn't get any sense of you being "kicked out" unless you were pm'd or something.

I will allow the others to answer this (wish Lambslove was around :) ). I'm a little biased these days.

[AmyHasQuestions]

I wasn't banned or anything, but several people did tell me they thought I should go away for asking these questions.

Who or what is Lambslove?

[MrJim]

I wasn't banned or anything, but several people did tell me they thought I should go away for asking these questions.

Who or what is Lambslove?

An articulate angel that used to grace us here at B/A. I think she came from a Catholic background but converted to anabaptism. Someone will be along shortly.

[AmyHasQuestions]

Why are you planning to convert to Catholicism or Othordox faith?

[MrJim]

Why are you planning to convert to Catholicism or Othordox faith?

Discovering Sola Scriptura to be a Pandora's Box.

Protestantism (and I include baptist/anabaptist in that label) is pretty much a free-for-all. It says that you are in the driver seat to interpret the scriptures for yourself. You can align with someone that founded or supported a denomination (Calvin, Wesley, Luther, Menno Simons, Zwingli, Williams) or just fall in with someone doing their own thing (non-denom). Sounds like a neat idea-just me and the Holy Spirit and look out world. Hundreds or some say thousands of denominations later there you have it. And it is easily seen here on the forums. A question will come up and there will be several different interpretations. Now each will generally say that their's is the correct interpretation. And often these will fall along partisan (denom) lines. Now the teachers and proponents will say that they are led by the Spirit in their interpretation yet how many "right" answers can their be? And if you don't agree with their interpretation you are "twisting scripture" or "quenching the spirit".

After nearly 20 years of being a "born-again" I've still not got the thing figured out. I can debate with nearly anyone on any topic from any point of view since I've had nearly all of them at one time or another. I can be a calvinist or an arminian, I can be for or against baptismal regeneration, I can be for or against "real presence" in communion, I can be for or against infant baptism, or women preachers, or christians in military, or eternal security, KJV/NIV, (can't do the charismatic thing-never "tried it out") you name it and I can be on either side. And one day I thought-there has to be a right answer somewhere. So I've been investigating the "Ancient Church". Particularly with the Eastern Orthodox I find a somewhat unchanging group that I am challenged with. And the most interesting thing about them is that they allow "mystery"--that there are some things that are just unknowable. It is also a case of me submitting to the church instead of me figuring out the church. Protestantism has me in the center of the universe figuring out what God wants and figuring out which "guy"/"denom" to follow, whereas the scripture teaches something a little different. [And I think I quit being a protestant (anabaptist/baptist) about two weeks ago.]

There is also a fad/trendy preoccupation with modern protestantism that is a little unsettling (and some have said the Catholic church invited this in with V2 but that's for another time:) ). In trying to be "relevant" it is selling its soul out to the highest bidder. At the baptist church I currently go to (:doh: ) the latest newsletter has the interim pastor saying you just can't minister to multiple age groups with just one service. You have to have this and that and this to really be effective. Frankly it's just a scramble to try to make some sense out of a trainwrecked denom. [Now there will be some B/A folks that agree with that as being a wrong approach.]

Well, didn't mean to ramble. Know that there aren't many at all that will agree with what I say here at B/A so I am not representing this board very well. But ya asked and I had a minute. I would suggest that you examine more closely what Rome teaches and if still not satisfied then check what the Orthodox teach. They are a lot more different than Rome-they are not "Catholic Lite" and I have found a lot of differences between the two. Or you can wander into the morass that is protestantism, join in the protest (they really like catholic converts), and follow God on that path. Lots of great folks have tread this path and you can learn much about following God-just know no one really has a final answer to things.

I guess the bottom line is being sure that you are right with God through His Son Jesus Christ. Maybe in eternity we'll all sit around and laugh at the efforts we put into looking at the differences and spending so much time "being right".

[AmyHasQuestions]

The opposite is true though, too. Catholicism says that the average person doesn't have the ability to interpret scripture outside of the way the Church interprets it, thus only the people who agree with the way the Church interprets it are correct. It's a whole can of worms because people either don't bother reading the Bible or when they read it and see it doesn't mean what the Church says it does, they have to choose between being rational thinking beings or being completely faithful to a Church they believe is wrong.

No Church is perfect I guess.

[arunma]

I am a Catholic that doubts the "Real Presence," which is the idea that Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion elements.

Does anyone have any Biblical reason for not believing in the Real Presence?

To me, it's kind of a cop-out to say that it just looks like wine and bread even though it is actually human flesh and blood. I can see, taste, smell and feel that it is not human flesh and blood, but I need to know if the Bible addresses this at all.

Well, back to the original post...

Technically, I do believe in the Real Presence, if by that you mean the presence of God with his people. I, however, do not believe that God only comes to us when we celebrate the eucharist. I think that the Spirit of God is always with his church, whether we are eating his Supper, or doing other activities.

You also, perhaps inadvertently, addressed the doctrine of transubstantiation. The real presence is different from transubstantiation. The doctrine of the real presence states that God comes down to the church when we celebrate the eucharist. On the other hand, transubstantiation goes further to say that the communion elements literally turn to flesh and blood when we eat them. One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation.

I don't believe in transubstantiation because I don't think that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible makes any sense. For one to believe in transubstantiation, one must believe that Jesus turned the elements of the Last Supper into his flesh and blood. But his flesh and blood were still part of his body, so it makes no sense to say the apostles ate his flesh and drank his blood (if anything, they'd be eating someone else's flesh). Furthermore, transubstantiation advocates that Jesus is re-crucified every time the church conducts mass, and elsewhere, the Bible portrays re-crucifying Jesus as a bad thing.

For these reasons, I think it makes more sense to interpret the Lord's Supper as a memorial meal rather than a re-presentation of Christ's flesh and blood.

[FreeinChrist]

For these reasons, I think it makes more sense to interpret the Lord's Supper as a memorial meal rather than a re-presentation of Christ's flesh and blood.

I agree with those reasons.
Mat 18:20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."


We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have that promise. And I beleive to be consistent with what God showed and demanded in the OT, it is a memorial meal of the covenant. Not once, not ever, did God allow any of His to take in the blood of sacrifice. Instead, the blood was offered in the Holy of Holies. Christ offered His blood in the heavenly Holy of Holies:

Hbr 9:1 Now even the first {covenant} had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.

Hbr 9:2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which {were} the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place.

Hbr 9:3 Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

Hbr 9:4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Hbr 9:5 and above it {were} the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

Hbr 9:6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,

Hbr 9:7 but into the second, only the high priest {enters} once a year, not without {taking} blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

Hbr 9:8 The Holy Spirit {is} signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,

Hbr 9:9 which {is} a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,

Hbr 9:10 since they {relate} only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

Hbr 9:11 But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

Hbr 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,

Hbr 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hbr 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were {committed} under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

[TwinCrier]

I believe in the real presence, just NOT that it exists in a cracker at the command of some priest. The real of presence of Christ is in my heart.

[HumbleMan]

My real problem with transubstantion (sp?) (or at least the major problem) is that when God gave the law through Moses, He specifically said that His people are not to eat flesh or drink blood. Now, why would Christ command us to do something that His Father had specifically said not to do? Remember, those at the table were all Jews, who followed the law.

I, like the others, do believe Christ is in our presence if we call on His name.

[EclecticDoctor]

Hello Amy,

I am a fellow Catholic who has struggled with the same question you are going through now. I would very much like to answer your questions, but am not sure if this is the right place to do so, being in the baptist forum. If you like, you can pm me anytime or even email me. (ask for it in a pm)
God Bless,

Philip

[mesue]

I am a Catholic that doubts the "Real Presence," which is the idea that Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion elements.

Does anyone have any Biblical reason for not believing in the Real Presence?

To me, it's kind of a cop-out to say that it just looks like wine and bread even though it is actually human flesh and blood. I can see, taste, smell and feel that it is not human flesh and blood, but I need to know if the Bible addresses this at all.

I was a Catholic, and now attend an Indepenent Baptist Church. I believe when we, as a church family, celebrate the Lord's Supper, that Jesus is really there, because He said He is. He's there everytime we gather together in His name, He didn't specify which portion of the gathering, just that He's be there. He's not schizophrenic, how can He be in only one part of the Mass and then split Himself up into itty bitty pieces? If He says He's there, He's there for the whole, not just in part. He is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, whole, not partial.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

I remember when the nun said that we could now put the host in our hand but we still couldn't chew it. I asked why we couldn't chew it and she told me to not be so stupid. That was the only answer I got. About 20 years later I found out that it was because we were supposed to believe that Jesus was actual in the host and we'd be damned to hell if we didn't believe it. I couldn't even fake believing it because I just found that absurd, besides, I was already damned to hell for breaking all of the top 10 commandments. I had nothing to lose by my disbelief.
The verse that was used to back up this belief was:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

And He is the bread of life. The Bible says
Exodus 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus is the Word and the word is our bread of life, but He's not a piece of bread. Jesus also said He's a door, a vine, and a root, how are those transubstatiated? They're not. He's not in the itty bitty piece of host, but His presence is there all over.

[AmyHasQuestions]

Hello Amy,

I am a fellow Catholic who has struggled with the same question you are going through now. I would very much like to answer your questions, but am not sure if this is the right place to do so, being in the baptist forum. If you like, you can pm me anytime or even email me. (ask for it in a pm)
God Bless,

Philip

Feel free to PM me your answer. I prefer not to share my email address with strangers.

[arunma]

Jesus is the Word and the word is our bread of life, but He's not a piece of bread. Jesus also said He's a door, a vine, and a root, how are those transubstatiated? They're not. He's not in the itty bitty piece of host, but His presence is there all over.

Even if Jesus were localized in the communion wafer, there's still another problem with Catholic theology. Why must a priest in apostolic succession be present to transubstantiate the wafer into flesh? I find it difficult to believe that God gives this power only to Catholic priests. And if he did, you'd think the RCC would have a better means of keeping track of the apostolic lineage, since it's questionable at best (at least as I understand it).

[Joykins]

I don't believe in transubstantiation in the way that Catholics do, because, like arunma stated

* Jesus is always with us. He isn't limited to bread and wine. Nor do I believe that God limits his grace to the Catholic sacraments.

* I don't see any Biblical reason to require "apostolic succession" for communion to be valid.

On the other hand, I think that in the communion, Jesus was leaving us a way to take him into ourselves. When we take it, we literally take the bread and wine into our bodies to nourish us, in the same way that we take Jesus into our lives to be our Lord and Savior. It is a literal reminder of a spiritual reality. I am content to say that Jesus is especially present in the eucharist.

I kind of like Elizabeth's circumlocution of the entire matter:


Christ was the word that spake it.
He took the bread and brake it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it.

[ArchangelGabriel]

My real problem with transubstantion (sp?) (or at least the major problem) is that when God gave the law through Moses, He specifically said that His people are not to eat flesh or drink blood. Now, why would Christ command us to do something that His Father had specifically said not to do? Remember, those at the table were all Jews, who followed the law.

I, like the others, do believe Christ is in our presence if we call on His name.

well yeah he would cause he did (love your enemy thingy)((one example))

[ArchangelGabriel]

I believe in the real presence, just NOT that it exists in a cracker at the command of some priest. The real of presence of Christ is in my heart.
1.not a cracker
2. not a command
3. and not a preist

and if your saying"REAL PRESENCE" like the type hes addressing then i hope you have a good doctor to get Jesus out of your chest before you have a heart attack

[ArchangelGabriel]

quick note to all catholics dont think that God is only with you for tha short time that You take part in the body and blood thingy
just thought it should be said since popular belief looked otherwise

[Iollain]

I believe in a spiritual presense at the Lord's Table, a Calvanist meaning i've been told, not your average Baptist belief maybe, i think i'm a wild Baptist or something. :D

[ArchangelGabriel]

so you think that your a spiritual presence at the Lord's table?????

[Iollain]

No i believe that the bread and wine spiritually are the body and blood of Christ. And yes i'm a spiritual presence since my spirit would be there...:)

[EclecticDoctor]

* Jesus is always with us. He isn't limited to bread and wine. Nor do I believe that God limits his grace to the Catholic sacraments.

[/color][/font][/i][/b]

Yes, that is entirely true. Catholic theology itself does not limit God's grace only to the sacraments. I forgot which saint said this, but I remember reading it in a book of quotations.

[EclecticDoctor]

quick note to all catholics dont think that God is only with you for tha short time that You take part in the body and blood thingy
just thought it should be said since popular belief looked otherwise

No I don't think that.:amen: If God is only with me for the time that the Eucharist is in me then I wouldn't even exist, I'd be annihilated, since it is God's own love and grace that keeps us in existence.

As for the posts about nuns giving trite answers: yes I can relate wholeheartedly. For the record, I will say that the average catholic priest or nun is an idiot when it comes to explaining Catholic doctrine and biblical exegesis. I almost left Christianity as a whole because no one could seemingly answer my questions.

But when they're good, they're grrrrreat! William G. Most comes to mind.

[mesue]

Yes, that is entirely true. Catholic theology itself does not limit God's grace only to the sacraments. I forgot which saint said this, but I remember reading it in a book of quotations.
Then, how is one damned to hell? Anathema? According to the Counsel of Trent?

[Joykins]

As for the posts about nuns giving trite answers: yes I can relate wholeheartedly. For the record, I will say that the average catholic priest or nun is an idiot when it comes to explaining Catholic doctrine and biblical exegesis. I almost left Christianity as a whole because no one could seemingly answer my questions.

This is a serious problem and needs to be absolutely rectified. Unqualified people should not be put in a position of teaching and spiritual leadership.

[bethdinsmore]

Yes, I believe there is a Biblical reason for not believing in the Real Presence.
Quoted from my website:

“In the Lord’s Supper, is the body and blood real?”
Conservative scholars believe the Bible is inerrant (without error). But they also believe there are figures of speech in it, as in nearly all literature. For example, "the mountains skipping for joy". They take Scripture literally unless it is clearly not meant to be literal in a certain passage.

Here is an example of Jesus' teaching that bread was to be symbolic of His body:
Matt 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." (NIV) Since He was present at that time in His body, the bread was obviously only a symbol; it would make sense that the wine would be the same, in my opinion.

And there is another point to be made from the following verse:
1 Cor 11:25-26 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (NIV)

Symbolic again. I've never yet seen anyone drink a cup. END QUOTE


Hope this helps, friend.
Aloha in Jesus

[JPPT1974]

This is a serious problem and needs to be absolutely rectified. Unqualified people should not be put in a position of teaching and spiritual leadership.

It is a serious problem indeed. Only the ones qualified and ones who want to teach because they love Jesus should be put in a position of teaching and spiritual leadership.

[EclecticDoctor]

Then, how is one damned to hell? Anathema? According to the Counsel of Trent?

One is damned to hell when he or she consciously, willfully, rejects the saving grace of God, whether by willfully rejecting the Truth, or by rejecting God's grace through his actions. (am not sure if I'm wording this right, but I hope you get what I mean)

About nuns and priests, I understand that not all of them are trained in deep biblical exegesis. Sure, they study it, but that's not their full time job, which may be school administration, parish work, or something not on the university level. I would compare it to the medical profession. All physicians go through Ob-Gyne, Psych, Internal Med, surgery, pediatrics, etc,so we have a working knowledge of all of them. But are we experts? Not unless we specialize. (For the record, I'm a General Practitioner currently specializing in... acupuncture and oriental herbology...)

About Real Presence questions, there's this nice site with lots of pages for biblical evidence of it, but it's down right now... (the site)

[mesue]

One is damned to hell when he or she consciously, willfully, rejects the saving grace of God, whether by willfully rejecting the Truth, or by rejecting God's grace through his actions. (am not sure if I'm wording this right, but I hope you get what I mean) ...


Rejecting whose truth? Man? or God's?
According to the Roman Catholic Church

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

[JPPT1974]

One is damned to hell when he or she consciously, willfully, rejects the saving grace of God, whether by willfully rejecting the Truth, or by rejecting God's grace through his actions. (am not sure if I'm wording this right, but I hope you get what I mean)

About Real Presence questions, there's this nice site with lots of pages for biblical evidence of it, but it's down right now... (the site)

I tried to download the site but to no avail. Might try later on.
And if you reject Christ, you are indeed bound to you know where.
If you accept Christ, then your name will be awaiting for you in the Book of Life and a place in heaven.

[EclecticDoctor]

Rejecting whose truth? Man? or God's?


Mark Shea: " (quoting Augustine)Outside the Catholic Church,there is no salvation, but as to the borders of the Catholic Church, only God can say."

St. Justin the Martyr: Socrates,even though he did not know the Truth (Christ), loved the Truth and strove for it. In that sense, Socrates may be said to be a Christian.

And about the real presence: not many truly understand it, and so many reject NOT the realpresenceitself,but their misunderstanding of it. Therefore, the fault is not with the one who misunderstands, but in the onewho has so inadequately taught it (like me.)

[EclecticDoctor]

Oh,and let him be anathema means let him be cast out, excommunicated. And this applies to someone who fully understands the doctrine yet rejects it. An example of excommunication inthe 20th century is jesuit priest leonard feeney. He taught, literally, that if you are not catholic you AUTOMATICALLY go to hell, which counters what the Church officially teaches and is illustrated in the quote by st justin martyr. After repeated warnings, he refused to change his teaching and was then excommunicated. (although his followers will question the excommunication document)

Here are excerpts from an article by William G most (I would simply linkto it,but my post count is below 100. my apologies)

Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney
In the late 1940s Leonard Feeney, S. J. began to teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. He was correct in saying that there were official teachings, even definitions, on that score. ... First, he was excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney's error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- ...But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church...

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - ... - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance.

Not just the documents of the Church as interpreted by the Church should have kept him from this: merely common sense, and the realization that God is not only not a monster, but is infinitely good - that alone should have stopped him. We have, then, most ample reason for calling his error tragic. Even the sexually immoral do not deny that God is good. Feeney does worse than they.

(Most then quotes extensively from early church documents and scripture)



1. Following proper theological method, the Fathers and the Magisterium saw two things: a) the Church is necessary for salvation; b) In some way God must make provision for those who do not find the Church. This was already stated in Romans 3. 29 by St. Paul. If He did not do that, He would act as though He were not their God- He would condemn millions to hell who never had a chance!. Such a God could not be a God at all, but a monster.

2. In an effort to find how to fit the two together, most of them expressed a very broad concept of membership in the Church. Then one can say that there is no salvation outside the Church, but that the concept of membership is very broad, and covers even those who do not find the Church.

3. The early Magisterium texts at first seem very stringent. It is likely they had in mind those who culpably reject the Church - the words of Pius IX about those who are contumacious and obstinate fit with this and did not apply to those who through no fault of their own do not find the Church. The words of Romans 3. 29 call for this interpretation



Later Magisterium texts speak of those who pertain to the Church or are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right. John Paul II spoke of a mysterious grace.



Our proposal, expressed above in our comments on LG 5 do not contradict these things. Rather, they try to fill in, taking a lead from St. Justin that some in the past could have been Christians because they followed the Logos, who is in all. We attached the thought of St. Justin to Romans 2:14-16. This is not strained, for when we say the Logos, a Spirit is present, we really mean He is producing an effect: His presence is not spatial. What effect does He produce? He produces the effect of making known to them interiorly what the law requires, so that the law is written on their hearts, as Rom 2:15 said, following Jeremiah 31:33. (All actions done by the Three Divine Persons outside the Divine nature are common work to all three. Cf. DS 800. Hence we may say God did it, or the Logos did it, or the Spirit of Christ - all mean the same).

Then, if, for example Socrates - explicitly mentioned by St. Justin - follows the law on his heart, Socrates does not know the source of that law. It is really the Spirit of Christ who writes it. In accepting it, Socrates objectively accepts the Spirit of Christ. Since he accepts and follows that Spirit, he of course follows the Logos. But in Romans 8:9 we hear that "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." So then, one who does have and follow that Spirit, does belong to Christ . But to belong to Christ in St. Paul's language means to be a member of Christ - which is a member of the Church, by substantial membership, even though without formal external adherence.

So people of this sort who follow the law on their hearts are members of the Church, and as such, can be saved. This fits especially well with the words of Vatican II in LG 16. ..


I hope that this clarifies both the concepts of excommunication, anathema, and salvation in and out of the catholic church. you may not and probably won't agree, but I hope it leads to a better understanding of what I do believe. XD

[arunma]

Mark Shea: " (quoting Augustine)Outside the Catholic Church,there is no salvation, but as to the borders of the Catholic Church, only God can say."

St. Justin the Martyr: Socrates,even though he did not know the Truth (Christ), loved the Truth and strove for it. In that sense, Socrates may be said to be a Christian.

Regarding Saint Augustine, I think you've gone too far in saying that the "catholic church" he mentioned refers to the Roman Catholic Church. Technically I consider myself a member of the catholic church. I just don't think that the Bishop of Rome has a monopoly Christ's universal church.

As for Saint Justin Martyr: I am a reader of the church fathers. I love them as brothers in Christ, and I recognize that they are important theologians whose writings are invaluable to our proper understanding of the Bible. Nonetheless, the fathers were human beings. So as valuable as the patristic tradition is to me, I don't think that it is inspired or perfect. I do not agree wiht Justin Martyr on this issue, because as far as I know, Socrates was a Greek idolater, not a worshiper of God and Christ.

[arunma]

By the way EclecticDoctor, I'd just like to make a side comment about your Leonard Feeney. Obviously as a non-Catholic, I disagree with him. Nonetheless, based on what you've told me about this man, I respect the spirit of his theology. It's certainly very P.C. to claim that non-Christians who never hear about Jesus can be saved. But in Romans 1, the Apostle Paul tells us that God has written his Name on the creation, and that all humans are without excuse for rejecting him. If you ever walk into a Hindu temple and watch them give adorations to idols that can neither see nor hear nor speak, you'll also find it difficult to claim that all pagans who never hear of Christ can be saved.

[mesue]

Oh,and let him be anathema means let him be cast out, excommunicated. And this applies to someone who fully understands the doctrine yet rejects it. An example of excommunication inthe 20th century is jesuit priest leonard feeney. He taught, literally, that if you are not catholic you AUTOMATICALLY go to hell, which counters what the Church officially teaches and is illustrated in the quote by st justin martyr. After repeated warnings, he refused to change his teaching and was then excommunicated. (although his followers will question the excommunication document)


The council of Trent was a series of Roman Catholic meetings in the years 1545-1563. Well before Mr. Feeney.
Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians. These proclamations and anathemas were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon Bible-believing Christians by Rome, and the solemn fact is that the Council of Trent has never been annulled.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm

Yes, anathema means excommunication, but consider, for a moment that to be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church meant that you lost your salvation. Because, according to RC doctrine, my salvation is in that church. At least, that's how it was when I was RC. If one could lose their salvation, their eternal destiny is hell.

Anathema

ANATH'EMA, n. [Gr. to place behind, backward or at a distance, to separate.]

1. Excommunication with curses. Hence, a curse or denunciation by ecclesiastical authority, accompanying excommunication. This species of excommunication was practiced in the ancient churches, against notorious offenders; all churches were warned not to receive them; all magistrates and private persons were admonished not to harbor or maintain them, and priests were enjoined not to converse with them, or attend their funeral.

There are two kinds of anathemas, judiciary and abjuratory. The former is pronounced by a council, pope or bishop; the latter is the act of a convert who anathematizes the heresy which he abjures.

2. In heathen mythology, an offering, or present made to some deity and hung up in a temple. Whenever a person quitted his employment, he set apart, or dedicated his tools to his patron-deity. Persons who had escaped danger remarkably, or been otherwise very fortunate, testified their gratitude by some offering to their deity.


Jesus told Satan to get behind Him.

Mattthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

[Hisbygrace]

1 Cor 11:25-26 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (NIV)

I believe also that it is a symbolic way for us to remember that jesus gave His body and blood for us. It says, in rememberance of me.

[Joykins]

I do not agree wiht Justin Martyr on this issue, because as far as I know, Socrates was a Greek idolater, not a worshiper of God and Christ.

Socrates was tried and executed for atheism, which suggests that he was not religious enough to meet the exacting standards of the Greek idolators.

[monkeyz]

I hate computers. I just tried to send my reply, which was probably longer than this will be, but was disconnected and lost it, but assuming it's worth it for your benefit, I'll try again, quite frustrated, though the quality of the writing will go down. I also realize that this reply is a little late, but hopefully you'll catch it. As someone said already, you're often left to yourself to realize truths in some religions, but the truths do exist, even if we don't know them, but we do know some. The truest nature of knowledge is faith. Even what we believe we know through our physical senses or school textbooks is based on faith that our senses both work and work accurately and that the text authors were being honest or that their records were accurate. Do you really even know Antarctica is there, or do you know through faith? We also know that humans are imperfect and sometimes even stupid. Scriptural translation should not just be left to individuals because those individuals may be untrained or lack understanding. It makes sense to rely on the thought and teachings of great thinkers and saints from the past. An individual can hardly compete with the over 2000 years of perfecting teachings and understanding that a church has, in addition to the strength such a Church must have with all of its experiences through that time. A person has maybe 70 years and that's when they're almost dead.
It can even be understood, not from every word, as some are scientifically , historically, or morally wrong, but from the religious themes and teachings of the Bible and Christ Himself, that faith is a necessary element in eventually reaching greater understanding of truth and happiness in/and love with God. Through faith and/in the Bible, we trust that such a church derived from the apostles, with Christ-given authority and directive to begin the Church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was sent on Pentecost, would continue to teach truth. It only makes sense that such guidance from the divine Holy Spirit would guide a single, true Church and not several Christian denominations. It thus makes perfect sense to rely on the teaching of a Church through faith, as long as those teachings are not unfounded or totally, recognizably irrational. However, we must be sure that if something seems to contradict reason, it actually IS reason, and not a flawed understanding.
The matter of whether it makes sense for Jesus to be present at the Last Supper and yet share His Body and Blood in the apparent forms of bread and wine can be understood in one of two ways. First, the power of God makes it possible for the bread and wine to miraculously be Jesus's Body and Blood as a new part of that Body separate from the exact physical tissue of Jesus's body in the room. We know that new tissue is created in our lives when we are injured and that tissues are lost as cells die. It is possible that the bread and wine simply became new tissue that was MORE of the Body of Christ but with the appearance of bread and wine (The appearance of bloody, dripping flesh would be disgusting and messy as blood dripped everywhere and would defeat the element of faith required to truly grasp and appreciate the truths of a religion that go beyong those of mere existence (that is, the existence of God and miracles or the legitimacy of a religion would be believed without the faith required to understand the meaning of what God has done, our responsibilities, and the true way of reaching eternal happiness)). The idea that Jesus was there at the Last Supper and that the bread and wine were His Body and Blood only makes no sense IF we are predisposed to think of His Body as being only the exact same physically present tissue in the room already and not more of the matter that makes up a body.
The second possibility is that at the Last Supper Jesus was instituting the sacrament but the bread and wine did not become His Body and Blood until the Eucharist was celebrated AFTER the crucifixion and Resurrection. The purpose of the sacrament is to commemorate Jesus's Passion, Death, and Resurrection and to repeat the sacrifice He made for us. It would be impossible to commemorate a death or repeat a sacrifice that has not yet occurred.
The significance of the sacrament of the Eucharist depends on Jesus's real presence and the transubstantiation. The sacrament would have no more relevance than a prayer card or other memorabilia or perhaps a communal prayer or hymn without it. There could not be a real sacrifice without the actual presence of Jesus's Body and Blood. It is Jesus's sacrifice through this sacrament that continues to gain salvation for mankind throughout all time. The exact, functional mechanism by which we are thus saved is a mystery believed in faith, but we know it has to do with atonement for sins. Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was the manner in which the salvation gained for us became universal, and the celebration of the Eucharist makes it permanent as we continue to celebrate it. Before Christ, as in the Old Testament, atonement was gained through the sacrifice of animals and crops, a practice we no longer take part in, because of the infinitely greater and lasting sacrifice of Jesus and/in the Eucharist. Both forms of sacrifice take place on an altar, and Jesus's sacrifice prevents the loss of food and even friends to people who deal with poverty and famine.

The Eucharist is rightly the central teaching of Christian theology, as it deals with the salvation gained for us by the Son of God who is God, and can only be so in conjunction with the Real Presence. I was just surfing and saw your post and probably won't ever return, but I thought I'd try to help out. My ideas basically fall into Catholic teaching. The Church has followed the idea of true Apostolic succession, and the pope helps to maintain religious truth and spread the Gospel. He is not our master but our servant. His Christ-given authority and the Holy Spirit's guidance make it possible to have a solid, unilateral teaching of various truths and a common vision that can be recognized by all the church's communities around the world, so that small communities do not go off track or develop without adding to the good of the Chruch the world over. Other religious communities lack this strength and their teachings can end up all over the place.

[ZiSunka]

The Eucharist is rightly the central teaching of Christian theology

I thought God's graciousness and love shown through the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the possibility of salvation by grace through faith in Christ is the central teaching of Chrisitan theology.

What else matters as much as that?

[JPPT1974]

I couldn't even say it better myself Lambslove!
:amen: :amen:

[Lisa0315]

I am a Catholic that doubts the "Real Presence," which is the idea that Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion elements.

Does anyone have any Biblical reason for not believing in the Real Presence?

To me, it's kind of a cop-out to say that it just looks like wine and bread even though it is actually human flesh and blood. I can see, taste, smell and feel that it is not human flesh and blood, but I need to know if the Bible addresses this at all.

Amy,
Welcome to Baptist/Anabaptist.

I wish I could say that I knew scripture that could refute the physical element of the communion. For us, it is symbolic. It is like saying Jesus really meant He was a literal door or a literal grapevine. When we read, "This is my body", it is like these other analogies.

When we have communion at church, it is a very holy and special moment, but it is not supposed to be literal. I am sorry that I cannot back this up with scripture, but neither can Catholics. We say symbolic. You guys say literal. I can honestly say that I am not missing anything by not believing in a literal eucharist.


Lisa

[mesue]

Umm ...
Amy hasn't had any questions since October of 2005. :sorry:
it was her last post in OBOB.

[leothelioness]

I am a Catholic that doubts the "Real Presence," which is the idea that Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion elements.

Does anyone have any Biblical reason for not believing in the Real Presence?

To me, it's kind of a cop-out to say that it just looks like wine and bread even though it is actually human flesh and blood. I can see, taste, smell and feel that it is not human flesh and blood, but I need to know if the Bible addresses this at all.

Wow. You sound like you're probably on your way to converting from Catholicism. I may be wrong, though.

Most Catholics would consider you a heretic for questioning Transubstantiation. How very narrow-minded they can be.

At any rate, I hope God answers any questions you may have and leads you in the right direction. :prayer:

[leothelioness]

The opposite is true though, too. Catholicism says that the average person doesn't have the ability to interpret scripture outside of the way the Church interprets it, thus only the people who agree with the way the Church interprets it are correct. It's a whole can of worms because people either don't bother reading the Bible or when they read it and see it doesn't mean what the Church says it does, they have to choose between being rational thinking beings or being completely faithful to a Church they believe is wrong.

No Church is perfect I guess.

That's interesting because that's exactly what got the Protestant Reformation going.

People were finally able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves instead of relying on the church for answers, and in doing so found that the teachings of the Catholic church were in direct conflict with the teachings of the Scriptures.

Thus the breakaway of believers from the RCC.

[leothelioness]

I kind of like Elizabeth's circumlocution of the entire matter:

[/color][/font][/i][/b]
[/QUOTE]

That's my signature! That's my favourite quote from Queen Elizabeth.:amen: